Identity pt. II...Taken and Compromised?

After confronting the truth (although itself reframed throughout this course) that "rhetoric basically equals everything," it was comforting to return to familiar ideas of rhetoric as argument and persuasion, even amid Ramage’s lecture-style prose.

Like Megan, I agree that rhetoric functioning to persuade and argue is not inherently wrong. Ramage writes to the struggle of controlling our meaning:

"We are assaulted on a daily basis by various pitches for readymade identities, proffered by advertisers, employers, writers, and propagandists…And my capacity to resist, oppose, and entertain divergent beliefs—to understand my ways of talking about the world “in terms of” alternative ways of talking about the world—is a fundamental expression of my humanity" (p. 69-70).

At the same time Ramage converges rhetoric on persuasion and argument, he cannot avoid discussing its broader implications to humanity and ways of being. This unavoidable expansion of application reminds me of the three diagrams sketched on the class white-board. We often attempt to isolate or condense an idea, reducing it to digestible form. Which is great, because bite-sizes let us more easily comprehend. However, upon analyzing the neatly condensed idea we see that infinite connections and extrapolations are possible. Rhetoric will never be containable. Focusing on argument and persuasion is another lens, like square/groovy, and one likely to yield insight.

What matters most here? This stands out: “The act of writing can eventually render the agent a servant of her own act” (p. 77). Argument and persuasion have the potential to take great strides towards equality, freedom, peace, and all those good things. However, the force can corrupt; too easily we find ourselves in pointless arguments, enhancing our personal power rather than actually defending the point. As mentioned in class, values inherently underlie every argument. Although some would claim “objective” argumentation is best, losing sight of the values and reasons we defend makes us agents of argument, slaves to persuasion. Then again, excessive emotion in argumentation pushes away from seeing the reasons clearly. To argue effectively, we walk a line.

What seems different here? This: “In some cases, we may achieve (persuasion in argument) by weakening (another’s) identification with or adherence to an alternative set of attitudes and beliefs” (p. 102). I had not considered the fact that with every won argument (gain), there is inevitable loss of another line of reasoning, belief, value, etc. Like children in the backseat, buckling in a new one means a previously-sat child must move. I never considered what we compromise in argument. What we unknowingly surrender or abandon. It causes me to consider arguments I enter, especially with certain individuals whose intentions are generally…less than stellar. George Bernard Shaw wrote, "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

Becoming mindful of what we compromise or surrender simply by entering or engaging an argument, whether or not consensus is reached, is another perspective through which to understand rhetoric.  Ah, all these lenses through which we look…