« I want my Pullet Surprise... | Main | Rhetorica Podcast... »

April 18, 2006

Why do I speak?...

For a quick answer to that question, read about the concepts of rhetorical situation and kairos.

Now consider these fascinating bits of evidence from the Washington Post and My Left Wing. From the Post:

Darfur, she finally decides. She will write about Darfur. The shame of it. The culpability of all Americans, including herself, for doing nothing. She will write something so filled with outrage that it will accomplish the one thing above all she wants from her anger: to have an effect.

"Darfur is not hopeless," she begins typing, and pauses.

"Ugh," she says.

"You are not helpless," she continues typing, and pauses again.

"Weak."

She deletes everything and starts over.

"WAKE THE [expletive] UP," she writes next, and this time, instead of pausing, she keeps going, typing harder and harder on a keyboard that is surrounded by a pack of cigarettes, a dirty ashtray, a can of nonalcoholic beer, an album with photos of her dead father and a taped-up note--staring at her--on which she has scrawled "Why am I/you here?"

From My Left Wing:

I appear on radio and television and in newspapers because I want to be heard, not because I want to win hearts and minds, not because I want to convert the undecided--and not because I think I'm the best person to represent people who feel as I do and think as I do. I don't think I'm the best person. I do, however, think it would be ridiculous to suggest that I ought to decline the opportunities I've been given, or to shut up or censor myself or stage-manage my appearances for the benefit of everyone on the liberal end of the political spectrum. I got these opportunities because of who I am and how I behave and that, as they say, is that.

First, let me state upfront that my purpose here is not to pick on Maryscott O'Connor. My blogging policy clearly states that Rhetorica will avoid "criticizing the opinions of other bloggers." But I'm free to criticize their rhetoric if I find in the exercise something of value. In this case, I want to demonstrate that Ms. O'Connor misunderstands kairos and rhetorical intention to the detriment of her message. I contend that she stands as a synecdoche for bloggers in this regard. And that's important to consider because, as modern pamphleteers, bloggers have a chance to make a real difference in this world rather than simply win at politics. Both intentions are thwarted by misunderstanding the role of timing and proportion in a message. Both intentions are thwarted by misunderstanding the implications of my re-theorization of the illocutionary act of Speech-act Theory:

Fr(p) / C ->PE where F = the force of a statement--what we are doing when we utter it, i.e. asserting, directing, commiserating, expressing, or declaring. The exponent r represents the "rheme"--the unit(s) of rhetoric, i.e. those rhetorical forms chosen by the speaker to make the message persuasive. (p) = the propositional content of the statement. And, finally, we must divide by the context--the rhetorical situation--to separate the speech act from other potential situations. That leads us towards a perlocutionary effect, i.e. what happens in regard to the statement.

What this means: Every message has a rhetorical intention, i.e. an intended perlocutionary effect as a direct result of delivering the propositional content. Claiming that one does not wish to move hearts and minds is more a cultural/emotional response to political contention (and the pain of losing politically) than a realistic assessment of communicative purpose.

From the Post article, it appears that O'Connor does occasionally attempt to write in the absence of any consideration of kairos and with an over-generalized and unfocused exigence. This leads directly to such constructions as "WAKE THE [expletive] UP" and comfort with them as adequate to...what? Communicate? Persuade? Apply salve to the sting of one's own anger?

Despite her protestations regarding the moving of hearts and minds, it seems that she does have perlocutionary effects in mind. Read to the end of her entry--the anecdote about "one little old lady sitting at her kitchen table alone in Virginia." Audience is important to her. If it were not, she would not feel the raw nagging itch of exigence.

The point is this: No blogger expends the energy to blog for no reason and for no audience. Humans do not speak for no reason. A rhetorical intention exists in every message--no matter how small or profound. Bloggers would do themselves and their causes far more good if they paid attention to kairos and accepted that what they really really want deep deep down is to move hearts and minds. Such acceptance might lead them away from an unthinking pathos to the light of reason (i.e. a proper balance of appeals).

Such realizations would allow them to sleep in, cogitate a bit more, and attack the keyboard with righteous (and proportional) anger when the time is right.

Posted by acline at April 18, 2006 12:07 PM | | Spotlight