Category: PAB Entry 2

PAB Entry #2 (Major Questions)

Leave a comment

Jarratt, Susan C., and Nedra Reynolds. “The Splitting Image: Contemporary Feminisms and the Ethics of ethos.” Ethos: New Essays in Rhetorical and Critical Theory, edited by James S. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin, Southern Methodist University Press, 1995, 37-63.

     In moving away from a traditional Aristotelian sense of ethos, Jarratt and Reynolds marry sophist rhetoric and feminist theory to define ethos in a manner that recognizes difference and therefore makes a space for gender theory. Neither deconstruction nor Enlightenment era notions of the self work for feminist ethos; deconstructionism destabilizes the self in such a way that also destabilizes feminism. The Enlightenment era clings to Aristotelian notions of the self that don’t allow for difference. However, from Isocrates to Protagoras and Gorgias, sofaistrythese sophists connect character formation to adjusting community standards. This, basically the work of ideology, creates a space for an alliance between sophistic rhetoric and feminism (47).

     Utilizing a multidisciplinary approach that relies on feminism, rhetoric, and poststructuralism, the authors are able to “reread classical ethos through feminist history” (40). While older definitions of ethos point to customs or habits, newer notions point to character. Neither of these totally serve the purposes of feminist rhetorical goals. A rereading highlights character development through custom and habit (44). By tracing etymological definitions for key terms such as as ethea and nomos, the authors are able to locate a connection to the newer term of positionality, coined within this context by Linda Alcoff. It is precisely this “‘place from which values are interpreted and constructed rather than as a locus of an already determined set of values’” that allows a rereading of the classical notion of ethos that will acknowledge difference and therefore give voice to feminism (50). Experience and difference become integral to an understanding of the feminist rhetor.

     The authors champion a feminist standpoint theory that would celebrate difference to the point that any marginalized person can benefit from this redefined notion of ethos, which requires listeners to identify with the speaker. This inverts Aristotle’s traditional concept of ethos in which the speaker attempts to persuade an audience by highlighting similarities. Donna Haraway cinches the redefined ethos in her epistemological turn to the multiplicity of the speaker, which would allow for splitting instead of being. After all, “subjectivity is multidimensional…always constructed and stitched together imperfectly, and therefore able to join with another, to see together without claiming to be another” (55).

     Jarratt and Reynolds conclude with a brief application to the classroom. This reread ethos has pedagogical implications in that it can move student writing past the general audience and “Everyman” voice that students are accustomed to and comfortable with. With a framing of difference and multiplicity, teachers can encourage student writers to “split and resuture textual selves” through their writing (57). To me, this is dangerous territory as student identity constructs are largely unstable to begin with. There are ethical considerations for all theories we expose them to and encourage them to explore. Is it then unethical to potentially shake their identities in such a way? Or do we as instructors have a moral obligation to expose them to a myriad of identity theories as they are seeking their writing voice? This might be where a landscape for rhetoric of identity analysis.

PAB Entry #2 (Major Questions)

Leave a comment

Alcorn, Marshall W. Jr. “Self-Structure as a Rhetorical Device: Modern Ethos and the   Divisiveness of the Self.” Ethos: New Essays in Rhetorical and Critical Theory, edited by James S. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin, Southern Methodist University Press, 1995, 3-35.

Alcorn argues for a reconception of ethos in both building upon and moving away from traditional (Aristotelian) definitions of ethos and poststructuralist (Rorty) definitions of the self. He argues for a definition of “ethos as a relationship existing between the discourse structures of selves and the discourse structures of ‘texts’” (6). The ancient Greek understanding of the self was conceptualized more as a character, defined and enacted by society. ethos_pathos_logosAristotle’s ethos implies that an audience, always passive, can be persuaded by the mere character of the speaker. Rorty goes further in defining the components of any self-structure as an evolution of four entities: character, person, self, and individual. It is not until the final stage, the individual, that one is free to select his or her identity construct. Alcorn agrees with the notion that “history shapes selves,” but the self is not passively shaped as it “can dialectically engage and resist…social interaction (12, 14). His main claim is that the self is ultimately a rhetorical entity as the two act upon one another: “The self is stable enough to resist change and changeable enough to admit to rhetorical manipulation but not so changeable as to constantly respond, chameleonlike, to each and every social force” (17). These changes require effective rhetoric with stylistic devices tailored to an audience well-researched.

The above theoretical considerations carry implications for a revision to the signified associated with the signifier ethos. While Alcorn isn’t claiming that either approach (Aristotelian or poststructuralist) is outdated, he is saying they are restrictive in light of the “prodigious diversity, plurality, and multiplicity” of our modern culture (18). These cultural characteristics have yielded a society full of divided, conflicted, and anxious selves. In utilizing a multidisciplinary approach, Alcorn taps into psychoanalysis through Freud’s ego freudmodeltheories. It is precisely these “inner voices” that a rhetor needs to tap into in order to rhetorically impact the self-structure. Alcorn also looks to sociological theories of leadership in the charismatic leader; it is the charismatic leader who is a “master of ethos” as he or she can communicate self (24). All of these discussions ultimately point to a modern ethos that is an “aesthetic manipulation of self-division” (28).

Literature and critical theory also reflect this modern concept of the divided self. In fact, Alcorn dedicates several pages to an analysis of Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant” to highlight the potential available to an author (or speaker) with a modern ethos. Lastly, Alcorn discusses the pedagogical implications of such a revision to the concept of ethos. If teachers can facilitate class discussions so as to tap into the self-structures of our modern culture’s divided student identities, rhetoric can impact change to these learning selves.

Alcorn’s argument is in response to some of the basic research questions surrounding the topic of rhetoric of identity: How does rhetoric connect to and affect/impact identity? He personalizes this question to seek out a relationship between the self and language that leads him to a conclusion that the two (rhetoric and identity) are co-dependent: one yields the other and vice versa.