5001

Dr. Devries

4 March, 2009

Week 3 Commentary

Perceptions and Preconceptions

Throughout the entire reading of Xing Lu’s article, “Rhetoric in Ancient China,” connections to two other interesting works kept weaving through my mind. In my 5870 class, we read a short expert entitled “The Most Photographed Barn in America.” During the subsequent discussion, the class considered how one’s experience of a subject may change due to one’s perception of the subject. Last week in the 5001 class, we read that Plato argued against the form of writing. He believed that once an author puts his subject into written form, he loses control over the meaning. Since the author is not there to explain, argue or persuade the audience, it is then falls to the reader to discern the meaning of the piece. It is these same two issues that Xing Lu wrestles with in his article.

Tourists visiting “The Most Photographed Barn in America,” may have their perception altered by knowing the fact that this attraction is “The Most Photographed Barn.” Just as these visitors may then see the barn differently than they might if they did not know this fact, Lu argues that, “Ignorance and denial of non-Western rhetorical traditions have led to the mistaken notion that rhetoric is the sole property and invention of the West” (1). Western historians perceived rhetoric to be a certain notion which followed certain rules. But as Lu points out, “the people of any given cultural setting will tend to have an embedded sense of rhetoric which pertains to that particular context” (3) . It is then up the rhetorician to remain universal in their sense of rhetoric so they can recognize and understand the rhetoric of other cultures. Ancient China did indeed have a rhetoric which shares some similarity to Western rhetoric, but the differences were such that Western historians could not perceive them, and therefore, through their ignorance, they denied such a rhetoric existed.

I believe that Lu would agree with Plato. The meaning of the original text may be difficult and perhaps impossible to discern. Translation of any text becomes a “process of interpretation rather than a mere reproduction of the original text” (10). Lu highlights several approaches to the interpretation of texts, and one common theme among them is the idea that an interpreter brings their own preconceptions to the text. Although at first I believed that if we all bring our own preconceptions to a text, it would then be impossible to interpret the author’s true meaning, Lu points out that bringing these preconceptions to the text is not necessarily detrimental. We must simply approach the work with an understanding of our own world and how that may alter our view. And then we must understand that this altered view is perhaps exactly what we wish to attain.

But of course, this is only my perception of a text to which I brought many preconceptions.