Mike Calou
Commentary Week Four
Rethinking Rhetoric from an Indian Perspective:
Implications in the Nyaya Sutra
It appears from the readings about Indian rhetoric that there were some misconceptions when western rhetoricians first began analyzing the rhetoric of India. The first misconception is the notion that Eastern philosophy or thought is mystical (Lloyd, 366). There is also a misconception that rhetorical thought in India can be traced to predominantly religious texts (367). These misconceptions are similar to what western rhetoricians have been saying about an analysis of the rhetoric of China. With Chinese rhetoric the misperception had to do with the idea that Chinese rhetoric had to achieve “balance.” These misconceptions occur because of our culture. Western culture is different than eastern culture. Rhetoric is directly linked to culture because language is an important aspect of culture. So when we look at the rhetoric or compositions from another culture we are biased in favor of what we already know: our own culture. I think that Lloyd’s use of the word “ethnocentric” describes very well the approach of some rhetoricians to the contrast between eastern and western rhetorics (373).
If culture is so closely linked to the way we speak and write how can we ever view the speaking and writing of another culture objectively? Today we live in a world that is becoming smaller and smaller. What I mean by this is that the population of the world has increased significantly since the nineteenth century when many of the first cross rhetorical studies took place. Many cultures and societies are co-mingling in ways that are drastically different than a hundred years ago. Information is available today that was never dreamed of in the nineteenth century. This is part of the reason for the resurgence in interest in rhetoric. From our vantage point in the United States we have become interested not only in western rhetoric, but the rhetoric of other cultures as well.
It appears obvious to me that the rhetoric of China and India, although somewhat different, still possess the qualities or attributes of rhetoric or argumentation. Lloyd quotes Rogers and Jain as saying the goal of the rhetorician is “to create order out of life’s chaos” (375). Am I wrong in thinking that this is exactly what the Chinese and Indians are attempting to do with their rhetoric? Every culture uses rhetoric for persuasion, argumentation, and discourse. This argument among rhetoricians comparing the rhetoric of other cultures to their own is an argument that is going to exist forever.
I find the concept of practical reasoning a good argument to substantiate my claim that the agreement on rhetoric will never end. Lloyd quotes Toulmin as saying that even in western science the argument forms vary: practical versus speculative reasoning (376). This type of analogy to science is related to the comparison of western and eastern rhetoric. The two cultures, eastern and western, can be compared through analogy to the scientific reasoning. Regardless of the argument, each culture is trying to obtain agreement on an issue.
In his conclusion, Lloyd comments on the benefits of considering both western and eastern rhetoric. The Nyaya provides a way of viewing reality by means of our perception and mental processes (369). This view of rhetoric is different than our western view: objective observation. I would contend that both western and eastern cultures have much to offer each other if we all could agree that it’s all right to disagree.