Seemingly, it is human nature to try and reach an understanding of a lesser known concept in terms of a similar well known concept.  In contrastive rhetoric, for example, scholars compare Western rhetorical traditions to that of other cultures in order to identify the differences between them. Yameng Liu, in her article, “To Capture the Essence of Chinese Rhetoric: An Anatomy of a Paradigm in Comparative Rhetoric,” explains that

 …the existence of a dominant paradigm in comparative rhetoric, whose conceptual and methodological deficiencies and whose status as the normative model have both caused and yet rendered barely noticeable persistent flaws in works on Chinese and Asian rhetorics.(322)

Liu sheds light on some of the “flaws” that have persisted.  Two scholars in question are Carolyn Matalene and Robert T. Oliver whose works on Chinese rhetoric have been widely accepted as accurate.  Among the many assertions and assumptions she refutes, with evidence from primary source documents, is the notion of the “eight-legged essay” as typical of Oriental writing.  She points out how the essay style was used to test candidates for civil service and does not encapsulate the entire rhetorical traditions of a complex society that has existed thousands upon thousands of years.

I must admit I totally believed the idea that Oriental writing is, for the most part, circular. I see now that this kind of generalization isn’t very useful. As an ESL teacher, having an understanding that my students may have differences in their rhetorical styles, however, is important. What I get from this article is that rhetorical traditions are complex and subject to change, so if I want to understand what my students are writing I have to ask them. 

In the coming week students across our state will take the California High School Exit Exam which includes an essay.  Students may be asked to complete one of four writing types, but all are persuasive in nature.  Typical instruction for passing the exam is the formulaic five paragraph essay.  I would hate to think that scholars of other countries would make generalizations about our rhetorical traditions based on these writing samples.

Lui emphasizes the need for a mindset of equality among comparative scholars of various disciplines in order to avoid simplified, generalized, skewed or erroneous works on Chinese and Asian Rhetorics.  She’s obviously an idealist!