Set B-1: Looking at Western, Indian and Chinese classical theories, we can see both similarities and differences. Is it possible to really understand the rhetorical tradition of another culture? Explain why or why not, based on the arguments of Ezzaher Yameng Liu, Lu Xing and using examples from these texts and the Wenxin Diaolong, Nyaya Sutra’s and Incoherence of the Incoherence as needed.

            In Yameng Liu’s “To Capture the Essence of Chinese Rhetoric: An Anatomy of a Paradigm in Comparative Rhetoric” and Xing Lu’s Rhetoric in Ancient China, the admonition is given to readers about the dangers of trying to critique or analyze Chinese writings on rhetoric from a Western perspective.  Some may claim that Liu and Lu are attempting to argue the impossibility of understanding another culture’s rhetorical traditions; however, I feel that under their warning about the difficulties in understanding Chinese rhetoric is the belief that Chinese rhetoric can be understood by Westerners as long as they look at Chinese rhetoric from the correct cultural standpoint.  The problem in both of the works stated is that many scholars have attempted to analyze Chinese rhetoric without understanding the Chinese language and culture.  Thus the conclusions reached were naturally tainted by an ethnocentric viewpoint.  Only by removing our cultural lenses are we able to look at another culture’s work and understand it without the tainting influence of our own preconceived notions and ideals.

            In Xing Lu’s Rhetoric in Ancient China, Lu begins by asserting that in regards to rhetoric, “any definition of rhetoric that is taken as once-and-for-all is apt to be gravely misleading…” and that rhetoric is “rooted in experience” (3).  Trying to define rhetoric for any group or even across cultural boundaries is impossible because every person’s idea of rhetoric will be different based upon their own experience to the subject.  For each culture, scholastic setting, or group of people, a distinct and different view of rhetoric can be created that has its own internal value to its users.  Thus Lu claims that “the task of a rhetorical scholar, then, is to remain open to the universal sense of rhetoric, as well as to the transformative power of a particular culture on the practice of rhetoric” (3).  Rhetoric will always be influenced by the culture it is produced in and while it is sometimes useful to draw inferences and similarities between two different cultures rhetorical theories, it is also important to remember that each is its own unique and distinctive theory and what applies and defines one can have little or no application to the other.  Robert Oliver, in Liu’s essay, points out this desire to compare rhetorical theories when he claims, “It is tempting he points out to look in other culture-specific discourses for what appear to us to be rhetorical universals, such as invention, disposition…and the three Aristotelian modes of proof.  For him, the correct approach to cross-cultural studies of communication should rather be to describe other rhetorical traditions ‘in their own terms’” (320).  Liu describes Oliver’s aspirations to look at cross cultural rhetorical theories “in their own terms” but then Liu goes on to describe how Oliver failed to do that in his own work, proving that even when you have the best intentions it is still possible to view things ethnocentrically.  Additionally, Liu states that it is incorrect to assume that any rhetorical tradition should have or fall into “essential” rhetorical characteristics.   Instead, the scholar must understand that rhetoric is “multifaceted” and is based and continually changing based upon that culture’s “social conditions and historical circumstances” (322).             

            If, as Liu points out, it is possible to view thing ethnocentrically even while trying to maintain a multi-cultural viewpoint how is one able to be sure of looking at things from the correct cultural viewpoint?  The first thing a reader must be aware of Lu claims is the importance of translation.  Lu begins by describing the goal of a translator in that the translator’s job is to translate the text as faithfully as possible while maintaining the essence of the meaning of the text.  However, Lu argues that exactly transferring the meaning of the text is impossible because:

“a work of translation ultimately reveals the translator’s own perspective, intention, and skill in bridging two worldviews through his or her conscious choice of words…Achieving such a goal requires not only competence in both languages and familiarity with the subject matter at hand, but also sensitivity to the cultures of both the original author and the audience of the translation. A truly literal translation is impossible since… ‘The interlingual translation is bound to reflect the translator’s own creative interpretation of the source language text’” (10-11). 

If a perfect translation is impossible how can I argue that understanding of another cultures work is achievable?  By following Lu’s advice of becoming as cross-culturally understanding as possible.  To truly understand another culture’s work, Lu claims, the student must be proficient in both languages, so he is able to study the texts in both the original and translated formats.  Additionally, the student must become bi-cultural, by gaining an understanding and appreciation of not only his own culture, but the one studied as well.  Only then, after intense study of both of the cultures in their own languages and under their own cultural lenses, can the two be merged together in any reasonable understanding.  While these qualifications may seem daunting I believe that only through intense study of the culture and its language will we ever be able to truly understand another cultures rhetorical theories without prejudice or comparison to our own.