A3.
In writing classes today, how might a perception that studying rhetoric will lead to virtue manifest itself in pedagogy? You may draw on your experience as a teacher and/or student, as well as our class discussion.
Teaching rhetoric as a form of leading to virtue should be done very carefully in the classroom. It is our job as teachers to try and leave our students not only with knowledge, but with an increasing interest to learn once they leave our classrooms. In Plato’s account of the conversation between Socrates and Giorgias, Socrates asks Giorgias, “With what is rhetoric concerned?” Giorgias replies, “With discourse.” Discourse is the act of communicating ideas and information mostly through conversation. Later, Giorgias concedes that, “Persuasion is the chief end of rhetoric.” The act of persuasion is where a pedagogical approach to rhetoric can perhaps go astray in the classroom, but there can be benefits as well.
Persuasion, at least in American culture, denotes feelings that are not thought of as virtuous. In our very first class this semester we thought of and expressed times where we felt as if we were being persuaded to do something that we didn’t want to do. Stories of credit card debt, car salesmen tactics, and loan processors came flowing out of our mouths as leaving a negative feeling about persuasion. More often than not, our group of graduate students felt upset or angry when realizing how we were persuaded by someone else to do something that we did not choose for ourselves. Is this the feeling that we want to impart on our students in the classroom? Do we want to teach them how to do this to others? Let us not forget that learning is a lifelong process that can be killed in many ways by the school system, persuasion being one of them.
In one of the books I read last semester, I remember reading how children inherently want to learn as they grow up. It is only when they begin going to school that they lose that innate drive to learn because they are now being forced to learn something that they did not choose. This could be the first instance in their lives where they are being persuaded by the rhetoric of their teacher to do something they don’t want to do. Children are usually being asked to do things by their parents up until that point that have consequences. “If you don’t take a bath, you won’t get dessert,” or, “If you don’t pick up your toys, I’ll take them away from you.” These are appeals with concessions attached to them, often attacking what the child deems important to them. Yet there is nothing worse than having a child not care about the consequences of not learning in school. If a child doesn’t care about the grade they will get, then they could be lost forever in the world of education. Teaching too much rhetoric in the classroom could lead to the same results.
However, all education is a type of persuasion. In Giorgias, Socrates asks, “Does he who teaches anything persuade men of that which he teaches or not?” Giorgias answers “Yes,” because there can be no dispute in that answer. All teachers persuade their students in some form or another to the ideas or information that is being taught. In order for the student to learn, he must believe that what he is being taught is the truth. But, if the art of rhetoric is to persuade others, then someone who is well skilled in this art could then persuade that what is being taught is not actually the truth according to certain beliefs. We could be giving our students ammunition to fight against the structure of the school system. Think of Adolph Hitler and his persuasion of the German people of their inalienable rights of patriotism and nationalism. What about David Koresh and his Branch Davidian followers in Waco, Texas? He believed himself to be a prophet of God and convinced his followers that this was true. Koresh was accused of fathering multiple children with underaged girls because, according to God, that’s what he was supposed to do. Can this type of rhetoric be considered a virtue?
On the other hand we have lawyers, and senators, and presidents who also use the art of rhetoric. Not all of these people use rhetoric to a negative end (although that might be debatable). There are professions out there where the art of persuasion is a virtue and something to be cherished as a positive in our culture. Back in the 1980’s in Austin, Texas, unchecked housing development was encroaching on one of the most beautiful places in the United States, the Barton Springs aquifer. Barton Springs had long been a public pool of crystal clear water that was open to the public and had been attended since the 1800’s by people from all over the country. In the 1980’s, a new expanse of housing developments threatened to damage the water and turn it a murky brown from sediment leaking down the water channel. The people of Austin were outraged and the case went before the court system. Hundreds of citizens packed the courthouse to demand that the city stop the development from taking place, and they won. In the documentary film (The Unforeseen) depicting the event, moms, dads, children and even the ex-mayor of the town showed up to voice their emphatic opinion of the damage the housing development would do to the aquifer. That is a great example of the positive aspect of rhetoric and persuasion. Upon hearing the heartfelt and often outraged voices of the citizens of Austin, the court had no choice but to shut down the housing development. For all of the negative aspects of persuasion that people feel, there are just as many instances (although maybe not as well covered) of persuasion getting innocent people off of murder convictions, finding the truth in a mystery, or keeping someone from dropping bombs on a country. So there are positives to the art of rhetoric, but can it be considered a virtue in the classroom?
The simple answer is yes and no. There are few instances (from my year of teaching or years of being a student) where rhetoric was a major influence in the classroom. If one believes that the art of studying rhetoric is a virtue, then the pedagogy would be shifted toward that influence. If we think about the subjects that we learn in high school, very few of them deal with rhetoric. Perhaps in english class when doing a persuasive essay, or a speech class, but I can’t think of any others. Yet when those students (us) find ourselves in the real world, many of the important decisions made in our lives deal with how well we can use and/or recognize rhetoric. Whether it be buying a house or a car, deciding which vacation to take, or which doctor to choose upon our child’s birth. Many of our most important decisions are made easier if we are schooled in the art of rhetoric. If this is the case, then rhetoric becomes a virtue in the classroom and a teacher’s pedagogy should reflect that importance.
Let us think about the persuasive essay in a high school english class. The basics of rhetorical strategies should be given to the students; emotional appeals, facts, your authority to make such claims, known rebuttals to your stance, etc. If students are taught this by their teacher they will have a better chance to come away from any situation with either what they want, or at least more information than they could have had without that knowledge of rhetoric. In the example of choosing a doctor to birth your child, many people who have not learned rhetoric might just take what the doctor says to them as the truth. But people schooled in the art of rhetoric might go into the meeting with questions on cesarian birth rates, inquire about drugs, midwives, the doctor’s availability, or information on the success rates of births in the hospital where the doctor works. By learning the art of rhetoric this person will be better prepared for the real world where rhetoric has it’s majority.
Teachers who feel that rhetoric is a virtue will study the classic rhetoricians of the Greek age. Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and Isocrates will be major influences in the teacher’s pedagogy. The students will learn all of the Western traditions of rhetoric that apply so heavily in our culture today. They will not learn, however, of any of the Eastern rhetorical traditions of India or China. Whether it’s because they’re not deemed as being relatable to our culture, or simply seen as inferior to the Western traditions, students will not get that information. This is a shame because much of what I read when reading about Nyaya was about finding ways to cooperate with your rhetorical opponent. There was a feeling of sharing and compatibility instead of antagonism or losing. In our reading this semester, one quote said, “Nyaya seeks commonalities,” which I think would be an important aspect of rhetoric that does lead to virtue. This is where rhetoric, as I feel it would be taught in our classrooms, becomes negative. Teachers would adhere to the Western tradition that seems more combative, when the real virtue seems to be in the Eastern tradition, which searches for the truth together. It’s not about winners and losers, but can we both come to the truth of the situation.
There are positives and negatives to seeing rhetoric as a virtue inside the classroom. The students would obviously benefit from learning the different techniques that people may use on them in the future, while also learning how to speak to get what they want. But for those students who do not like rhetoric or the art of persuasion, constantly learning about it in the classroom may turn them off from learning all together. Even our graduate student class who is well versed on the art of rhetoric (perhaps) can recognize the tactics of persuasion when they are used on us. That is not to say that we don’t use them as well, but it never feels good to be persuaded to do something we don’t want to do. The best way for a teacher to use rhetoric in his or her pedagogy is to explain that it is a life long skill that will benefit the students in all that they do. Whether that be by the recognition of rhetoric, or the use of it.
B2.
Most of the Western rhetoricians we’ve read propose an approach to education. Based on these, how would you generalize a traditional Western approach to education?
It seems that much of what we have read about Western rhetoricians regarding education runs along the same lines of education in our country. There is a high emphasis on learning all of the important areas of study which then lead to the success of the individual. But I don’t know if we currently place such a high emphasis on the rhetorical tradition of the ancient Western philosophers as they did. (That is a different debate, however.) For the most part, we follow along the same lines as the ancients when it comes to our Western approach to education, but it is not to create good orators.
When speaking about introducing kids into the educational system, Quintilian wrote, “For it will be necessary, above all things, to take care lest the child should conceive a dislike to the application which he cannot yet love, and continue to dread the bitterness which he has once tasted… Let his instruction be an amusement to him.” We see this in the way in which we introduce children into the educational system. During their preschool years, children play a lot and use things like Play-Dough. They do finger painting and use blocks to form puzzles. Most of the activities in this young age are designed to matriculate the student to slowly develop a love for getting together with others to learn. Much of the learning done at this stage is still in its infancy, rather letting the students become used to playing with others their age and finding that it is a fun activity.
As they grow older, through their primary years of schooling, children make masks for Thanksgiving and Halloween. They create cards to show their mothers on Mother’s Day, or do handouts with pictures of animals on them to keep their interest piqued. In this sense, learning is still fun, and as Quintilian said, the education will still, “be an amusement to him.” Our educational system will use any means necessary to elicit excitement in the student to make sure that they remain enthusiastic about school. Whether it be in science, mathematics, english, or physical education. If this is lost then the student, and their impending contribution to society, will also be lost.
But there are some that believe that we teach children too much at too young an age. Quintilian disagrees, and says, “That boys will be unable to bear the fatigue of many studies is by no means to be apprehended, for no age suffers less from fatigue. For minds, before they are hardened are more ready to learn, as is proved by the fact that children, within two years after they can fairly pronounce words, speak almost the whole language, though no one incites them to learn.” I remember carrying a backpack that must have weighed 40 pounds when I was in 6th grade, yet I learned everything that was deemed important for a child my age to learn. It is at that age that we are not yet “hardened” to the idea of learning and can accommodate such a large influx of information. It is this capacity to learn that runs along the same lines as the ancient Western traditions of education. Our culture has adopted that idea and we have proven that students can learn multiple subjects at the same time. It is only later in life, as we become older, that there is more fatigue in the learning process. This is proven by how hard it is for adults to learn another language. I have heard numerous adults in my life say things like, “I should go back to school,” only to never lift a finger off of the television remote to do so.
There are schools all around the world that provide an emphasis in one trade or another. I taught at a vocational high school that placed an emphasis in three areas of study depending on what the student was interested in; automotive, technical, or medical studies. Yet students still had to take english, science, math, and physical education. However, these staples of the educational system were geared toward their specific interest and the students (high school age) were more inclined to study because they were interested in their topics. It is this interest that is the most important thing for students to continue to study.
If we can keep students enthusiastic about their studies, there is no limit to what they can learn or how long they will continue to learn. There are many cases where students can’t wait to get out of the mandatory school system so they can go to work and earn money. While this is great for some, I believe that the educational system has done some of them a disservice in the long run. It should be the job of teachers not only to teach the information that is required of the student to learn, but also to imbue a sense of learning that is beneficial for a lifetime. It is only in this way that we will create a society, community, and world which values knowledge. The smarter that everyone is on this planet, the more likely we will survive and thrive as a species.
Concerning the idea of creating orators from such studies, this is where I feel that we divide from the ancient Western philosophers. While they seem to see education as a means to become a good orator in the public sphere, we tend to see education as a means to get a good job. Hardly any student I have come across gets their education so they can speak well in public, yet this is a byproduct of a good education. What is not taught enough is how well one can speak when armed with a good education. Much of what students don’t realize is that they will need to be able to speak well and in different tones for different applications in life. You cannot speak to your friends the way you will speak to a boss in an interview. One must be able to draw upon all of their education in order to be competent in the multitude of work and social settings that will approach them in life after school. Having a good education gives them a base to work from when their mind is searching for the correct thing to say in any situation. The best part about knowledge is that one may not even know the subject, but if their brains have been programmed to think through problems and decipher codes in speech, they will be able to communicate with almost anyone at any time.
It seems that our educational traditions are similar in many ways to what the ancient rhetoricians believed important in their day. The end result is to produce good citizens that can contribute to society and it’s improvement. By learning all of the areas of study at a young age, and continuing through that same model throughout the educational system, students have a base of knowledge that will carry them far in society.