This week, I found "Rhetorical Situation and Their Constituents" by Grant-Davie quite interesting and somewhat reflective of what we discussed in class last Thursday. The section that was most thought provoking and relatable for me was about audiences and how they affect the rhetor. One line, "Rhetors need to consider who they are in a particular situation and be aware that their identity may vary from situation to situation," struck a chord with me. Perhaps it is the fluidity attached to the rhetor and the relationship to its discourse situation. For example, in many of my classes, I am solely a student so the arguments I try to make are less thought-provoking and more matter-of-fact. However, in one class, I am a peer advisor so I act as a T.A. In this setting, the strategies I use in my rhetorical situation request a line of thinking as well the occasional "stirring of the pot" in order to get other students to participate. In this sense, as a rhetor, I am fluid from case to case in the strategies and rhetoric I apply.
Another thought this section brought up for me was the idea that one can frequently participate in a rhetorical situation in which they have no business being in. For instance, I become enraged when I see old, white, male politicians speaking out for women's health issues. They can have their own opinions, sure, but in this case, I don't feel as if they have the right to be an influencing rhetor because they, themselves, are not affected by the influences they make.
The second reading for today challenged my way of thinking about text and ownership. "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community" by Porter claims that "intertextuality, the principal that all writing and speech-- indeed, all signs-- arise from a single network" and " Examining texts "intertextuality" means looking for "traces," the bits and pieces of Text which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse." These make sense to me. I get that all ideas stem from other ideas and that texts discussing these ideas are all, at some level, rip-offs of one another. This is what makes humans interesting: we take from one another and learn from other's perspectives or blatantly disregard ideas that don't jive with our preexisting thoughts, and it is the distance between our own texts and the original texts that keep our thoughts from becoming plagiarism. However, this same text goes on to say that "If Jefferson submitted the Declaration for a college writing class as his own writing, he might well be charged with plagiarism."
Well. Yeah.
If we go by that logic, this blog entry is plagiarism as I am just taking "traces" and putting them together and claiming them as my own.
I feel that you have a very strong point to the authenticity of the "rhetor". The dynamic of a man influencing woman's health care as a rhetor can be a troubling concept to wrap ones head around. The questions that i see your argument asking is "who is allowed to be the rhetor for a certain subject/audience"
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Porter's engagement about on ownership and ideas, a fun way to think about it is through the eyes of writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster, the creators of Superman. Essentially Siegel and SHuster sold their first Superman manuscript for 120 dollars to a publishing agency. The comic sold like crazy, but the creators saw none of the benefits, and didn't even "own superman" the publishing house did. The Publishing house went on to higher other writers and artists to create more comics of superman. In retaliation, the two creators made off brand versions of Superman, and then they sold the "only slightly" different comics....begging the question "who plagiarized who?" .