Toward Wave Rhetorics for Scholarly Communications in Human Sciences

Abstract

Traditionally, rhetoric is defined as the study and practice of persuasion, which is, according to Richards, “the theory of the battle of words and has always been itself dominated by the combative impulse”. This seems to have remained true. Foss/Foss even say that conquest rhetoric and conversion rhetoric have become almost “default modes of communication”. Scholarly communications do not seem to operate differently. Nonetheless, we can observe the emergence of diverse wave rhetorics, community oriented, in contrast with traditional “particle rhetorics”, individual centered. In this search toward wave rhetorics, recent Asian communication studies are not to be omitted. To deepen the research on these wave rhetorics, we need to reconsider the problem of language and misunderstanding, which is a main cause for communicational conflicts. This is a long and difficult process, which demands much imagination, creativity, and endeavor, but which is also well worth it.

Acknowledgments

This article is a revised version of Jon Sung-Gi, 2009, “ ” [Toward wave rhetorics: For scholarly communications in human sciences], [Rhetoric] 11 : 103–131.

Notes

1. Sodan means “literary world,” and jeokchi means “red flag,” “chief commandant” (see Ko 2004).

2. Wolton (2009, 22–23): “La question de la cohabitation devient donc central… . Comment vais-je accepter de cohabiter avec celui qui ne me ressemble pas, à qui je n'ai rien à dire et réciproquement ? Comment faire pour ne pas être confronté au paradoxe fou qui ferait de l'information et de la communication non pas un facteur de rapprochement mais un facteur d'incompréhension, d'hostilité, et finalement de guerre? C'est cela le défi du XXI^e siècle: éviter que l'information et la communication, au lieu de rapprocher les hommes, creusent les incompréhensions.”

3. Golden and Jamison (1990, 330): “The question is the starting point for the generation of language usage or speech. Here it is instructive to note that a synonym for question is a problem. Whenever we speak or write on any issue, we have as a purpose a need to solve a problem that takes the form of direct or implied question.”

4. Maneli (1994, 129): “The essence and basis of the New Rhetoric is tolerance. Its method can be developed and applied only in an atmosphere of tolerance.”

5. Nelson, Megill, and McCloskey (1987, 16): “Rhetoric of inquiry enlarges these meanings to encompass the interdependence of inquiry and communication, and to encourage connecting all the skeins of rhetoric into a commitment for better inquiry to inform action.”

6. Warnock (2000, 81): “Communication is the ‘dancing of attitudes’ and a ‘courtship ritual’; for Burke, communication is ‘a generalized form of love’ (Rhetoric of Motives 37).”

7. Gorsevski (2004, 182): “Much of rhetorical theory follows the ‘reasoning’ or ‘logical’ tradition, which tends to value the scientific or mathematic perspective. A scientific perspective might be the Darwinian one, for example, that internalizes some sort of fight for survival and naturalizes it into an accepted state of human affairs, and a way to understand conflicts in life as various kinds of violence or war. Such a perspective is not particularly hopeful for humankind.”

8. Hoerl (2002, 368): “In Feminist Rhetorical Theories, Karen Foss joins Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin to provide deeper insight into the origins of their critique of rhetoric and their advocacy of invitational rhetoric by reviewing the backgrounds of and arguments made by several feminist theorists who suggest that patriarchal values are embedded within the core tenets of traditional rhetorical theory.”

9. Powers (2004, 1495): “In this formula, we demonstrate empathy and understanding; we show respect for our audience; we endorse some aspects of our audience's position; and we combine some aspects of our audience's position with some aspects of our own position (if possible) thereby creating common ground on which we can stand in agreement with our audience, and reach a point where we can assert our own position effectively.”

10. Booth (2004, 10): “Listening-rhetoric (LR): The whole range of communicative arts for reducing misunderstanding by paying full attention to opposing views.”

11. Although “communication across genuine differences is too rare,” Fulford (2006) seems, as Booth, to promote “rhetorical education not toward erasure of difference, but toward respectful, knowledgeable coexistence with difference” (364).

12. Gore (2007, 48): “He asks us to consider how we and our words are perceived by others and to consider them as a part of effective rhetoric. Such self-listening is central to effective communication and harmony and is best realized when a rhetor commits to inculcating the principles of speech and listening in what we might call his or her personal life as well as his or her professional life.”

13. See Robitaille (2005, 209): “Le trait principal de cette éthique [interrogative] est qu'elle se fonde sur un « jeu de l'imagination » : il faut sans cesse s'imaginer à la place de l'autre, c'est-à-dire tenter d’épouser son point de vue, non pas pour réduire son point de vue au mien—mon acte d'imagination demeure une « projection »—, mais pour l'accueillir comme une autre interprétation possible et digne d’être entendue.”

14. Simons (1990, 9): “Broadly speaking, virtually all scholarly discourse is rhetorical in the sense that issues need to be named and framed, facts interpreted and conclusions justified; furthermore, in adapting arguments to ends, audiences, and circumstances, the writer (or speaker) must adopt a persona, choose a style, and make judicious use of what Kenneth Burke has called the ‘resources of ambiguity’ in language.”