After reading “A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric” by George A. Kennedy, I realized that I agree with some of Kennedy’s views of rhetoric but not all of them. For example, I agree that tropes and figures of speech in literature are rhetorical devices and that rhetoric can be identified with the energy inherent in communication. However, I do not think that animals have their own rhetoric. There is no doubt animals communicate with one another in their own way, but I think rhetoric is something exclusive to humans. When I think of rhetoric, I think of argumentation, persuasion, and the use of language in a manipulative way. I just don’t think animals purposefully use their own verbal and nonverbal communication to exemplify rhetoric. I feel like Kennedy proves my point when he says “I have yet to encounter the term "rhetoric" in social biology.” Since my view of rhetoric concerning this subject was drastically different from Kennedy’s view, I decided to look up the definition of rhetoric. According to dictionary.com, rhetoric is…
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.
8. (in older use) a work on rhetoric.
I think one’s view regarding this subject is also dependant on whether or not he or she thinks that animals have their own languages. However, Kennedy states that “whether animals can be said to have languages is controversial.” Thoughts?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that animals might be said to use their own form of language effectively, and even persuasively...
ReplyDeleteKennedy says that language in primates and birds is more than a genetic endowment, it is also culturally learned through "experiments in imitation", and involves different dialects within different groups. These animals seem to be using their vocalizations effectively, learning to communicate in a way that will be most useful in their given context.
Also, Kennedy notes that some animals can learn to recognize and use symbols. Some primates have been taught sign language by researchers, and have proven "perfectly adept at lying and deceiving". He sites the example of birds using their vocalizations to deceive intruders as to their whereabouts and the level of occupation of an area. I also remember reading somewhere else about a chimp that had been taught to sign by two researchers. The chimp hadn't made it to the bathroom and had an accident on the carpet. When asked about the mess by one researcher, the chimp insisted it was not him, but rather the other researcher. The deceptive vocalizations of the birds, and the dishonest accusations made by the chimp both seem very purposeful. In the case of the chimp, it seems reasonable to assume that if he has the capacity to lie in sign language, he is also capable of doing so in his communications with other chimps. So, I suppose I think some, but perhaps not all, elements of rhetoric are present in some animals
This all boils down to our definition of rhetoric. The dictionary definition is far from the only one present and should really be taken with a grain of salt, as it is a very, very conservative and classical view of what Rhetoric is. By the dictionary definition it is certainly hard to say that animals have their own rhetoric, but Kennedy is not functioning under that definition. Look instead at his comments on energy of communication and it fits a bit better. This doesn't mean anybody in particular is wrong, it just means that we all have differing opinions on just what constitutes rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI understand your view of why you believe rhetoric is only inclusive to humans. Because we are taught from a young age that rhetoric and communication are the same idea; sometimes it is hard for us to think of this concept in a different light. But in Kennedy’s article, he is trying to get us to see rhetoric in a new way. While his version of rhetoric as energy is unlike the ideas we have been taught, I like that he still includes communication with it. He just doesn’t group them as the same idea. And by not grouping them together, he opens up a new section of rhetoric that includes animals, the self and non human language. But as Sean pointed out, believing who or what has rhetoric is an opinion that many will have different views on.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in whether we conceive of rhetoric as something has to be done intentionally. Kennedy notes that "In human society, rhetoric is... usually given some direction and form by varying degrees of intentionality on the part of a speaker, some conscious, some not..." (8). However, he notes that "In animal communication, at the lowest levels, there is... "zero order" intentionality on the part of the organism, which gives off a sign... in response to a stimulus without making a conscious decision." (8-9)
ReplyDeleteKennedy feels like "the ability to give a sign, even without intent or belief, is basic to rhetoric". He bases this on his definition of rhetoric as energy. I would say that we (and especially non-rhetoric majors) probably think of rhetoric as "the art of using language(or any communication) for persuasion". In this sense, even "zero-order" intentionality would seem (to me)to indicate rhetoric, in that the purpose of the innate biological mechanism is to persuade. (for example, to persuade a predator to leave the animal alone). It serves this purpose, but not consciously.
I think that, as a society, we tend to view rhetoric as a classical, philosophical, art form. Kennedy does address this early on when he mentions the "letteraturizzazione" that rhetoric went through. He also went on to say that that it (the system, or process) "molded audience expectations of communication." So you are absolutely right if you are approaching rhetoric from the classical standpoint.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Kennedy is trying to take anything away from the classical Greek forms, I think Kennedy is taking an anthropological approach in an effort to identify a primitive rhetoric, or what came before rhetoric as we know it.
He makes some really crazy claims in this article and It's easy to see how academics didn't know how to take this article when it was first published.
First, I think it's fascinating how many broad definitions dictionary.com has for "rhetoric." I'm most inclined to accept definitions 3 and 7, but none of them really encapsulate the elusive art we call rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI, like you Samantha, tend to think of rhetoric in a classical sense. Kennedy's all-inclusive definition of rhetoric as energy seems silly to me. Hence, it's hard for me to accept Kennedy's claim that animals (and plants) engage in rhetoric. But if you define rhetoric as Kennedy does--as the basic energy in communication--then any form of interaction, whether intentional or unintentional, that produces affect in another falls under rhetoric.