Personal Reflection On Rhetorical Analysis

Author’s Note:

•I had prior experience with the rhetorical terminology used throughout this semester, but I hadn’t delved quite as deeply into their meanings and their uses. I don’t think that this writing project alone had a major effect on my understanding of rhetorical terminology; however, the works that we read as lead-up to and context for the assignment really helped me learn to recognize the use of different rhetorical strategies in text on a higher level than I did before. That being said, I feel that the writing project aided me in putting that understanding into words. I had minimal previous experience with doing intensive rhetorical analysis before this project, and now I feel that while I still may not comprehend the minutiae

of rhetoric, I can at least recognize it for its parts, the pieces that make the machine.

•I don’t think I’d ever really revised healthily and effectively until this point; before, it was my method of operation to set aside a huge chunk of time to obsess over what I was going to write, delete whole paragraphs because they “didn’t feel right,” furiously type out whatever I had come up with, and then get the creeping feeling that I missed the mark completely. If I couldn’t think of something within that time period, then it wasn’t included in my final work, and in retrospect I feel as though I’ve been deprived of valuable reflection as a result. The approach we took in completing our WP2s over the past few weeks has forced me to reevaluate my writing process. I’m starting to see essays and writing projects as something other than big, fearsome dragons and I’m relearning what it means to write meaningfully and efficiently. By writing, taking a break, getting feedback, and then coming back to the writing I feel like I’m making strides towards creating presentable work.

•A. As requested by my peer reviewer, Lauren Estrada, I elaborated on Elbow and Bartholomae’s relationship as the two participants in a discussion regarding the respective skillsets they encourage in scholars.

B. I was able to recognize that my own purpose was not prominent within my writing project and that there were even instances in which I presented conflicting messages. Consequently, I went through and- after careful deliberation- removed all references to the authors’ stances regarding writing and academics, as I felt that they distracted from the focus of my analysis, which was whether or not the authors were successful in presenting themselves as credible.

C. I considered my peer editor’s suggestions when composing my conclusion, and while I did not utilize her advice regarding the content, I was inspired by her suggestion to reflect on our class discussion of the texts. I revisited my personal discussion notes from all the texts individually and reacquainted myself with the things I thought made each one successful, which really helped me overall.

•I didn’t understand what a rhetorical situation was at all until it became my task to understand it and write about it.

Of course, previous experience taught me that the three main components of any writing were purpose, audience, and topic, but I didn’t have a name to put with the face, so to speak, until very recently. That is, I think I knew what a rhetorical situation was, and that practically every interaction ever could be considered a rhetorical situation, but I didn’t have the technical term or even the definition. I didn’t know there were constraints, but looking back I suppose it makes sense that the effectiveness of a work could be severely hindered by the beliefs and attitudes of the sphere in which it’s presented. I heard the phrase “rhetorical situation” being used the first week in this class and it confused me, because in my mind rhetoric could almost be equated with bombastic, and I had previously only ever heard the word rhetoric used meanly by teachers to describe a paper with no substance and a lot of pretty

words.

Things I could say about purpose: All texts are united by the common purpose of reconciling meaningful content and contribution with writing in an academic setting. This particular analysis will be devoted to the authors’ use of pisteis- the three argumentative appeals (“What is Rhetoric?” Covino & Jolliffe 336)- specifically, the pistis ethos, in developing their texts.

Ethos and Evaluation:

Ethos is defined by Covino and Jolliffe as “the good character and the consequent credibility of the rhetor” (C&J 336). Aristotle further divides this “good character” into the three subsections phronesis, arete, and eunoia-- good sense, virtue, and good will, respectively-- and states that the success of a text is almost entirely dependent on the ability of the rhetor to establish himself as a viable source rather than on the audience’s previous knowledge of the rhetor’s accomplishments and ethics. However, later theorists such as Quintilian, who tailored Greek rhetorical practices for Roman consumption, would argue that the rhetor must be a “good man skilled at speaking,” an interpretation of a definition given by Cato the Elder a century earlier (C&J 336). While Covino and Jolliffe acknowledge that yes, such a stance is plausible, they also assert that it is not practical to rely on prior knowledge of a man’s achievements in the modern world, where there is an ever-increasing disconnect between author and context and the author’s audience. That being said, the effectiveness of the writers’ ethical strategies will be determined in this analysis through evaluation of how each writer utilizes the Aristotelian definition of credibility and its three subsections.

Phronesis:

Covino and Jolliffe define phronesis as credibility through good sense and practical wisdom. Essentially, examples of phronesis in rhetorical writing and speech are indicators that a writer is decisive and has good judgment and background knowledge of the subject matter at hand. This, also according to Covino and Jolliffe, is achieved in published academic papers primarily through the use of citations (C&J 337).

Beckman: While his article “Why I Write Bad” in the Crimson editorial is far from being considered a serious academic paper, Milo B. Beckman still obeys a few rhetorical conventions by establishing one facet of his credibility through the use of phronesis. Because this text is not limited by the constraints associated with academic writing, Beckman is liberated from Covino and Jolliffe’s example of footnotes as an indicator of phronesis; however, the text could conceivably have benefitted from more outside sources than one quick hyperlink to an article relevant to both the subject matter and his audience without conveying whether or not he legitimately understood the work.

Elbow: In his work “Being a Writer vs. Being an Academic,” Peter Elbow exhibits mastery of the use of citation and outside reference to reinforce his points. He cites his colleague David Bartholomae on page seventy-four, Jeanette Harris on page seventy-six, and even goes so far as to quote an entire passage on trust of language from William Stafford on page seventy-eight. His bringing in of outside information reinforces his position as a knowledgeable, contributing member of the ongoing debate.

Arête:

Covino and Jolliffe define arête as credibility through virtue, by means of affiliations and actions. In academic writing, arête is chiefly expressed in the form of biographical information, through mention of academic connections in particular, which helps establish honor by association (C&J 337).

Beckman: If approaching the article academically- that is, looking specifically for academic affiliations and/or biographical information- the information can be found in the “About the Author” section at the base of the article. However, the majority and most effective use of arête is interspersed throughout the text, establishing Beckman’s position as a student through the use of informal speech such as “TF,” “gonna,” “dunno,” etc. This connection he develops between himself and other students is very effective in portraying himself as credible and relatable.

Elbow: Peter Elbow’s credibility is almost immediately established within the first page of the excerpt, where his academic accomplishments are listed in a biographical footnote (Elbow 72). His experience as a writing teacher and director lends validity to his opinions regarding college writing curricula, which are in turn complemented by his effortless references to his students and their educational needs throughout the text.

Eunoia:

In “What Is Rhetoric?” eunoia is defined as credibility through good will and respectful delivery. Covino and Jolliffe even go so far as to say that to invoke eunoia is to infuse a text with a certain “degree of deference” (C&J 337) to previous contributors to the interminable conversation (C&J 329) in that specific discourse community.

Beckman: If there is one aspect of ethos that Beckman circumvents near completely, it would most assuredly be eunoia. An argument could be made that Beckman demonstrates eunoia through his acknowledgement of his own work as subpar, which gives him the appearance of being humble; however, this is counteracted by his disregard for the experiences of his superiors. The entirety of the text has the distinct feeling of a writer who thinks he is succeeding at pulling the wool over someone’s eyes. The writer says things like “...he can deduce that I’m a smart guy and that he’s about to read a great paper” and “My TF is gonna love this” (Beckman). Even though he knows that he’s not reaching his full potential, he makes the assumption that professionals who have been playing the game longer than he has have no inkling about what is going on. It might not be a lack of deference to previously published works, but it is definitely a lack of deference to his writing authorities, so to speak.

Elbow: The strongest instances of eunoia within Elbow’s text are his respectful and familiar references to the capabilities and works of his opponent David Bartholomae, the second contributor in their debate regarding the roles of writers and readers in an academic setting (Elbow 72, 73, & 74). Despite the fact that their opinions are at odds and their motives dissimilar, Elbow remains receptive to the idea that Bartholomae could still potentially sway him from his original stance (“Perhaps David [Bartholomae] and others can persuade me that I am wrong, but I fear that there is a conflict between the role of writer and that of academic”), which is a highly respectful and significant concession.

In Conclusion: By isolating the authors’ uses of the pistis ethos from their purposes and stances and approaching the texts with the Aristotelian idea that the success of a work can be almost entirely attributed to the effectiveness of the author’s ethical appeal, it is evident that Peter Elbow has the most comprehensive knowledge of ethos as defined in “What is Rhetoric?”; however, despite a blatant lack of experience in comparison to Elbow, Beckman succeeded in establishing his credibility through unconventional methods, straying outside of the textbook examples provided by Covino and Jolliffe and providing his own versions (i.e.

recognizing his own flaws, using slang to relate to his audience, and hyperlinks), This nearly puts him on par with Elbow in the ethical game if what he lacks in experience is made up for in

relevance.