Comparing Neo-Aristotelian, Close Textual Analysis, and Genre Criticism

Transcription

1 Gruber 1 Blake J Gruber Rhet-257: Rhetorical Criticism Professor Hovden 12 February 2010 Comparing Neo-Aristotelian, Close Textual Analysis, and Genre Criticism The concept of rhetorical criticism encompasses a variety of methods to analyze nearly any type of rhetorical artifact. Each method of rhetorical criticism sheds a particular light on any given artifact. As Burke argues, the more viewpoints or angles one examines an artifact from, the better one can truly understand the artifact. These methods have evolved over time, branching off from one another or even building and expanding from earlier methods. Perhaps the first true form of rhetorical analysis came from Aristotle, which is now labeled as Neo-Aristotelian analysis. This type of analysis is rarely used today and is a rather constrained approach, but from it stemmed genre criticism. Genre criticism broke into the rhetorical scene throughout the 70 s and 80 s after Edwin Black wrote the book Rhetorical Criticism. However, due to the large sweeping brushstrokes one must take with genre criticism, more specific methods have evolved as well, such as close textual analysis. These are just three examples of criticism methods, and each one gives a very different insight into a piece of rhetoric. To fully understand these methods the theoretical foundations of the methods must first be established. The types of questions the methods can answer and the units of analysis for the given methods will then be discussed and analyzed against one another. From this analysis it will be evident that each of these methods of rhetorical criticism, given their similarities and differences, provide a unique understanding of a given rhetorical artifact.

2 Gruber 2 Neo-Aristotelian criticism is derived from Aristotle s work in the field of rhetoric, largely from his written work The Rhetoric. Aristotle was among the first to truly establish a rhetorical method for analyzing pieces of work. Being one of the first methods, Neo-Aristotelian criticism is rather limited and basic. Although rarely used in rhetorical analysis today, the method can still provide basic insight into a piece of rhetoric. The fundamental theory of the method is to reconstruct the context in which the artifact occurred, and then analyze the text with the context in mind. To discover the context one must investigate the rhetor, the occasion, and the audience of a given speech. When analyzing the rhetor one must observe the rhetor s background, how it relates them to the audience, and ultimately what rhetorical tools the relationship allows them to use. It is important to also note the motivating forces of the rhetor, which also involves ethos, Aristotle s concept of moral fiber in a speaker. Understanding the occasion is important because of the influence and implications a given occasion can have on the demand for a particular type of rhetoric to be delivered. Finally, a good concept of the audience is important because the attitudes of the audience towards the rhetor and topic, as well as the influence the rhetor has over the audience, determine what rhetorical tools can be used in speech. Once the context of the artifact is in place, the artifact itself must be analyzed (lecture). Aristotle breaks the actual text analysis into five parts or the five cannons: invention, arrangement, style, delivery, and memory. Invention involves looking at the location and creation of the specific belief and analyzing the artifact and speaker s ethos, pathos, and logos. Arrangement is observing the organizational structure of the speech; what patterns are used, what was emphasized, and why they placed their arguments in particular places. Next, the style must be summarized, simply meaning what type of language and rhetorical flourishes were used and why. Then the delivery, or the speaker's manner of presentation, must be taken into account,

3 Gruber 3 which includes looking at how they dress, their rate of delivery, and their movement and tone. Finally the speaker s memory must be addressed. Although this is rather inapplicable in modern criticism, (in ancient Greece speeches were actually memorized) it can presently be described as the rhetor s overall knowledge of the subject matter. After completing both the context in which the artifact was presented and analyzing the artifact itself, finite conclusions can be drawn from the artifact. For example, Neo-Aristotelian criticism can asses why a speech was effective or ineffective given the audience and rhetorical tools used by the speaker. By looking at the overall construction of the speech, paired with the background of the rhetor, the criticism can help determine what tools led to persuasion. However, Neo-Aristotelian rhetoric in this sense is incredibly limited in scope. Since it relies heavily on the situational context of the artifact, the analysis will always be particular and descriptive. There is no real way to derive larger prescriptive theories of rhetoric from the work. From this finite method of criticism Aristotle breeds the foundation for a more general and theoretical rhetorical method, Genre Criticism (lecture). Aristotle believed there were three types of speech: deliberative, epidictic, and forensic; each type with its own implications for the occasion (the emphasis on the occasion relating closely to the contextual aspect of Neo-Aristotelian criticism). From this idea grew the concept of Genre theory and criticism. Edwin Black brought Genre Criticism back to the main-stage of textual analysis in the 70 s and 80 s with his book Rhetorical Criticism. Carl Burgchardt describes the overarching theme of Genre Criticism quite nicely by stating, Genre criticism departs from the traditional emphasis on a single speaker or speech. Indeed to be done properly, genre criticism must examine multiple speeches or other forms of discourse in order to draw conclusions about categories of rhetoric (399). Burke argues that humans have an innate desire

4 Gruber 4 to categorize things, creating order out of disorder. When pieces of rhetoric can be appropriately placed into a genre, it allows one to discern recurring strategies, themes, and issues amongst the body of discourses in the genre. It is important to note in Genre Criticism that rather than looking at the individual parts of a piece of rhetoric one must observe the situational requirements, the substantive and stylistic characteristics, as well as the organizing principles of the piece, and the synergy these create within a piece in terms of it genre. It is these three observations that ascertain what genre a piece belongs to, and ultimately allows the genre and its implications to be applied analytically to the piece of rhetoric. From a procedural standpoint there are three different courses through which to perform the analysis: Generic Description, Generic Participation, and Generic Application (lecture). Generic description is the process of determining whether or not a genre actually exists. First, the analyst begins with the assumption that there are similarities amongst a body of rhetoric. Then a varied and sufficiently large sample of discourses from an extended time period must be analyzed. In the analysis the three fundamental aspects of genre criticism (situational requirements, substantive and stylistic characteristics, and organizing principles) should be examined for similarities in the sample of discourses. The differences in these aspects should also be accounted for. Then one must conceptualize how these three aspects work together across the discourses to develop the defining aspects of the genre. This type of criticism is largely theoretical and genres for the most part have already been defined, which leads into the next type of genre criticism-- generic participation. This methodology tests whether or not a rhetorical artifact is part of a genre. First the three aspects of the genre are drawn from a rhetorical definition of the genre, and then they are applied to the artifact to see whether it exhibits the aspects of the genre. Compare how closely the situational requirements, substantive and stylistic

5 Gruber 5 characteristics, and organizing principle of the artifact and genre relate and then draw conclusions. The conclusions may show changes in the generic assumptions or possible subgenres of the genre. Finally, the last type of genre criticism and seemingly most analytical, genre application, is determining if an artifact is a good or bad exemplar of the genre. Much like genre participation, one must identify the three principles of genre in the artifact and compare it to those of the genre. Then the artifact is analyzed according to its successes or failures in fulfilling the requirements of the genre. This allows for successful strategies to be seen amongst a particular genre. Generic Criticism, especially when combining all three types, creates effective prescriptions for successful rhetoric within a genre. It shows how multiple people have dealt with the same issues, which in turn can explain a lot about the culture which the rhetoric was produced in. This broad overarching approach is useful, but cannot explain for outliers, which creates a need for a more particular rhetorical analysis, Close Textual Analysis (lecture). Close Textual analysis involves taking a very direct approach towards a text in which Tabula Rosa, or blank slate, should be kept in mind. This means no rhetorical theories or assumptions should be used when analyzing the particular piece of rhetoric in order to understand the text qua the text. Burgchardt describes Close Textual analysis as, [aiming] to reveal and explicate the precise, often hidden, mechanisms that give a particular text artistic unity and rhetorical effect (563). The theory being observing the text in and of itself allows one to see the particularities that make it unique and effective. The method allows one to understand what makes a particular speech timeless, and why it was effective given the constituent way pieces of a text work together. However, it is lacking in its ability to create generalized theory, and usually does not have theory backing the analysis of it. Regardless, for unique or particularly special pieces of rhetoric this method can be very useful. The procedure is as simple as follows:

6 Gruber 6 without anything in mind, read the text and then think about it, and repeat that process until the unique artistic elements of the text stand out. This type of analysis is not necessarily aimed at answering a particular question or building theory, but rather simply to wholly understand a given text for the text itself (lecture). Now that Neo-Aristotelian Criticism, Close Textual Analysis, and Genre Criticism have been thoroughly described, they can be compared against one another. These methods have similarities and differences in the types of research questions they can answer, their units of analysis, and also their theoretical foundations. First and foremost when doing rhetorical analysis there is always a research question in mind. Each of these methods varies in what exactly they can answer. Neo-Aristotelian analysis, like Close Textual Analysis, answers questions that are rather limited in scope and pertain mostly to the text at hand. For example, in Neo-Aristotelian analysis one can answer questions such as why was a given speech effective for an audience, what about the rhetor and the style and rhetorical tools he used made the speech effective, or what aspects of the arrangement, style and delivery make the speech effective. Like Close Textual analysis, it deals with the effectiveness of a particular piece of rhetoric, but fails to contribute to rhetorical theory in general and is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Although similar, Close Textual analysis is even more limited in scope. It disregards the contextual aspect of Neo-Aristotelian criticism, thus limiting even more the questions it can answer. Close Textual analysis can answer questions like what makes a text uniquely effective, what unique arrangement or style made the text effective, or why a particular piece is timeless. This can be done simply by looking at the text in and of itself. Genre Criticism, on the other hand, does quite the opposite. It can greatly add to the theories of rhetoric because it observes a number of discourses and identifies common strategies. It has the

7 Gruber 7 ability to be prescriptive, meaning when using this analysis, predictions can be made for what will make a piece of rhetoric in a particular genre effective. Seeing as the method is much larger in scope, it can answer a much wider variety of research questions. Questions such as, what are effective strategies within a genre, does a piece of rhetoric belong in a genre, does a genre exist, or even what does the rhetoric within a genre tell about the culture it was written in. Due to the differences in scope amongst these rhetorical methods, the spectrum of questions they can answer differ. Neo-Aristotelian and Close Textual analysis answer questions on the effectiveness of a given text while Genre Criticism can answer more broad questions of rhetorical theory, which is almost entirely due to the units of analysis utilized by the methods. These methods are drastically different in their units of analysis. The units of analysis being what is observed and analyzed rhetorically within the artifact, as stated previously, have dire impacts on the types of questions the method will be able to answer. In Neo-Aristotelian criticism the units of analysis are similar to that of Close Textual analysis; they include looking at the text for the invention, arrangement, style, delivery, and memory. However, these two methods differ slightly in their units of analysis; Neo-Aristotelian takes into account the context in which the artifact occurred, while Close Textual analysis gives more freedom when looking at the text to observe any particularities that make the text uniquely effective. Genre Criticism has very different units of analysis. In Genre Criticism, many discourses within the genre are observed, and the real units of analysis are the fusion of the situational requirements, substantive and stylistic characteristics, and organizing principles within the artifact and genre. This points back to the idea of the particularity of Neo-Aristotelian and Close Textual analysis and how they are tailored to analyze a specific text for the text itself, while in comparison Genre Criticism is

8 Gruber 8 much broader and can attribute to prescriptive rhetorical theory. This is also evident in the theoretical foundations of the different methods. The theoretical foundations set the purpose of what each of these methods should accomplish when analyzing a piece of rhetoric. Neo-Aristotelian theory focuses on the contextual situation of an artifact. In theory, it is important to understand the rhetor, audience, and the occasion as they are all influencing factors on how and what the rhetor can say. Once the context is established, then the text can be analyzed because it will be able to show how effective a given speech was on that particular audience. This differs from Close Textual analysis in that Close Textual analysis s theory focuses on Tabula Rosa (blank slate) and keeping all theory and notions out of the mind when analyzing. In a sense, this is so the unique attributes of the rhetoric in particular can be seen and why it made the rhetoric effective. The blank slate must be kept in mind because it is likely these unique attributes cannot be found amongst other pieces of or theories of rhetoric. Again, there is the significantly different theory of Genre Criticism, which claims that by observing a number of similar discourses one can understand the recurring types of strategies and techniques that create success within a genre. By examining numerous discourses, the successes and failures allow one to determine a prescription for what makes successful rhetoric within a genre. After observing the rhetorical methods of Neo-Aristotelian, Close Textual, and Genre Criticism, and the types of research questions they can answer, their units of analysis, and fundamental theories, it has become evident that each of these methods can shed a particular light on any given piece of rhetoric. Neo-Aristotelian analysis takes into consideration the context of the rhetoric before analyzing the text, allowing one to determine if it was successful for a particular audience. Close Textual analysis, similar to Neo-Aristotelian in its small scope,

9 Gruber 9 provides unique insight into a text by analyzing the text simply qua the text. Finally, Genre Criticism, which stemmed from the constrained Neo-Aristotelian approach, takes a larger scope by examining numerous discourses across a genre and determines the techniques within a genre that make rhetoric successful. Clearly each of these rhetorical methods can provide valuable information about any piece of rhetoric. However, the information they provide vary from method to method, and each method can answer different types of research questions. Regardless, the different questions these methods can answer all provide unique insight into a piece of rhetoric, and by applying multiple methods the critic can obtain a more complete and comprehensive grasp of a rhetorical artifact all rights reserved.