Reflective Essay

Saul Greene

English 360-01

12-11-14

Reflective Essay

            Before this class I was fairly confident that I was a good writer, and I still feel that I may be. However, this semester I learned more about the process of refining than I did about actual writing. My vocabulary is fairly strong for the most part, and I am quick to catch concepts and effectively employ them in my writing, but I struggle greatly when it comes to organization on a macro level. By that I mean that my concepts are usually sound and my ideas properly written, but as a whole I usually have trouble making an essay flow and this semester I learned why. I tend to focus in on something too specific too early on, or I keep my essays too broad. This is why I was pleased to learn about the concept of a zero draft this semester. The idea of the zero draft isn’t really any different than that of a first or second draft, however it is a mindset. Thinking of the zero draft as a preliminary to even something as structured as a first draft allows many advantages. Firstly, a zero draft needs no fancy transitions, no proper format, and most of all no one direction or flow. It is the wordy man’s brainstorm and I love it. Additionally, thinking of the zero draft in such a way almost forces one to review with a teacher or themselves.

            I have never had an issue with writing an essay, and usually used to turn them in after one or two drafts. The fault there was that even with great ideas, they never became developed and ordered in such a manner to support one another and build into a claim or argument. This semester I began to meet with my teachers in their office hours. Not just for English, but all of my classes, and the result has been insane. Additionally, my understandings of the course material has been greatly incr4eased in every way. I wish I had utilized this option earlier in the schooling process and as such I would say that my biggest gain from this semester was the zero draft concept and the actions of meeting with my professors.

            Invention is easily my best attribute according to the rubric, while as previously explained, Arrangement is one of my worst. I feel that over this semester I have greatly improved on this section since meeting with the professor allowed me to properly understand how to arrange my papers. I would say that this particular selection of assignments and material truly helped me focus my writing strengths, especially since this was a rhetoric course. The essays obviously helped the most in my progression, however, the blogs helped me keep on track with the reading which in turn fueled my ability to complete the writing assignments in a reasonable manner.

            One assignment in particular that really helped me develop my organization and understanding of rhetoric was the imitation assignment. From a holistic point of view this project seemed very difficult and I, along with most of the rest of the class was very frustrated at first. However, when broken down and thought out it was actually a very valuable learning experience. Being given loose guidelines and very general prompts seemed to me at first to be the product of a difficult class, but in hindsight this project actually allowed me to learn the material and synthesize it in a manner unique to myself. The reason it was hard I figured out was because in the past teachers did half of the work for you by providing a specific prompt and details. However as we have learned from relevant readings, class discussion , and especially this project, forming the questions and guidelines for ones work is just as important as the actual product itself. As with most of my essays, I had good invention and I use that to my strength, however arranging them and expanding was always an issue. Focusing on only my ability to invent would not help in the imitation though. I not only had to come up with original ideas, but then synthesize them partially on my own and arrange them for the most effective speech. Though frustrating this proved to be a great learning experience.

Input from peers was another section of this class that I have not mentioned. Just as with my newfound ability to meet with teachers, I finally started to actually use the knowledge that my peers were suggesting to me and boy did it pay off. The best way to solidify your knowledge about something is to teach someone about it. If you are well versed enough to actually fluidly explain something to someone and do so to an extent of critiquing them, you assumingly know your subject matter very well. This was how I saw the in class peer reviews. This made me explain why I understand what I have learned and made me really see where others needed to improve, thus allowing myself to understand where I myself could improve.

I usually have trouble accepting other student’s ideas to use in my own works, but maybe this is just an ego issue. I found however, that such an issue disappears when you take a higher level rhetoric class. Most people seem happy to be in English 360 and most are extremely competent in my eyes. I really enjoyed this course because of this.

                        The goal of this class has been to demonstrate and improve one’s rhetorical awareness. As interesting as I knew rhetoric was, I never knew that it played such an essential role in everything around us. Through the development of this term I have gained insight into the way that people communicate and if nothing else, this work has left me overly analytical. Though at first it wasn’t simple, I find that I really enjoy attempting to understand what someone is truly attempting to say, why they are saying it, and what is causing me to interpret it in the way that I am interpreting it.

In my work this term I feel that I have grown vastly even just in my ability to employ rhetoric. For example, when I first started this class all I really knew was that rhetoric consisted of ones attempt to make an argument convincing. It wasn’t until I had to perform my imitation that I really learned how vast and complex this process was. And in terms of truly complex development, it wasn’t until my essay about automobile advertisement that I really figured out how effective I could be. It was in this essay that I really assessed the credibility of my sources and in doing so I attempted to not only figure out where they drew credibility from, but also what specifically made that source credibly to their audience because even the most qualified source is not credible if the audience does not believe it. Additionally, in this paper I was able to figure out how I personally can direct my audiences understanding and view of my credibility and writing. To say that the study of rhetoric has changed me as a writer wouldn’t be completely accurate. I would say that the study o rhetoric made me a writer because without rhetoric what is the point of writing. Sure, creative writing and such other pieces may not require an argument, however being convincing in any sense of writing requires a great amount of rhetoric.

Finally, though not about me specifically, I feel that a reflection of the professor is just as important as my personal reflection because they are heavily related. Because of his teaching style I have learned a great amount this semester and I feel a great thanks to the professor for this course is due. Professor Condon is not a conventional teacher and that is what made this class so productive and beneficial for me. Somehow he took the pressure of grades out of the classroom while still maintaining a class that was motivated and intrigued. He is a very qualitative teacher and I felt that he truly understood how to make a connection with a student and challenge them. What professor Condon understands that most teachers don’t in my opinion is that it doesn’t take a lot of material work to make a student understand something, but a sparked interest on the part of the student. In my case this was when Professor Condon assigned the imitatio and made us fend for ourselves. 

Essay 3

Saul Greene

English 360-01

December, 4^th 2014

Affluence of the Automobile

            Class and social standing are extremely prevalent themes in auto advertising. Though to rhetorically analyze auto advertising as a whole would be to analyze all of what is current modern advertisement, one way that auto advertising differs from past rhetorical texts is its abstract nature and the way in which it suggests social stratification or lack of, as a method of persuasion. It is extremely effective and utilizes many of the rhetorical conventions covered to date in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. On a more specific note, luxury auto makers such as Audi do an exemplary job of using both ethical and pathetic appeal in their advertising. The rhetorical advertising strategy implemented by Audi is one that evokes a sense of superiority to all others and a sense of class. High class, high performance vehicles that are the best because of where they came from and where they are going. Heritage and history are extremely important in Audi`s targeted message. Their advertisements somehow touch on this history while still maintaining an abstract nature that creates a certain genesequa for their brand and rather than telling you how great they are, Audi shows you. 

No commercial exhibits Audi`s ability to appeal to superiority, performance, and history than the “White Whale” commercial. This commercial quite obviously eludes to Moby Dick and definitely showed the separation of class that Audi was looking to express. The commercial starts with an old mountain man out in the snow with his tow truck next to a broken down car. He says “I’ve been out there most of my life, you name it IV hooked it, but there’s one, one that’s always eluded me.” (“Audi Quattro”) The ad then cuts to an abstract shot of a white Audi speeding by in the snow. The old man then says that he almost caught it a few times, showing him in a setting that looks like he is tracking an animal in the snow. The next cut to the car is after he says “it’s got those eyes, those unmistakable eyes” and the Audis headlights which are one of Audi`s icons show through the fog. It then shows him hunting one more time. He says “sometimes I actually think its mocking me” at which point the car speeds by his tow truck performing exceptionally well in the snow. Then the man yells “QUATTRO!” because he cannot catch up to the car. Quattro is Audi`s transmission system that allows for amazing handling in the snow and the ad hints that it is something that cannot be caught or had by those that are lesser. (“Audi Quattro”) Here there is a great amount of pathetic appeal. The “white whale”; something no one can have, except “you” if you ascribe to the Audi claims of superiority and seize the moment.

Images of the Audi outrunning the “lesser” equipped vehicle speak volumes to their main audience. This ad just as with the other hints that even though others couldn’t, Audi could. It shows the class separation that Audi aims for especially well because right from the start it is easy to see that this man in the commercial is of the lower class and aspires to have the accomplishment of attaining the Audi, but he cannot because he is not equipped enough and does not have the privilege. By giving the implication that he is an exemplary hunter, Audi shows that even though he should be able to “catch” this one he cannot because he is merely an old low class tow truck driver. This seeming requirement of privilege to own an Audi is something that the brand carries not only into American minds, but internationally Audi has been able to employ this strategy. In fact, in China “the black A6 has become the automobile of choice for practically any party official or military officer with enough clout to secure one” (Wines) and because of this there is a uniform of affluence associated with these cars in China just as within the United States.

Audi does a great job of employing Kairos in their advertisements in addition to creating pathetic appeal to men. Middle to older aged men are Audis primary target market and though there are many ways to explain why superiority and performance are so pathetically appealing to men, none explains it quite as simply as biology. Human beings, and males in particular are biologically programmed for obtaining resources, dominating competition over these resources, and displaying their dominance. Well, purchasing an Audi requires a great amount of monetary resources, the Audi`s performance dominates in competition, and the four little circles that define a vehicle as an Audi effectively display this dominance. At least this is how Audi rhetorically approaches the issue and why it is such an effective method of persuasion. In fact, studies have shown that driving sports cars boost testosterone, the primary hormone responsible for male competition and displays of dominance.  In a study, researchers put a number of men in an old Toyota to drive for an hour and then put that same group in a $150,000 Porsche 911 Carrera 4s Cabriolet supercar. To no surprise of any man who has ever sat in a sports car, the “guys who drove the Porsche experienced significant and substantial increases in T levels after driving the Porsche” (Sutton). This is no coincidence, which Audi knows and uses to their advantage.

This appeal to men becomes especially apparent in Audi`s “Prom” commercial. A high school boy is shown suiting up for prom and it quickly becomes apparent that he is going without a date. As he opens the door to leave his father stops him, throws him a car key which we soon learn is to the fathers Audi S6 as is made apparent by the dumbstruck look on the boy’s face. At this point the commercial jumps to a shot of the S6 turning on with the boy behind the wheel, again highlighting the headlights of the car (one of Audi`s signature elements). The boy begins to drive to prom and at a stop light pulls up next to a group of other students in a stretch limo drunk and having a blast. The boy then peels out and outpaces the limo immediately. Arriving at prom the boy seems to now show a confidence that was not present at the beginning of the commercial as he parks in the school principal’s spot. Confidently striding into prom he walks up to the prom queen and kisses her boldly at which point the prom king is shown walking towards him upset. The ad cuts to the boy driving exceptionally fast on the highway with a fresh black eye and a huge smile on his face. He yells out a scream of excitement and then the ad cuts to black with text on the screen saying “Bravery. It`s what defines us” (“Audi Prom”).

This commercial employs much of the same rhetorical appeal as the others, but here Audi highlights what a privilege it is to drive one of their cars. This is seen at the beginning of the ad when the boy gets excited and confident after receiving the holy keys to “dad`s Audi”. Firstly, the fact that the father throws him the keys and no words are exchanged, just a smile and nod supports Audis ever-present subliminal message that the technology and prestige of their brand speaks for itself, they don’t need excuses such as fuel economy or economic price points. Notice that there is no spoken dialogue, just the statement in text at the end of “Bravery. It`s what defines us” (“Audi Prom”). Most might think that this is Audi trying to include all those that think they are brave into their target market, however, I feel that this statement further exemplifies Audi`s exclusivity and dominance complex. They are saying that bravery is what defines Audi, and since it has already been established that driving an Audi is a privilege, they seem to claim that most cannot be brave. It’s almost a taunt or a call to action from Audi and to their delight it works like a charm.

Audi unlike lower end car brands does not explain their specific vehicles in detail in these commercials because they know their target market wants inspiration and they understand that the higher class man who has the means and motivation to buy an Audi does not want to be told what to do. It is almost demeaning to this targeted audience to be told the features of the cars. Rather, the audience here is assumed to be motivated and intellectual in a manner that would allow them to look up the information on their own. This is why Audi uses rhetorical appeals of emotion and history to inspire that person to look into it on their own. Audi need not support their claims because as they seem to suggest, any reasonably intellectual and sophisticated person who looks into it would plainly see that they are the best option here.

It would however, be naïve to assume that there were not those who imitate Audi and other luxury brands rhetorical appeal. Take Kia for example, a company that is not well known for luxury or performance, or even sophistication. They don’t have a rich history like these luxury brands and as such must admit that they were not always prestigious in order to support a claim that they now have some level of sophistication. The new commercial for the Kia Cadenza starts with the city skyline and just plays music while the car is driving the whole time until the end at which point the narrator says “remember that girl you didn’t notice in high school?” The car then parks and a beautiful woman walks out of the car. The narrator then continues by saying “Were a lot like that” ("Impossible to Ignore") which admits that they were ugly in the past, but now are a beautiful force to be reckoned with. This commercial basically states that there was room for improvement from the past, but saying that the improvements have been made does not necessarily directly suggest that the car is at full potential. In fact when people refer to the Cadenza as “the conservative offspring of a Toyota and a 5 Series, minus the athleticism of the BMW” (Ulrich) it would seem to still imply that Kia is imitating and living in the shadows of the higher end vehicles. If Kia wants to claim that they are “playing with the big boys” then they better be ready for evaluation and scrutiny on the same playing field. The rhetorical approach that this ad takes is to say if you drive this car it will make you better and comparable to the high end vehicles. Whereas the high end vehicles take the stance of saying that you should drive their car because it is the only car good enough to fit someone as good and successful as you. In Audi`s case, it is not that the car will make you better, but rather that the car itself is better than others just like you are. In essence, the car itself is an extension and announcement of the person and their sophisticated well off standing in society. Kia attempts to imitate Audi by being abstract and catching the audience’s attention before drawing to a conclusion that claims they are attractive and beautiful. This may be true, but their whole basis of argument relies upon the fact that they used to be bad and now they are attractive.

The real issue when assessing the differences between low end and high end vehicles is that their arguments do not meet stasis. Audi makes the argument that only their cars are good enough for “you” assuming that you fit into their exclusive elite target market. Whereas, Kia makes the argument that their cars are better and more fitting to “your” everyday needs and economy. Kia makes many logical arguments to suggest that they provide the same as a luxury brand but with added economy. Audi does not acknowledge Kia though, they simple argue that they are the best and always have been. Audi has no need to tout because they are at the top of the food chain. When selling exclusivity there is no need to diversify your target market, Audi overtly exhibits exclusivity in their advertisements and do not apologize for it. This form of advertisement arguably adds a level of credibility in my opinion because Audi never has to make petty claims to sell their cars. They an exemplary job of using both ethical and pathetic appeal in their advertising without going overboard. The rhetorical advertising strategy implemented by Audi is one that evokes a sense of superiority to all others and a sense of class. High class, high performance vehicles that are the best because of where they came from and where they are going. Heritage and history are extremely important in Audi`s targeted message. Their advertisements somehow touch on this history while still maintaining an abstract nature that creates a certain genesequa for their brand and rather than telling you how great they are, Audi shows you, because Audi does not sell cars. Audi Sells their name and the inherently affluent lifestyle associated with it.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Work Cited

Audi “Prom” TV Commercial. 2013. Video. YouTube Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

      < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky7ic1Ro9yw>

Audi Quattro® TV Commercial. 2012. Video. YouTube Web. 18 Nov. 2014. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGmCKxTgSrI>.

Steinhauer , Jennifer. "When the Joneses Wear Jeans." New York Times [New York] 29 May 2005. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.

Sutton, Bob. "More on Testosterone Levels: Driving a Porsche vs. Toyota Camry." Tyoepad. 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Ulrich, Lawrence. "Getting Comfortable on a Bigger Stage. “New York Times [New York] 12 July 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

Wines, Michael. "In China, ‘Audi’ Means ‘Big Shot’." New York Times [New York] 16 November 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

2014 Kia Cadenza Commercial "Impossible to Ignore". 2013. Video. YouTube Web. 21 November 2014. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya17jbkOKDk>.

Modern and Postmodern Rhetoric / Mikhail Bakhtin

                According to Rhetorical Traditions, “at the beginning of the twentieth century, rhetoric appeared to be in decline” (Rhetorical Traditions 1183) and it was no longer present in university. However, even though it became considered an outdated subject for curriculum I feel that rhetoric never can truly decline. Only the institutional study of it. At its most basic level as discussed previously rhetoric is always present in any interaction which involves a position being taken or persuasion taking place. In the later 20^th century however, “philosophers and literary critics rediscovered rhetoric or reinvented it under some other rubric, such as discourse or dialog-ism” (Rhetorical Traditions 1183). This would show in my opinion that rhetoric never really disappeared at all, but was reformed in the modern and postmodern times.

                Mikhail Bakhtin was not one who had a standing in the intellectual academic community, but his “work is fired by his conviction that language and the form it takes can be properly understood only as dialogue” (Rhetorical Traditions 1206). His readings are all but easy to understand in my opinion, but what I got from them was that dialogue occurs when people are able to arguably meet stasis between the reader and the author. It is important in creating an understanding and meaning of a text. Though not considered an academic according to the reading, he did publish many works, however, he did it through publishing aliases. This also could have been because it was not uncommon for him to attack the work of others in his works and it may have been in his interest to remain anonymous. 

Delivery and Memory

Delivery and memory are very important conventions in rhetoric that come into play often. Chapter 12 in ARCS played heavily (or so it seemed) off of the understandings of imitation in chapter 11. Mentioning that ancient rhetors used writing merely to aid them in their memory and delivery abilities as a secondary tool rather than a primary one because according to them, “spoken discourse was infinitely more powerful and persuasive than was written composition” (ARCS 325). Writing was still an emerging technology at least for uses in rhetorical conventions. Hypokrisis (or delivery in ancient Greek) came to later mean actor or the one who acted and this draws an interesting light towards what I mentioned in my last post about plagiarism and imitation. Here it seems that in classical times, delivery was based on memory of imitation which helped one to invent. This chapter also focused on ancient memory systems since it used to be much more important in the day today, whereas now we are externalizing our knowledge as a society. A naïve version of myself might have once argued that this would decrease our memory and science has shown that it does. However, I think that society’s ability to reference information is tenfold beyond what it was before. The internet has allowed us to focus less on the ability to memorize or imitate the actual material but rather now  people are more prone to focusing on the importance of being able to find the material. Education these days (though it may have also been this way in the past) is fully based upon teaching people to find the answers, not necessarily to remember them or invent them. However, this is only my personal opinion and may be a bit of a tangent. What do you guys think about referencing versus memory these days?

Imitation

Chapter 11 focused on Imitation as a means of learning and many ancient scholars noted the ability to imitate as a distinguishing characteristic of humans. This method of learning has been around forever and continues today. However, what I found interesting was that imitation used to be the accepted way of learning something and/or memorizing it. This was because before the advent of text or at least before the implementation of text, people were living in an oral based society and imitation was the only means of learning something.  This meant that people in classical times had an amazing ability to improve and reference their memories. This is especially apparent as noted in ARCS since even the people in classical times that were familiar with text and literate still referred to their vast memory for invention. Additionally, I was unaware of this, but silent reading is a newer phenomenon that was not practiced until recently. The ancient rhetors believed that reading aloud improved ones memory and rhetorical capabilities, but also allowed one to understand the rhythm and style of a piece better. It is important to note that now, instead of imitating or copying, “since ancient times, people have copied out passages from their reading that they wished to remember or to consult later” (ARCS 302).

The issue with this subject that pops into my head relating to modern society is that of plagiarism. Though it may sound unrelated, the reading states that imitation “enables rhetors to recognize and use patterns that they might not otherwise notice” (ARCS 312) and states that using these patterns in ones own writing makes them second nature. However, though the end may be justifiable, the means to get there are not acceptable by today’s standards. By that I mean that if somebody employed patterns found in others work through paraphrasing or other such forms of imitation it may cause one to accidentally copy another’s work without giving credit. I would ask why this wasn’t an issue in classical times, however, I’m sure it was. Today with the internet people are much more able to copy others work, but unlike classical times, it no longer ignites a learning process. This is because of the ever so popular Ctrl C and Ctrl V buttons on computers which allow one to merely copy and paste from works. Even reading a piece and then writing a summary right afterwards can sometimes lead to inadvertent plagiarism, however I feel that the reason it was acceptable in classical times was that in copying someone else’s work it was probably difficult to not at least retain some of it, whereas in modern times imitation is synonymous with laziness due to the luxuries that our technology affords us. 

Style and Ornament

Chapter 10 focuses on style and how ancient rhetoricians devoted a whole section of rhetoric to the arrangements of word which they called style. What I found interesting here was the notion that style is able to be changed and added upon more so than the mere inherent ability to compose something. This reading suggests that the ability to rearrange words to form different styles is something to be used as a persuasive tool. Though it isn’t a surprising statement, when I think of style I think of someone’s natural or inherent abilities and ways of writing or delivering. Though it can be changed, does one ever truly stray from the style of rhetoric that they are comfortable with over time? With the advent of text came the ability to edit and review ones words, and printing them allowed for the composition and structure to be truly broken down and analyzed/categorized. This may have been done on personal levels for rhetoricians, however “no one knows for sure when style emerged as the third cannon of rhetoric” (Crowley 250). Additionally, the onset of text in the modern world allowed for people to learn others styles and systematically understand them.

Another aspect of this reading that was very interesting was that of ornament. Though it is the last in a line of other facets of style, ornament is something that is unusual or extraordinary. Though there was and still is a great amount of debate as to what the terms of ornament mean (Figures of thought, speech, and tropes) they are the part of one’s style that seemingly adds the ever so important oomph. It can be seen here as the part of style that isn’t fully understood at least in classical times. Yes it is easy to put terms to the phenomena of style, but at least in my experience and understanding each person has a noticeable style. This style may follow guidelines of structured style, however, each person differs in their style no matter how much structure and revision is done. Again only my opinion, but something to think about. 

Essay 2- The Church and Printed Text

Saul Greene

11/4/14

English 360-01

The Church and the Advent of the Printed Text

I personally have never experienced an oral based society, and neither have any alive today. At least not your average Joe. People today have only been exposed to text based interaction and communication. Granted there are still elements of orality that exist, but nothing like the days before mainstream text. Now someone can pick up a book written hundreds of years ago and read the author’s thoughts. Text originally allowed for an aftermarket audience, in fact many written texts were sermons or compilations of sermons.  Text still does allow for an aftermarket appeal, but in many ways now more than ever, text is seen as a primary medium to reach an audience instead of an aftermarket model.  So if text changed society in such a profound way then it must have changed rhetoric. Text has changed the art of rhetoric in many ways, however none as profoundly as politics. Politics of classical times were very different from what we see today, in fact for much of the time leading up to the Renaissance the Church was the authority figure. In classical times, there was no separation of religion and state, in fact it wasn’t really present in European politics until the end of the 18^th century. We may think of the reformation as a religious movement, but it was just as much political because the church was a powerful force in governing much of Europe. Printed text originally began as a form of an aftermarket information system, however the church and those alike eventually started to use this aftermarket material as a primary database of sorts for their message, in addition to their use of propaganda as a transition into the use of text over orality.

Our technology golden age is allowing us to use text to download our thoughts in order for a limitless number of others to upload it and even possibly make it their own. This comes with many benefits and many pitfalls. Text changes the way that people interpret rhetorical information, and the way that institutions convey said information. It also causes delivery to become a much more important rhetorical convention. Our text based society has no problem with the framework of using text as the main medium of communication and knowledge, but when printable text first emerged there was a bit of a learning curve for society. Though the advent of print forced the church to give up control of texts and the unilateral ability to control what reached the people the church entered the textual based world quite effectively and efficiently with great success.  Rhetoric through the use of text became a gateway for both the church to attempt to reach people through text and for people to communicate with the masses against the church. Though it may seem that there was the church and those against the church, it was in fact a bit more complex than that. Most people of the time believed in Christianity, there was no doubt about that, however, the opposition was between different sects of Christianity. The devil was in the details so to speak. The onset of text and more importantly literacy, which allowed people to be able to read the text was a groundbreaking change to the way that information was dealt with. The Jesuits taught people to read the bible for themselves in order to aid the individual in their own understanding, rather than having to merely hear or be told the contents of a printed text. Print also "standardized and preserved knowledge which had been much more fluid in the age of oral manuscript circulation" (Briggs & Burke, 2002). Before printed text people weren’t able to express their ideas on a personal level, and the distribution of bibles led to the emergence of new interpretations and formed new sects with partially differing beliefs. This had a snowball effect and was what caused the opposition between certain sects of the church.

When using the word “text” some may become confused since text and writing has been around for thousands of years. However, mass produced text and writing was not available until the creation of the printing press. It would change everything, and Elizabeth Eisenstein wrote on just that subject in The Printing Press as an Agent of Change and The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. These books illustrated the printing presses functions such as the ability to standardize something and retain it as a document forever. They go into detail about how these functions fueled much of the renaissance, and the Protestant Reform. Eisenstein’s works showed the importance of the printing press and how both the church and society adapted to the use of the printing press.

The church jumped on the opportunity to be able to mass produce texts seeing as when the printing press emerged, “Church officials had already hailed the new technology as a gift from god” (Eisenstein 145) because of the ability to use it as previously mentioned in an aftermarket appeal. The Church could now say something and reiterate it later on in printed texts so that it reached more people than just those present at the time.  This helped them in a long term sense when it came to transitioning onto text being a primary source of information. In fact the Church was a large part of the transition. The printing press was also beneficial for those in opposition with other churches of the time.  It was a way of allowing ones arguments to be heard by the masses and it also fueled “the first movement of any kind, religious or secular, to use the new presses for overt propaganda and agitation against an established institution” (Eisenstein 145). Rhetoric is all about reaching the people that one is trying to persuade. Before this revolution, one’s ability to gauge an audience merely depended on the people present. With the advent of mass texts came a larger challenge in reaching ones audience since it would be hard to determine all who would read the text over time seeing as text is permanent and can be around long after one’s own time. This is one of many ways that the implementation of text affected and changed rhetoric.

An interesting aspect of text based rhetoric that Eisenstein touches on is propaganda. The ability to spread lies and deceit to the masses was capitalized by all who were able at the time since it had such a profound rhetorical appeal. However, since the transition to literacy had only recently began, certain reformers who claimed to be revolutionaries “left ineradicable impressions in the form of broadsides and caricatures” (Eisenstein 145) as propaganda to reach the masses since most were not literate immediately after the emergence of the printing press. Printing presses could be used to make mass produced posters and pamphlets of propaganda caricatures and such. Even today some of the most effective rhetoric is presented in the form of pictures and visuals. However, in classic times the idea of political correctness existed only in avoiding insulting the church for one’s safety. Peter Ramus was a good example of someone that did not follow the guidelines for being politically correct in his time eventually being exiled and killed. These days one can lose a great deal of credibility and appeal if the audience does not find a work to be politically correct because our society values equality and democracy (where everyone supposedly has a voice) rather than the status quo of classical times which was a monarchy based society and equality was accepted as being nonexistent. 

Though any church could now arguably print their bible the use of print wasn’t necessarily used to spread the love of god and his message, rather, text was used in many cases to supposedly shed “the light of true religion to a god fearing people”( Eisenstein 147). This was their ethos or credibility, god. God was who the church always called on for their sense of divinely affirmed credibility. The fear of god was much easier to put forth to society rather than the love of god mostly because there were many other “revolutionaries” of the time who preached about the good that their ideas had to offer. The church relied upon their past credibility throughout history and their pathetic appeal in a sense. The pathetic appeal however would not be one of a positive nature, but rather the previously mentioned a fear of god.

One of the most basic aspects of the printing press and rhetoric had to do with reaching the people. Sure a picture was universally understood, but what about texts that were formed from words? People needed to read the texts in their own language to be able to truly receive the message that was being conveyed. This was why Eisenstein mentions the importance of translation to the spread of the bible as a text. The advent of text affected not only rhetoric on the level of the specific text, but also the ways that people communicated and worked with one another rhetorically. By that I am referring to the necessity to translate and share ideas between different editors and translators. Hearing others ideas and beliefs became more socially acceptable since printed text allowed and required people to hear one another’s ideas. Even if the person translating did not agree with the text being translated, one had to at least show a certain level of submission to others ideas, even if only to gain a great enough understanding to translate the piece. This was mostly due to the fact that a translation and a transliteration are different things. Sure anyone could transliterate each word of a piece into their language but in a translation the ideas and undertones must carry over also. Though it may seem simple, translating a text into a different language was also in essence translating the text into a different culture. This is made especially difficult by the fact that rhetorical styles and focuses may differ between texts and cultures.

Overall when assessing the affect that text had on rhetoric it is important to note the political scenario of the times. Printed text originally began as a form of an aftermarket information system, however the church and those alike eventually started to use this aftermarket material as a primary database of sorts for their message, in addition to their use of propaganda as a transition into the use of text over orality. The advent of the printing press allowed for change to occur and rhetoric to evolve into something that would never be the same, it was only however due to the fact that there were winds of change already blowing that the printing press took such hold. There is no doubt that text creating a change in rhetoric would occur, but the political and social scenario of the time fueled the progression and evolution of rhetoric in text.  This is the case for many iconic technologies, the internet or one is the example of a new medium in modern times with which to use rhetoric and it has also definitely changed rhetoric in many ways. These days we still see the conflict between the use of rhetoric for pro and anti-political issues, however with the separation of church and state there are differences between modern and classical times. This is made especially apparent by the fact that the church has not done a great job adapting to a world based on the internet as they did with the transition from oral based literacy to text based literacy.

Works Cited

Briggs, Asa and Burke, Peter(2005) A Social History of the Media: from Gutenberg to the Internet(second Edition) Polity, Cambridge.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Vol. 1. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge UP, 1983. 145-185. Print.