A Very Relevant Text, Even in Modern Times

Watt’s text Story-List-Sanction: A Cross-Cultural Strategy of Ancient Persuasion is the first text up to this point that I have understood the purpose of reading. It may be because it finally has to do with something that is familiar to me, namely persuasion. I find it interesting that there are so many examples of the story-list-sanction strategy from ancient times, as it is quite similar to the way many would use rhetoric in their daily life today, without even being aware of it. A mother would for example tell her child not to put that piece of Lego in their mouth (story) because the child would possibly swallow it, which would lead to pain on the child’s part (sanction). Like many of the examples Watt provides in the text, one of the tools may be omitted, and may not necessarily use the complete pattern. The Greek were not too fond of rhetoric, as we already know, and especially not of the persuasive aspect. They thought it was only useful to “…manipulate an audience’s emotions…” (Watts 208) and for the telling of actual truth. To me that is exactly what rhetoric is all about, for the most part. Not necessarily in an evil manner, but for one individual to be able to convince another individual of something. It is how we live and learn from each other.

This text shows that there are even are ties to today’s use of rhetoric all the way from ancient times. Even though the ancient time rhetoric was mostly just spouting of how much the kings, priests and land-owners owned and how it was made, followed by a “Dare those who destroy my property!” speech, it still does follow a pattern that is useable today. The ancient time story-list-sanction strategy was mostly used to manipulate the masses with fear of gods, which honestly is not very unlike how many religious extremists brainwash their ranks today. Do anything to further the god, because the god is righteous and can never be wrong(story). He has done this this and this and created the world for you. You are the chosen people to do his bidding and cleanse the world of scum (list). If you do not do as the god says, you will end up like every other heathen and go to hell (sanction).

Turning a Critical Eye to Watts

I try to approach texts with an open mind which often means I accept what I read with few qualms. However, this was not the case for James Watts' "Story-List-Sanction." I felt the piece was difficult to access, and found myself resisting his arguments because of this.

Overall, I feel like Watts makes some wide generalizations which oversimplify his subject. First look at his word choice. He makes claims like, "Two purposes clearly motivated the writing of Kurigalzu's inscription" (199), or "The inscription's rhetoric is clearly directed at future kings and their officials" (199). For one, if he is stating his argument is obvious, or clear, then why does he need to spend 14 pages explaining it? I think these kinds of statements distance the reader from the writer, setting a kind of hierarchy where the author is full of knowledge and the reader is there to absorb it.

I also found difficulty moving into Watts' argument itself, which is where his over-generalizations become more evident. He makes bold claims concerning the intent of authors and the aims of texts, for example on page 204 when he says, "the lists aim to dictate present behavior," or "memorializing the founding king or deity is a major rhetorical goal motivating all of these texts." These kinds of claims are bold, as we are not actually able to know the intent of an author inaccessible to us; we can only speak about how the texts function and the kinds of effects they might have had, not the effects they actually had. Like William Hallo said in "The Birth of Rhetoric," problems with studying these ancient texts include assessing the impact on a presumed audience, as this kind of data is not typically available (25).

There are moments where Watts seems to nod toward the complexity of the issue. An example of this occurs on page 206 when he says “[the story-list-sanction] strategy is not typical of any particular textual genre in any of these cultures, but seems rather to have been adopted ad hoc to enhance the persuasiveness of particular texts.” In this instance, Watts does not make an assuming description of the texts, but rather suggests what might be the case: it seems as though the strategy is used ad hoc. More language like this would have bettered his argument as it would have appreciated the nature of the subject more fully.

Despite my resistance to Watts piece, I was able to glean yet another view about rhetorical strategies in ancient texts, however I feel his argument canvases all ancient texts. This generalization, I feel, cannot be accurate, as we are considering a huge span of time as well as numerous geographically separated cultures (another problem, he doesn’t orient us to his specific culture or time of study, it is only “ancient Near Eastern rhetoric,” p 197). 

Collective Consciousness

Overall I didn’t particularly enjoy Watts’ style of writing, I found it repetitive, and uninteresting especially when compared to some of the other reading we have been doing recently. However, there is one point that Watts brought up that I found particularly interesting. Towards the end of the article Watts states: “Political speeches often preserve the full story-list-sanction form through out their evocation of the past and their use of promises and warning to motivate particular courses of action in the present.” (Watts, 209) This concept got me thinking about the concept of collective consciousness. The collective consciousness is the idea of a unifying force that causes all members of a society have similar ideas.

Do politicians continue to use this ancient style of rhetoric because they know of it through thousands of years of rhetorical study? Or is this style of rhetoric (and any style of rhetoric really) engrained into the human consciousness? 

Lets say that rhetoric is apart of the collective consciousness and it makes its self most prevalent in those with leadership oriented personalities, e.g. kings, priests, politicians. Which is why we find rhetoric, especially this story-list-sanction style that Watts explains, scattered throughout history. It is a very effective style of rhetoric that non-leadership personalities are susceptible to. Which make this story-list-sanction style of rhetoric very persuasive and highly effective when used as political propaganda.  

The Art of Persuasion and Its Recurring Theme in Rhetorics

To be quite honest I was not too impressed with this reading, the beginning was very repetitive; yet -- to his credit -- Watts provides distinct examples of his story-list-sanction platform. However, as the writing progresses, Watts certainly discusses some more interesting things, especially when concerning persuasion. Furthermore, I also like how Watts describes (on page 197 and 198) stories-lists-sanctions as influencing modern rhetorics through a roundabout way of influencing Christianity and Judaism. Since, those two religions influenced modern rhetorics, or were influenced by our discussion of Aristotelian or western rhetorics.

However, this constant theme of persuasion and its influence on rhetorics is starting to wear a bit thin on me. I understand that these texts seem to have a centralizing theme of persuading the desired audience, but I feel like anything can be thrown into the realm of persuasion if one is seeking such a relation. For example, I could say to my general audience that I am a distinguished beer connoisseur, or more simply that I like to drink beer, then list off some of my ideas of good beer to drink. In no way am I clearly stating a desire to persuade people to listen to me and my ideas about good beer. I am simply stating that I like to drink beer, and here's some of the beers I like to drink. The audience can infer that I am trying to persuade them to drink those beers based off of my knowledge about beer, but that's the audience's inference.

Regardless, it must be stated that there certainly seems to be some evidence of a persuasive tactic involved with these texts, especially with the concluding sanction and the realized "threats" that these sanctions infer. These threats certainly give the impression of persuasion by force. However, I am inclined to think that they were more in place as a means of protecting reputation, and were more self-motivated by the kings themselves in an attempt to form legacy, and ultimately reach a level of immortality through fame. I am not just claiming this off-hand because the Epic of Gilgamesh certainly follows this pattern. Gilgamesh is an arrogant king who wants immortality more than anything else. He realizes he cannot achieve actual immortality, but can leave a legacy behind, which is the only means man has to eternity; as such, he changes his arrogant ways and the epic ends as it begins: discussing the great things Gilgamesh has offered to the city of Uruk.

As such, these kings must have been aware of successors and the potential threats that they posed. In light of these inevitabilities, and the certain cultural awareness of the gods and their powers, kings or other writers of these texts used these threats in intellectual fashion. A clearly self-motivated attempt to protect their legacy from the inevitability of time's decay. Besides, Watts states clearly "it is... difficult to judge their [stories-lists-sanctions] effectiveness at encouraging and discouraging certain behaviors in their readers" (Watts 205). To me, this frames these rhetorical strategies as something of an unproven and certainly risky mode of operation for the ones employing this style. They were unclear whether or not their threats would be received as idle or serious; yet, were still inclined to lay these threats in writing.

Why? Desperateness? Again, the human is a self-motivated existence, and even when acting altruistically, there is often times some underlying motivator for the self. Maybe that's all that rhetorics is: an attempt to define oneself as different from the society around them through the eloquent use of language and relatable features to their inherent culture.

We all want to leave a mark. I ride by dusty cars on my bike all the time and leave my fingerprints behind in a streak because it's a minimal mark, but it's something left behind. My final question, how could someone leave a lasting mark if there is an individual always waiting to do it better? Perhaps that's what defined these rhetorical strategies: some sort of self-centered motivation for immortality.

As Usual: The Surprise of Non-Greek Rhetoric

                Throughout our class so far we’ve been trying to define rhetoric, with it being something more than simple persuasion. We’ve gone through many definitions, with the simplest and most-encompassing one being the art of communication as a whole. In this chapter, however, Watts narrows it down to being specifically the art of persuasion. He then takes a common formula used in many cultures and simplifies it into three parts: story, list, and sanction.

                There are many, many times when this formula is used to persuade people in a culture, and with good reason. While the early Greeks didn’t agree with the use of either story or sanctions in rhetoric, other cultures did find them effective. Starting with a narrative is especially important. Narrative engages the audience, allowing them to really connect with and understand an argument. Once the readers are engaged, the narrative is followed by a list, adding evidence/reason to what the narrative has already introduced, and then adding a sanction to agree with, obey, or not interfere just adds assurances to what the reader should now believe. It makes sense that this formula is common throughout so many cultures- it’s a formula that works.

                Of course, since the Greeks are what’s most commonly discussed when talking about rhetoric, this theme is not as commonly known as it should be. It’s used in so many cultures, and has affected western rhetoric, and yet we don’t even realize it. We base so much of our rhetorical discourse on the Greek model, but in this case, the Greeks are the exception, and other cultures are the rule. Babylon, Egypt, Israel, Mesopotamia, and others all used this in various contexts- to persuade their own people as well as others, such as foreign armies and leaders. These texts were used to warn people off, to prevent the expropriation of land, to protect temples, to build up kings and threaten enemies with both earthly and divine promises of destruction upon attack. The story-list-sanction formula held wide influence in ancient societies, and is still having an effect after all this time. The bible uses it regularly,  politicians use it to persuade the public, and many don’t even realize that such a specific formula is even at play, because they haven’t been educated about any rhetoric except that of the Greeks.

As usual, anything that falls outside the Greek model of rhetoric is catching us by surprise. 

The Importance of Narrative in Rhetoric

 It was not until I read three fourths of Watt's essay that I found something worthy of comment, but after I read the entire text I realized just how important the essay is as a whole. One thing that really stood out to me was the mention of Aristotle's opinion on narrative in rhetorical work. In the past I have always believed that a story is not necessary in a rhetorical piece. "Aristotle's elevation of reason over narration..."(208) made sense to me up until now. To be honest I really had not considered the contrast between a narrative piece of rhetoric or a non-narrative piece until reading this essay. Of course it makes sense that I would have a predisposed view that agrees with Aristotle, for I have always been taught in the Aristotelian ways of rhetoric and therefore my past agrees with him. Now that I have read through Watt's essay I better understand that while Aristotle's point on the narrative is valid, there are also various points which work to prove that a story line is almost mandatory in some methods of persuasion. Every rhetorical piece aims to persuade it's audience, yet each piece has a different way of doing so. In this essay, Watt's ability to exemplify the theory of story-list-sanction causes the reader (me) to establish different views on how a rhetorical piece can be constructed. While my thoughts were scattered throughout the reading and I had a hard time developing a position to take, I realized one crucial point. While this may seem obvious now, it was not so obvious before this semester began; the point being that we must put aside our ideas of rhetoric and explore outside of Aristotelian forms. The world outside of Aristotelian rhetoric is deep and complex and offers many different discourse regimes that we, as American students, may have never realized in the past. The goal of rhetoric as told by Watts is to, "influence it's audiences ideas and behaviors." While this goal is widely accepted the methods that exist to obtain this goal are varied and wide spread. It is our job, as students of rhetoric to understand that the deeper we dive into various methods, the more complex our history of rhetoric will become. Yet hopefully in complicating our understanding of traditional rhetoric we are able to construct a definition of rhetoric that is all our own. Whether it involves mass amounts of narrative in order to become popular or is purposefully academic, we are able to discover within ourselves the ability to construct and understand the types of rhetoric and discursive regimes that will eventually mold who we are as rhetoricians in the future.

A Series of Questions

In the beginning when reading Story- List- Sanction: A Cross-Cultural Strategy of Ancient Persuasion by James E. Watts, I was struggling to understand why this was relevant for rhetoric’s and myself.  James E. Watts defines rhetoric (in this paper) as: “including any and all forms of persuasion” (Watts, 197), and he is looking at the rhetoric of ancient Near East and eastern Mediterranean. The questions I was pondering was: Why the story, list and sanction rhetoric’s relevant? Are the kings aware that they are using rhetorical strategies, even though the definition does not exist? Through our readings it has become apparent that rhetoric has been important long before the Greeks, but at the same time, the Greeks reflected and asked philosophical questions, which have lead to the understanding we use today.

            Is not the story – list – sanction rhetoric too basic? When talking to a child you have to explain why (by telling a story), give examples (list) and then tell them about the consequences (sanction), which is what I feel like they did. Aristotle´s opinion of the story is that “narration introductory and superfluous, necessary only for “weak” audiences incapable of grasping the logic of enthymemic proof” (Watts, 207). Plato sees their rhetoric as a way of scaring and manipulating the audience (Watts, 208). This is a good description of what we have learned from James E. Watts. Because they used it to explain the past, present and future, and their goal was that they would obey and listen to the texts.

On a different note, I found this really interesting, because it shows that it is relevant and how the rhetoric of the different cultures and times where intertwined (like it is today). Their recognition of it makes it important and the fact is that it is still relevant today: both law and politics. This post might only be me clearing my mind, but I am starting to understand the importance of what we read and why we read it. When looking the rhetoric practiced by the Royalty it shows their strategies of manipulation, and also how it has been an important part in many cultures.  

Take a Look Into the Mirror of Propaganda

     Is propaganda the oldest form of rhetoric? Watts makes a strong claim that story, list, sanction is a rhetorical device used in some fashion sporadically throughout the history of texts. In fact, we can recall that Enheduanna uses story and a form of sanction (I would argue) in her text though her sanction is different from others presented by Watts. Enheduanna sanctions herself by "infusing" her heart with a god's.
     Watts claims that "Persuasion motivated the creation of many ancient Near Eastern texts. This is especially true of royal inscriptions, whose concerns range from preservation of the inscription itself to dynastic propaganda" (197). I would argue that the preservation of text is propaganda, so that propaganda is in fact a main aim in public texts using the story, list, sanction method. We can only speculate as to how this came to be, but as Watts points out, religion/myth is a main driver of this rhetorical device.
     Myth is humankind's attempt to understand that which it cannot, and usually finding ways to rationalize powerful forces that humankind experienced from day-to-day. Naturally, these forces would be attributed great power (the sun brought light and warmth, but also death without water). The moment that humans began to tell stories of myth, they created propaganda, or maybe it was the invention of sanctions that created the first propaganda. We will never know, but our obsession with wielding unfathomable power is released in the form of sanctions. No doubt the first person to utter that they will invoke the power of  the sun to smite their enemy gained an unheard of psychological edge in battle. But really this/these persons were simply using the first form of propaganda.
     Today, we use sanctions in various forms (as Watts points out), but he fails to note the shift that has occurred in modern society. Where he points to political and religious examples, he glosses over the great new sanction—the individual.
     We have created a narrative in Western society that the individual is their own God (of sorts), and in doing so, we call up sanctions regularly to praise or curse those that challenge this ultimate sanction. The individual has a dual plurality in that it is a visible (through our bodies), and yet is still so unknown to all of us. The individual is the ultimate propaganda. You are the ultimate propaganda.

Ranting Shenanigans of Watt and Cultural Politics...Maybe?

I enjoyed Watts definition of rhetoric- the art of persuasion. He applies this definition of rhetoric to numerous ways of studying rhetoric: "oral practices and written texts world wide," and "cultural differences and genre." (197). Since, many of the cultures of which this book looks at are nonexistent, we rely heavily on what artifacts remain in order to develop an understanding of their culture. Even though Watts uses the classical way of analyzing his pieces, he focuses on audience; which leads to a new understanding of culture and values. 

          I believe that going back to a simplified definition of rhetoric as Watts has done, it allows rhetorers to understand more than what the piece is saying and trying to achieve. The art of persuasion definition creates a world of rhetoric that develops a deeper cultural meaning of cultures that are very much long gone and we do not have anyone to ask what it is like there. However, through viewing the purpose of the speech or text from locations like Mesopotamia the focal purpose of the piece represents the culture because of whom the audience is. Through the audience, we in modern times understand the culture of Mesopotamia more. If rhetorers looked more towards this meaning of rhetoric rather than the other sub-genres of classical rhetoric: 5 cannons, 3 appeals, and quantitative versus qualitative (as described by Toye).  Of course, there are more pieces to rhetoric in Toye’s book; however, it all funnels in to the receiving group of the piece- the audience.

           The audience allows for the use of numerous lenses of study depending on what the topic at hand is. These lenses provide multiple perspectives on audience because not all pieces have a single audience, especially political ones – both sides of the argument read each other’s publications as a way to persuade their audience to their side of the polls. Watts in his article describes the hierarchy of the king through how he gains support through his connections with the gods (199). It leads me to questioning the motive of rhetorical culture studies; does rhetorers only view rhetoric from dead societies that primarily produce pieces that make their king appear very supreme, rather than human and simple like the rest of the society?

          Is the writing nothing more than propaganda for support for the king for the time, rather than another lens to view their culture in order to analyze and understand the culture?

Don't Ignore Enheduanna!: A Rant

Last night, for a Lit class, I read Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem titled “Beware!” Here’s an excerpt:

I know a maiden fair to see,

Take care!

She can both false and friendly be,

Beware! Beware!

Trust her not,

She is fooling thee!

                I couldn’t help but think of some rhetorician saying this after reading The Exaltation of Inanna by Enheduanna.

                In reading the Octalogs, I definitely got the sense that the old Greek men influenced modern day rhetoric. I didn’t realize to what extent, though, until reading this article. It’s so fascinating to me that Mesopotamian rhetoric influenced Grecian rhetoric but the same values from Western culture are applied when analyzing Mesopotamian works, thus this self-aware and influential woman is ignored.

                In Feminist Writings, from Ancient Times to the Modern World edited by Tiffany K. Wayne, Enheduanna’s legacy is explained, which “The Rhetoric of Origins and the Other: Reading the Ancient Figure of Endheduanna” didn’t cover as much. “Enheduanna is the first writer, man or woman, to assert authorship of a work. Until she did so, all work was anonymous” (4). Not only that, but The Exaltation of Inanna is 1,500 years older than the Odyssey, the Iliad, and the Bible.

                It’s clear to me that this is a text which should be given much more attention than it has by contemporary rhetoricians, simply because of the unique perspective and the age. Another reason was added when I started researching what about this text made it rhetorical. Binkley made it very clear that in reading this text, the audience can explore the Other and I knew it was a poetic piece worshipping Inanna. I didn’t feel that I was getting the whole picture, especially after, on page 49, Binkley says “she steps forward in first person to tell her own interweaving story of political rebellion, and her banishment.” Sure enough, she provided support for her father Sargon who was uniting city-states into the first Mesopotamian Empire, which even by Western rhetoric standards, is significant.

                I know that this blog post was essentially just a rant about the extent that Enheduanna shouldn’t be ignored, but I think there’s more at stake than my own feminist anger. Especially in the modern day climate with the Middle East on center stage, isn’t it important for rhetoricians and historians alike to consider every aspect of their history (and our own) to look at how things got this way? On page 59, it says that “Aristotle doubts that they (women) have a soul.” Longfellow, hundreds of years later, wonders whether they can be trusted. These stereotypes are still resonating in the modern world. How are the views of women in ancient Mesopotamia resonating in the Middle East?

Similar but opposite

I found it most interesting that the story of Enheduanna almost serves as an origin story or folk tale of rhetoric. She evidently questioned a preexisting theme of rhetoric that was similar to the Greeks, even though this was happening 2000 years before. She pleaded to her Goddess, Inanna, in a similar fashion that Greeks use to do.

Another thing that was mentioned that I think is worth discussing, is the loose translation of her hyms referring a rebellion. I understood it as a rhetorical situation where she may have spoken out against something that was perhaps a rhetorical topic.

The largest contrast that I found would be that Sumerian history and culture is likely to be genderless, since it does not have gender distinctions in its language (56). This speculation would explain why Enheduanna is presented as more of a significant player in this story than history has in the past. It even argues that she claimed to be a high priest, then banished, and then pleading to Inanna as her aid. On top of that, as I see it, she may have plotted something of a rebellion, or perhaps acted as a ‘whistleblower’ of some kind.

In any regard, this backstory illustrates a major similarity and difference between Sumerian and Athenian rhetoric. Both societies evidently involved oral rhetorical speaking where Sumerian rhetors would be rhetorical with each other by giving speeches and dialogs, that would almost certainly have involved “The Gods”. The difference is that women are as part of the rhetorical situation and on equal terms for Sumerian rhetoric. We all know that Athenian rhetoric was in a way gender bias, which was something that transcends through Western tradition (also noted in 56). This contradiction may have something to do with the fact that the Sumerian culture is much older than the Greek culture (more mature perhaps?)

A problematic text

Throughout this text I could not shake the feeling that it was very contradictory. The first example of this I noticed was in the third paragraph. Binkley says, “I use the traditional conceptual terminology of Aristotelian rhetoric”. Although she uses this terminology, she is attempting to define parts of the Other, which is contradictory to Aristotelian rhetoric. This goes back to the conversation we were having in class on Thursday, of how closely we hold onto an Aristotelian and Greek definition of rhetoric, and how it forms most of the rhetoric we study and use.

            One question I must ask before I return to more problems I saw with this text is the part where Binkley on page 48 talks about text that was recorded on clay tablets instead of on papyrus and vellum. My question, as it says that these clay tablets were much more permanent than say, papyrus and vellum, is how did this change the rhetoric recorded on the different mediums? I would think that the clay must have been much harder to come by and produce. Also if it is more permanent, were the stakes higher? Were there only important things recorded on these tablets?

            Back to my idea about how this text was quite contradictory. We see Mesopotamia mentioned quite a few times. At the end of a section titled, Origins in Assyriology and Rhetoric it is stated, “the fact remains that neither Mesopotamia nor Enheduanna have anything to do with the formation of rhetoric nor any relevance to the origins of rhetoric.” (Pg. 54). In the section just before this one it is stated, “Cuneiform script, writing characterized by the use of a stylus and crosshatching on clay, developed early in this area and came to be used for the next three thousand years as the script for a number of languages.” (Pg. 48).  This seems to be quite problematic in junction with the statement that Mesopotamia has nothing to do with rhetoric, as cuneiform was created in Mesopotamia. On top of this, every part of human interaction whether verbal or non verbal has created more knowledge, therefore becoming part of the narrative of humanity. With that said, Mesopotamia does in fact certainly matter to the formation of rhetoric.

            Lastly, it is said that, “The Mesopotamian record particularly Enheduanna, brings into question many western scholarly assumptions regarding definition of the body, its materiality, and gendered identity, assumptions that became part of the western text.” (Pg. 56). If this is true, then this again contradicts the statement that Mesopotamia and Enheduanna had nothing to do with rhetoric. If they are a part of western text, or better yet, the western narrative, then both Mesopotamia and Enheduanna are certainly a part in forming rhetoric.

            Overall, I learned a bit from this text but I mainly just became upset at the contradictory nature of it.

Gender, Crossing Boundaries & Enheduanna

I initially found Binkley's statement, "Crossing disciplinary boundaries, I find that embedded within the methodologies of my own area of rhetoric are often unstated, and frequently unconscious, theoretical assumptions," (47) to be especially interesting. Since taking my first class in rhetoric, I have been thinking about how we can look at something and set aside the assumptions that are so deeply embedded in our minds aside. Even how we are introduced to rhetoric in school plants the initial idea that the Greeks were the beginning of rhetoric and we are given the base knowledge of what Plato and the following created as Western rhetoric. How would our ideas change if we were first taught about Mesopotamia first and then the Greeks? Binkley brings up, “In Assyriology, the narratives around origins become problematized by the beginning of the discipline itself in the nineteenth century with its early scholarly roots embedded in nationalism and colonialism” (51). If these weren’t the roots we are already predisposed to how differently would we see things?

The fact that Enheduanna is a woman is also obviously worth focusing on. The fact that traditional Western rhetoric did not focus on women partially explains why Enheduanna does not hold a place within that discourse. Basically, rhetoric was denying other rhetoric, which is a rhetorical move in itself. It is interesting then to consider the idea Binkley brings up that much of the Greek intellectual and literary tradition was influenced by Egypt and Mesopotamia. The image of the barbaric “others” compared to the civilized Greeks is another interesting angle to consider in relation to the roots of traditional Western rhetoric. If other ancient cultures were painted as being barbaric then people would not want to consider their ideas.

Another interesting point is that he Mesopotamians believed that the human body was a genderless creation. When compared to our world where genders are clearly distinguished in language, this would have shaped how Enheduanna viewed herself, how she created language and how she received it. If this was an element traceable to traditional Western rhetoric, how did gender become so important? Obviously gender is highly related to power, which is a deep root in traditional Western rhetoric, but considering Enheduanna puts a new spin on things.

In Binkley’s conclusion, she points out that whether or not Enheduanna was actually the first author is not the point. What matters is that we read things questioningly. We have been taught that the Greeks were the creators of rhetoric and I had never questioned this. If women like Enheduanna may have been valuable parts of an intellectual tradition before the Greeks, we can use them as a window through which to view the rhetoric of women in other times.

Enheduanna: Real or Fictional?

Alexandra Hinchcliff

     After reading through this chapter, I was intrigued by the male/female roles in rhetoric that is presented to the readers. In this chapter we see that Enheduanna is the author of her hymns/personal narrative/praise to the goddess. No other explanations is given about the authorship but yet because she is a women living in a time before Greek rhetoric it is a possibility that she is fictional. On the other hand there is Plato; he has no surviving work of his own. The only reason we know of Plato is because of his students and yet it is not questioned if he was real or not.

     The dominant discourse that is Greek rhetoric makes it impossible to conceive that a Mesopotamian woman was educated in reading and writing and held the honored position of high priestess. Thus obstructing any contributions that Enheduanna might have on both the historical and rhetorical lens of Mesopotamia: “the primary controversy around Enheduanna appears to be whether or not she existed as an actual person. Thus the implications of her context, her work, herself, and her rhetorical context have not been explored to any great extent” (52). On the previous page, it states that her existence is accepted within the discipline of Assyriology. And yet Enheduanna cannot be found in Mesopotamian literature because of Greek discourse that states that women have no agency.

     At the beginning of the chapter Roberta Binkley defines rhetoric as “inscribing the relationship of power and language” (48). Stated in the previous paragraphs one can see the relationship of power where old Greek men define the boundaries of Rhetoric and status of women. Binkley’s other definition of rhetoric about language is just another on a list that “others” women into a column of non-existence. “the Sumerian language has no grammatical gender” (56). This concept of an ungendered language liberates women from the subjugation of men which is shown in this chapter of Mesopotamian women have just as much agency but when applied through a Western Rhetorical lens we get this oppression of women through a gendered language. Which in essence changes the meaning of the Sumerian language and makes the translations inaccurate and meaningless. In the example we are given of Enheduanna’s work the phrase “oh exalted Lady” is used which show readers the manipulation of Sumerian language to fall under the dominant discourse of Western society.

     I pose this question: Is Plato fictional or does Western Discourse make him real?

Embodied

The ideas proposed in the essay "The Rhetoric of Origins and the Other: Reading the Ancient Figure of Enheduanna" by Roberta Binkley were fascinating. The idea of embodiment in Binkley's text relates to "The Circulation of Discourse through the Body" by Jay Dolmage that was part of the third Octolog. Both articles discussed the importance of the body; Binkley's article contrasts the difference between the traditional Athenian rhetoric where Dolmage wishes to bring the body back into our rhetoric. These articles reveal the circle our ideals are turning. We are beginning, although slowly, to remember the rhetoric of the past.
We are obsessed with our bodies in almost all our forms of discourse. How we present ourselves matter almost if not more importantly than what we say. Binkley points out that in Enheduanna's time and in her own work, she and her people believed that the mind and body were connected, not separated as we attempt to show nowadays. Even so, our body heavily influences our audience. A slob will not win the audience's respect. Beauty in a women is used as a praise and manipulation for body standard even as it is used to disqualify women from having serious opinions. How people look and use their bodies persuades and influences people; how they look gives us a stereotype and reaction just from a glance. Our bodies cannot be separated from how we are received, no matter how much we say otherwise.
I think focusing on this idea, recognizing how looks affect how we react can help us see past looks to the message and be critical of the meaning of how people look and present themselves. If we can be aware of how our bodies affect our discourse, we will be able to more affectively present ourselves in a way that best persuades our audience.

"The Other"

In Roberta Binkley's essay "The Rhetoric or Origins and the Other: Reading the Ancient Figure of Enheduanna", I was immediately intrigued by the Other stated in the title. My first experience learning about the Other was in my sophomore English class in high school. We were reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley and our teacher described Frankenstein’s monster as “the Other”—something alien to us and un-relatable to our idea of identity. Because the monster had human-like qualities but was out of proportion and visually unappealing he was viewed as below human and then labeled as such. It has since then fascinated me about what else is considered the Other in books or even in life.

Binkley describes how the Other in rhetoric could be “of another period, place, culture, gender, and spiritual tradition” (47). He uses the princess Enheduanna's writing, which is considered "Other" according to traditional Athenian rhetoric, and he takes a closer look at her geographical position, gender, and religion to determine why she is considered the Other.

According to Binkley, the “civilizations of the ancient world were deeply interconnected” (54), but I think it is interesting that now they seem so separate. All the civilizations influenced each other’s rhetoric, but as we study it they all are categorized into their specific places according to the map. Mesopotamia reminds me a lot of the island Rhodes, the rhetoric seems to be focused externally for communication. However, even though the civilizations were interconnected through trade and war, Mesopotamia and other places, such as Egypt, were still the Other—not Greek.

Another factor that Binkley contributes to the label of “Other” with Enheduanna’s writing is her gender. In ancient Mesopotamia, the people looked “outside the system of binary gender” (56), unlike the Greeks. It doesn’t surprise me that this view of gender would separate the Greeks from Mesopotamia. Gender opinions can be linked with personal beliefs, even in today’s society, so for two different cultures to have completely different views makes sense that they could not relate on that issue, and, therefore, saw one another as the Other.

From this essay, Binkley reminds me to look out for what is considered the Other in rhetoric. He prompts readers and rhetoricians to be aware of non-traditional Athenian rhetoric and to examine why it is considered “Other” and to even take it a step further and argue that it isn’t the Other just because it doesn’t fit into the “tradition” of rhetoric. As I move forward in the readings in Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks I truly hope to examine the before and beyond, because Greek rhetoric is only one small aspect of all there is.

Enheduanna and Origins: Analysis

Brett Nelson

            The main thoughts I took away from today’s reading was that Enheduanna, although largely ignored, challenges the prevailing assumptions that Athenian theories of rhetoric are the core and the origin of rhetorical studies and the first to define rhetorical concepts; Enheduanna employed rhetorical strategies and concepts two thousand years before Plato and Aristotle’s posse did. My conceptions are that she may have been ignored in these times because women had little authority and recognition in this area, at this time, as Roberta Binkley touches on throughout the reading. On page (53) Binkley points out the assumptions that “women did not participate in power (no agency) and had no voice (no subjectivity).” And yet, Binkley shows how Enheduanna is a powerful rhetorician and employs all three persuasive elements of Athenian rhetoric: (pathos, ethos, and logos,) in her Exaltation of Inanna that was later defined by the Greeks centuries later.

            As far as the topic of origins, I like how Binkley described origins as narratives of tradition, or stories we tell ourselves about our beginnings. I think that personal narratives are an important study in its own right, and I appreciate how Binkley brought this idea of narratives into the discussion as well.

            The fact we are breaking boundaries in this class as far traditional (Athenian) rhetoric goes, is wise and appealing overall. I definitely appreciate Athenian rhetorical studies and find them important and entertaining, but I am now realizing that there is much more to rhetorical studies than that of Plato and Aristotle. They are arguably, the champions of some of these concepts, for sure, but they are not the only ones that were immersed in these concepts. The themes and concepts of rhetorical discourse are still new enough to me that I believe I am still in the introductory stages of learning of rhetorical discourses and strategies; what I mean is that, it is good we are looking outside of Athenian rhetoric so that we don’t fall into the trap of assuming that Athenian rhetoric is the only true form of rhetoric, or the core and origin of rhetoric, as Binkley and others attempt to prove otherwise.

            Overall, from what I gathered from the reading, Enheduanna had some interesting rhetorical strategies of her own, and I am curious why she is not studied and brought into more conversations of rhetoric. I think this is why we establish these conceptions of “armchair” Athenian rhetoric as being the dominant and most important form.