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.
You mentioned that since many of the students in this class, myself included, are just beginning to really dive into rhetoric and its concepts for the first time, it's a good thing that we're looking at non-Aristotelian rhetorics now. This isn't something that I'd thought about specifically, but I definitely agree. As a general rule, when someone talks about rhetoric, the first thought into people's minds is of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates- there's a very specific image connected with the word rhetoric. I'm certainly guilty of this, as I'm sure many others in our class are as well, which is why it's a good thing that almost as soon as we began to be actually educated in rhetoric, we are not restricted just to these "standard" versions of it. If we spent this class only looking at the classic old, white Greek men that may have been expected, that assumption that they're all there is would have been reinforced, and learning to accept others later on would have been more difficult. As it stands, learning about rhetorics from different people, of different genders, in different areas and different time periods allows for a much broader and deeper understanding of rhetoric right from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also agree. It is incredibly beneficial to look at a variety of cultures of rhetoric at an early time in our rhetorical studies, as this might help us from continuing the stereotype of armchair rhetoric and old white men arguing about manly things.
ReplyDeleteThis is particularly important for those of us experiencing the birth of our rhetorical studies (as it sounds a number of us are new to rhetoric).
I like how you bring Binkley's idea of origins into your discussion, as I too found that thought provoking. You described origins for Binkley as "stories we tell ourselves about our beginnings." Story is very much suggestive of oral histories and ever-changing details. I think a very good example of this came from our reading for today. Gilgamesh is an early epic told as a way of expressing understanding of our world, and thus it is certainly a part of those narratives we tell ourselves in order to develop a sense of our origins. However, as Hallo explains, the epic developed over time--the last tablet was added later, some lines were also added later, as well as the possibility that the episodic tablets may not have been integrated to begin with.
Looking at texts as evolving similar to oral history is yet another way of challenging the traditional views of what is rhetoric and how it is studied.