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?