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.
I would like to speak on your example. I feel that it has a good relation to what it means to be persuasive. Let's make your example more specific and say, hypothetically, you and I just happen to be sitting at a bar. I'm almost done finishing a bland domestic like a Bud Bite. You are drinking what looks like a local IPA and I'm tempted to try it. I ask you what beer it is and you say it's Bent 'Nail. Because I never tried it before, I ask you if you think it's good. You say that you do. You make it clear that you are not saying that it is good; you make it clear that what you find it good.
ReplyDeleteMy Point behind this example is how the story list and sanction concept is that it helps rhetoricians pursue, which means that they make their inner beliefs behind their rhetoric objective. They are communicating objective attitudes to a subjectively different audience. That is the challenge behind persuasiveness. People want what is most universal, yet they tend to think subjectively. Stories may make more relationship between the rhetor and audience member (like your story of you trying a beer you liked)