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.