Too Late for the Rhetoric Blog Party? Never!

Some say I run on “Emily Time.” I prefer to believe that time is a concept and I follow the streams of the universe; living my life moment by moment, but also all at once.

Anywho, I really enjoyed this article. I would love to read an excerpt of Queen Kapi’olani’s autobiography, to try to see if I can pick out her double meanings. I probably couldn’t, but isn’t that the beauty of rhetorical sovereignty?

While reading, I got to thinking about other suppressed groups of people and the ways that they could maintain their rhetorical sovereignty. I mainly got interested in Japanese-American internment camps during WW2. Of course, this isn’t exactly the same, since they were American (with Japanese descent). I did discover that Japanese has a term called “gaman,” loosely translated as perseverance. To endure the unbearable with patience and dignity. This stoicism was their moral code, their ethos. This caused them trouble in internment camps, as it was perceived as disloyalty to America. Interestingly, Hawaii was only a US territory when WW2 broke out, and initially refused to round up Japanese-Americans as they were being ordered to do. They had to in the end, but the prisoners were treated well and with dignity. Perhaps because of the solidarity felt after Hawaiians’ own suppression? I don’t know, it’s just interesting to see what kinds of traits, rhetorically or not, tragedy brings out in a society.

I don’t know if this is rhetorical sovereignty, but reading about Queen Kapi’olani’s autobiography also made me think of Fredrick Douglass’s. He also had a sophisticated grasp on the English language, and appealed to America’s morality without necessarily condemning them. Similarly, Queen Kapi’olani tries to gain the support of the American people. I loved the line “there’s no stronger tool than using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house.”  

Queen Lili’oukalani’s Dilema

What caught most of my attention in the article was Queen Lili’oukalani’s ablility to conceal the emotions/motivations behind her rhetoric. Surely, it was an impossible task. She was faced with appealing to the Westerners’ sympathy, while making it clear that being overthrown was unjust, and while not making her a savage-esque enemy. I find it brilliant that she uses Western rhetorics  within Kaona. She had to have been appealing to her native audience as well, while not encouraging them to rebel and cause any further conflict (106).

I also find it  interesting that her rhetoric inscribes narrative that is mythical and native to her culture, and she uses it to appeal to the American audience as well as her own native audience. The best example would be her story of Kapi‘olani throwing the sacred berries into the lake of fire (volcano). What immediately came to my mind was that this was reference to the Book of Revelations when God throws Heaven, Earth and Hell into a lake of fire and creates a new heaven and hearth. It was undoubtedly intended to read as Christian oriented, as Mcdougal argued. But the fact that Queen Lili’oukalani conceals the meanings that were meant to be understood only by her native people while making them resonate with the Christian mentality behind the American audience shows that there must be an understanding between the two opposing audiences. She arguably fought the best rhetorical battle by understanding the rhetorics behind the imperialist nation important while rhetorically fighting for the beliefs within her sovereign nation. It is almost unique in the sence that most indiginous cultures just opposed the invasive cultures while rejecting the invasive culture’s rhetorics and belief systems. The queen took on the understanding of the Western tradition and used it to her rhetorical advantage, while standing behind her nation.

Resisting Rhetorical Colonization

McDougall and Nordstrom’s piece demonstrates an interesting form of rhetorical resistance to colonization. The different individuals discussed in this piece have an advantage against those attempting to oppress them- they are aware of this oppression and its tools, and so they can find ways to work against them. The authors mention the “native awareness of the colonial ideologies intended to ‘remove, reserve,  assimilate, acculturate, abrogate, and un-see us’ (428), which can be exploited, overturned, challenged, and used as rhetorical artillery” (113). The very ideologies being used to repress the Hawaiian culture are what can then be turned on their wielders, becoming the weapons that will protect the threatened Hawaiian rhetorics.

                There are several examples of this throughout the text. The queen used the colonists’ ignorance to say opposing things to the Americans and the Hawaiians, appearing to adopt Christianity while still maintaining her native religion, conforming to American ideals while using her own culture’s rhetorical techniques to speak to her people. Trask resists American colonization as well, “She dispels stereotypes of Hawaiians by situating her poetics within a long literary tradition of Hawaiian intellectualism that predates western contact,” (113). Rather than succumbing to negative stereotypes of native peoples being ignorant and in need of western education, Trask uses Hawaiian intellectualism in her work. And since it predates western contact, no credit can be given to western influence.  

Rhetorical colonization is not necessarily as physical as other forms. It doesn’t have to involve war, there doesn’t have to be bloodshed, but it does involve the oppression of cultures. At best, their rhetorics are altered and twisted by the colonists, and at worst erased altogether, but McDougall and Nordstrom’s essay demonstrates that there are ways to resist, to use the colonizers’ methods against them, and preserve cultures' unique rhetorics as a result.

McDougall and Nordstrom - Kaona

The rhetorical tactic of kaona immediately brought to mind Ma'at for me. They aren't specifically the same - Ma'at is more of a code of conduct and Kaona is more an actual rhetorical tactic used in specific writing - but they are both very distinctive rhetorical processes that belong to 'other' societies, or rather, non Aristotelian based cultures.

Kaona is so intrinsically linked with Hawaiian culture. The actual use of puns or dual meanings and layers is not unique to Hawaiian culture or writing, but its use as a rallying point against oppression and colonialism is quite unique

I found it very interesting that Kaona is an expected thing, that a good author or rhetorician is compelled to use it if they are to be seen as knowledgeable or skilled (pg 101). Also interesting is how large a role the audience plays in the use of Kaona, the audience is to look for and detect the meaning that the writer or composer laid down in the text and when they do they become and 'insider' with 'exclusive' knowledge (pg 101).

Something that I personally find fascinating is that if this sort of exclusivity and non-openness was demonstrated in a 'western' or Aristotelian based piece of rhetoric today, people would be offended. So why is that exclusivity praised in 'other' form of rhetoric? Shouldn't we give fair treatment to all tactics in all rhetoric?
I can assume it is because those 'other' cultures and their rhetoric has been overlooked or perhaps even repressed in past times, that would be the most obvious answer....But I'm curious as to people's opinions as to why that is - I don't have a specific opinion or answer, it is simply something I have noticed.

Mastering the Other Rhetoric To Help Ourselves

McDougal and Nordstrom's "Ma ka Hana ka 'lke (In the Work Is the Knowledge): Kaona as Rhetorical Action" brings up the interesting point of bringing down the master's house using the master's tools. In both Powell's essay and McDougal and Nordstrom's essay, the idea of molding to the dominant rhetoric in order to keep the integrity of their indigenous rhetoric.
This idea fascinates me because it allows, in any situation, the ability for those in an oppressed state to change the power dynamics with communication. Both Winnemucca and the Hawaiian Queen, both indigenous women (probably one of the most oppressed demographics of the time) were able to be part of both cultures simultaneously and gain support for their people all the while proving their credibility in a rhetoric that held different values. Both these women worked on appearing educated and civilized, and both women appealed to the Christian values of those they were speaking to in order to garner support.
Unfortunately, words are not always enough to bring about the total of changes one needs, but it can help the ball begin rolling in the desired direction, as Powell's essay showed us with Winnemucca and her attempts to acquire changes in how her people were treated. However, despite this, both women did make a difference in the lives of their people. Winnemucca helped her culture become more than an idea, and helped her people move toward keeping their sovereignty. The Hawaiian Queen gave her people hope in a difficult time. Both used a foreign rhetoric to stay true to themselves and their own cultures. That kind of mastery is pretty incredible.

Kaona: Hawaiin Rhetoric

What I found interesting in Brandy Nalani McDougall and Georganne Nordstrom’s article “Kaona as Rhetorical Action” is the concept of kaona and how it is used as a rhetorical device to add layers of meaning to a text. While reading I discovered how little I know about Hawaiian culture, history, and rhetoric, overall. I found that Queen Lili’uokalani’s tactics were quite masterful and important to the conception of rhetoric as a whole. Hawaiian rhetoric becomes a key “survivance” form of rhetoric because of issues surrounding colonization and the censorship of native languages.

I had no idea that settlers attempted to ban the native language because of its sexual innuendos, metaphors, and allusions. What I found great about this article is how Hawaiian rhetoricians employ kaona to embed pieces of valuable information within a composition, as if to create a story within a story, in an attempt to preserve cultural values, and the audience loves this. I love this. It’s why we read critically and try to read between the lines, if you will; we like to discover meanings that might not have been consciously intended by the author. Sometimes the meaning of a text is obvious, but there are threads of different sorts of concerns and contexts layered throughout.

The concept of kaona as a rhetorical tactic is what I found most valuable in the reading. “If the composer has skillfully crafted the kaona (as demanded by the

audience), those audience members who are the most knowledgeable of the

kaona’s subject would find the most layers of meaning” (McDougall and Nordstrom101). Here the authors want to show the reader the intellectual and rhetorical value of kaona. Additionally McDougall and Nordstrom cite a passage by Lilikala- K. Kame‘eleihiwa: “there are always several layers of kaona in any good example of Hawaiian prose,” which is a great passage because I think that the same could be said for any great piece of prose. 

As far as this text relates with previous class readings, it relates closest with the research of "rhetorical survivance" and "rhetorical sovereignty" of Malea Powell and Scott Richard Lyon's but I also found some relation with that of the Egyptian concept of 'Maat,' in the sense that kaona is a sort of culture wide understanding, and rhetorical device that can be used to elevate and empower a speaker or writer.

Overall, I really enjoyed this reading and I got some great insight into rhetorical tactics from it.

Comparing Lyons to Powell

Looking at Lyons' article on rhetorical sovereignty we get a very helpful and extensive definition of just what rhetorical sovereignty is as defined by Native Americans. Within this text we do not get very much application of this rhetoric, whereas Powell's text is mainly application (or at least examples of application) of this rhetoric. As I see it, Powell's text acts as somewhat of a bridge, or translation of just how rhetorical sovereignty can work in a post-colonial world. 

         Within Lyons’ text we seem to see a lot of anger and resentment towards colonialism and a European or American culture. Although at times it may be necessary to have separation of cultures, within the context of today’s world, it seems nearly impossible. Another problem I see with Lyons’ text alongside the mere impossibility of total sovereignty is that this rhetoric does not really benefit anyone. Although practicing this rhetoric may help to create healing and a recreation of a narrative of Native Americans, they would never be able to use this narrative to benefit anyone.

         The solution to gaining rhetorical sovereignty and using it to benefit other cultures seems to lie within the examples we see in Powell’s text. We observe the story of two Native Americans who become immersed in both their own cultures and in an American culture. This immersion benefits them, their native culture, and the culture they choose to immerse themselves in, offering social commentary, a new way of looking at things, and a fresh view on life.

         One question I struggle with is the absolute exclusion of non-natives in this text. I am curious as to how (or if) these authors see non-natives work under this rhetoric?

Hawaiian Rhetoric

          In Brandy Nalani McDougall and Georganne Nordstrom’s article, Ma Ka Hana ‘ Ike (In the Work is the Knowledge): Kaona as a Rhetorical Action, I found many of their points interesting. Honestly, I have no background knowledge of Hawaiian writing so this article gave me a completely new range of texts and vocabulary words (i.e. Kaona) to think about. The piece that I found interesting and wanted to look into more was the colonization of the islands and the influence of the missionaries. I went to this website http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&PageID=277

to determine the religion of and where the missionaries came from. I discovered that the large majority of the missionaries were Protestant led by Reverend Hiram Bingham. The groups of missionaries came from New England in the early 1800s and were funded by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. I think that the settlers/missionary role is important because they are considered “the other” to the Native Hawaiians and, therefore the rhetoric is altered because of their presence.

            McDougall and Nordstrom have interesting assertions about how there are “complicated relationship between Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians who reside in Hawai‘I” (100) and this complication started a long time ago. The rhetorical device Kaona was incorporated in order to keep this separation and the Natives were privy to many allusions, metaphors and puns that were involved in writing or speaking because of their cultural and traditional background. Lilikala- K. Kame‘eleihiwa writes that “there are always several layers of kaona in any good example of Hawaiian prose: there is the literal meaning; references to the ancient through myths, events, gods, and chiefs; the intertextual use of chants and proverbs; and finally, another possible layer known only to the raconteur and one or two special members of the audience . . . while everyone else remains oblivious to the message”(101). This use of  “everyone else” demonstrates how kaona was a rhetorical device used by many Hawaiian Natives and how they purposefully wanted to exclude some audience members (non-natives) from the actual message/s.

            The example of Queen Lili‘uokalani’s autobiography re-enforced the idea of multiple messages and purposeful targeting when she was determined to write to the United States in order to free her from house arrest and to leave the monarchy of Hawaii alone. However, Mcdougall and Nordstrom suggest “it is more than likely that the queen used her autobiography as a means to deliver messages to her people, specifically by employing kaona” (105) through the reference to Pele that assumed traditional knowledge from Native Hawaiians but seemed to be admiring Christian beliefs on the surface. The use of multiple meanings and intricate rhetorical devices asserts how intellectually advanced many of the Native Hawaiian people were in their writings, proving stereotypes “of Hawaiians as lazy, illiterate, criminal, and incapable of self-governance” (113) completely wrong.

Hawaiian cultural elements as rhetorical tools

Many of the points McDougall and Nordstrom bring up reminded me of Winnemucca. A lack of American understanding of the Hawaiin culture allowed the the queen and Trask to use their cultural tools to say one thing to the American people and another to their own people.  For example, “Previous works analyzing the queen’s mele (Silva, Aloha; Nordstrom) have note that the queen frequently employed kaona using Hawaiian words with multiple meanings so as to present fewer political meanings to readers with limited knowledge of the Hawaiian language, primarily non-Native speakers” (105).

Another piece that stuck out to me was when McDougall and Nordstrom say of the queen, “She was very aware of how she had been portrayed in the American media—from a laughable savage caricature to an exotic, sensual temptress—and worked to counter these images through language and experience that embodied Western values” (106). Again, this is much like Winnemucca’s use of the individual, which went against her culture, to relay her message to her American audience.

I also found it interesting when McDougall and Nordstrom bring up, “Moreover, desperate times call for desperate measures, and the queen may have used the only tools available to her, kaona and a shared cultural memory, to deliver her memory” (110). This has me curious about other times when this may be the case. On the surface, the queen is using tools, like denouncing Hawaiian traditions and “adhering” to Christianity in order to underhandedly influence American’s, but I still wonder what the reaction of her fellow Hawaiians actually was.

Concerning Trask, one thing I found to be important was, “Like the queen’s approach, one of the ways Trask establishes her ethos as a leader is by sharing her mo’okū ‘auhau, at once adhering to traditional Hawaiian protocol and asserting rhetorical sovereignty by setting the parameters of how her ethos should be judged” (111). Determining how a writer’s ethos should be judged is an interesting idea because controlling that means paying attention to things that seem to often be overlooked. Writers all establish ethos, but it’s always open to the reader’s interpretation. Establishing ethos in a manner that actually sets the “parameters of how her ethos should be judged,” is pretty impressive.

Overall, I was the most interested by both the queen and Trask’s ability to use rhetorical tools that basically went over the heads of Americans. For example, “In contrast, settler and tourist audiences, though able to detect themes of resistance, can be counted on to miss the arguments for resistance Trask transmits via kaona” (113). This is by no means something new, but the queen and Trask’s use of the cultural elements, which Americans were trying to get rid of, as rhetorically effective tools, is fairly genius.

Kaona: language of culture and call to action

When reading this article, I kept seeing the duality of Kaona and how it serves two purposes. It reminded me of the article we read on Maat and how it was both a goddess and a concept. However in this case, I like how Kaona serves two purposes of resistance. It helps preserve culture through another language and is a call to action for the natives. Author Lilikalã Kame’eleihiwa states that “‘there are always several layers of kaona in any good example of Hawaiian prose’: there is the literal meaning; references to the ancient through myths, events, gods, and chiefs; the intertextual use of chants and proverbs; finally, another possible layer ‘known only to the raconteur and one or two special members of the audience…while everyone else remains oblivious to the message’” (101). I feel as those this passage describes in essence the whole article and the other ideas from indigenous articles we have already read. Although Natives may lose their language keep their identity through the concepts and words spoken in English, so this act of resistance is a way to keep their culture. However, the difference between Native America resistance and Hawaiian resistance is that Hawaiians have a dual function to resistance; “Hawaiians effectively used writing to assure the continued survival of their culture and express their resistance” (104).

The example given to us in the article of the writings of Queen Lili’uokalani is similar to Winnemucca text. Both women who are authors who are allowing Americans insight into their perspective cultures. Both women construct themselves as civilized through their education in English and American culture. In the case of the queen, “she relies on her people’s knowledge of the Pele tradition to deliver messages of resistance while appealing to the values of a Western audience, a strategy common in a rhetoric of survivance” (106). Besides being a translator of culture, the Queen is a fighter for her people, language, and culture; by playing the game in hopes to gain the edge over her oppressors to gain back her Monarchy. Although we know this plan failed, it is a good idea that help preserve the culture of the Hawaiian people but in English, so that they don't fall out of existence. 

As a side note:

            “Despite the colonial settlers’ literacy in the Hawaiian language and an awareness that ‘mele often contained metaphorical or figurative language, [they] were unable to understand the ‘real’ meaning… [Kaona then became a tool] to communicate to the masses of kãnaka without detection by the haole missionary community’” (104).

When reading this passage I had the whole hey this reminds me of how the we used Navajo during WWII. Although the Navajo code was never broken or understood by the enemy it was just a moment of hey I’ve seen this before and it worked we won the war. My question then is if Kaona was a tool to communicate as well as a call to action, why was the Hawaiian monarchy reinstated? Was it the lack of resources? 

Take Confucius' advice, "properly define and use" speech Liu

Yamneg Liu’s title literally applied to their own essay. As it turns out, “nothing can be accomplished” when you write like you, Liu.

 

I was utterly baffled by this author (and visibly annoyed as well). The intense use of abstract, undefined, and overloaded sentences made this an exercise in drudgery. I would like to point out all the “freedoms” Liu takes in this essay (since Liu was so busy pointing out everyone else’s mistakes in their arguments).

First, there is this inexplicable move that Liu makes at the bottom of 148 and onto the top of 149. Liu directly addresses the reader (which happens in the very first sentence of the essay, but then disappears for a page): “This critique impresses us with a number of notable features. It talks about what we now call enabling principles of a symbolic action… with an easy familiarity. The quasi-logical approach it adopts is so sophisticated that it reminds us of, for example, the famous ‘Pascal’s Wager’” (148-49 emphasis added). Strangely, I did not notice another instance of this technique surfacing anywhere else in the essay. So why address your reader in such manner, not to mention the name drop of “Pascal’s Wager” (I guess I’m supposed to know what that means?). Well I didn’t, so I looked it up.

Pascal’s Wager is the philosophical idea presented in the 17^th century that people either wagered that god existed or did not exist, and it was better to wager that God did exist and only lose a small amount of luxuries on Earth for a potential infinity of luxuries in the afterlife or risk an eternity in hell. You can read more about it here.

After this moment, the essay really started falling apart for me. Liu uses Chinese words without defining them, only to later define them like yan. Or we simply do not get a definition such as telos on 149. Yan is not discussed for five pages after its definition on page 150, and when it shows back up on the radar, Liu does not remind the reader what it means (I had forgotten by that time only to find it littered across the page). And as if Liu wanted to cement this estranged way of ciphering words, the end of the essay is paragraph after paragraph of different definitions of Chinese words.

 Don’t get me wrong, there were interesting things in this essay, but Liu’s writing style speaks to a highly specialized group of people… with Ph.Ds….That are crazy about rhetoric. In that sense Liu is really not even speaking to us.

A Rant From One Who Prefers The Armchair

Yameng Liu makes many points in his text about ancient Chinese rhetoric. Personally, I have found the ancient Chinese rhetoric to be based on very skewed and culturally biased set of rules of hierarchy within a very specific culture, place and time. This hierarchical unbalance is indeed what Confucius wanted. For example, the fact that being silent and treating everyone around you as inferior to you by not saying anything, is just outright ridiculous. It does not seem to be based on actual acquired knowledge or wit, but rather on being highly ranked and good at not saying anything. It makes me want to slap him across his face.

As I was trying to say, Yameng Liu makes a few points in his text. Despite my dislike of the Chinese rhetoric, I do see that it has some actual value as well, and that we can learn some things from it. On page 148, Liu quotes a “…piece of nan from Han Feizi” (148). A clever point is made here by posing that a good speech requires more than just eloquence if the listener is too skeptical of the speaker’s truth or intent behind the speech. It could be that I have misunderstood this, but that is what I could draw from such vague descriptions like “vulgar person” and “man of quality”.

What I find truly annoying about the whole ancient Chinese rhetoric is that it poses that one shall not speak with glibness, but to me, the texts quoted are indeed spoken with glibness. Han Feizi presumes that the listener will be either a “vulgar person” or a “man of quality”. Furthermore, he assumes that a “vulgar person” would know nothing of reason. This is based on the hierarchical structure of ancient China, which did not value objectivity because they did not value the use of Logos. On page 150; “throughout their history the Chinese have been more apt to argue along pathos- and ethos-based lines than to employ objective logos-style argumentation”. It is simply too white and black, with no room for grey areas, and with little care for fact.

I realize that I am trying to compare an ancient and flawed kind of rhetoric to our modern and developed version of rhetoric, and that that might be somewhat of an unfair comparison. In the end, the Chinese used a very intricate rhetorical system for their time, and it was by no means a broken system.

Rhetorical Criticism or not?

Throughout Liu's piece, she (?) pushes for Chinese rhetoric to be studied through other lenses that are not specifically related to the rhetorers field  of study. She makes a claim at the end of her essay that this is not a piece on rhetorical criticism.
However, I feel that she is rhetorically criticizing the ways of which non-Chinese rhetorers study Chinese Rhetoric. Her focus on alternative fields of rhetorical studies of Chinese rhetoric develop a further thought of criticism. Liu analyzes other fields of study that result in a lack of understanding of Chinese rhetorics. Her approach leads me to question what her definition of rhetoric is because it appears to change through out the article/ essay. Is this due to the different fields of study she is criticizing, or is it due to her back ground in Chinese rhetorical studies?
Liu provides numerous ways--of which she challenges all of them-- of viewing Chinese rhetoric. However, she attempts to define a clear way of viewing and studying Chinese Rhetoric by describing the numerous faults of which the discourse views the rhetoric, along with supporting some of the methods of viewing Chinese rhetoric that the outside discourse communities use. On the other hand, the previous articles we have read on Chinese rhetoric, focus on the culture, which in the long run impacts the rhetorical field of life entirely. I am not sure if Liu is trying to make an argument for why we should study Chinese rhetoric through a non-Chinese culture lens because of the philosophers' impact on Chinese history or not?
My understanding of Liu's piece leaves me with significantly more questions when comparing this piece to the previous Chinese rhetoric articles because Liu doesn't really bring it into modern rhetorical views (dead white guys in the armchair) as much as the other previous articles do. I feel that her argument may be made stronger if she did connect it back into the armchair rhetoric, especially when she does use the Chinese characters for certain terms within Chinese Rhetoric. I also think I am missing a larger point (or smaller points) that Liu is making in her piece.

Arguing Against Etiology in Chinese Rhetorics

Yameng Liu seems to me to be interested in defining the rhetorics of China as apart from cultural beginnings, and that they are not "reflections of, and functional responses to, cultural patterns and crises of ancient China" (Liu 151).

If the manifestation of a society's discourse is not based on the culture it comes from, or dependent upon certain "causal factors" and "obvious sociopolitical factors" (which he references as the Autumn and Spring breakdown of traditional social order, and the Warring States period as the culprits), then where does a society's presentation of discussion come from (Liu 151)?

Yameng Liu argues against two other claims prior to addressing the one I am interested in. But, on page 153 he jumps into the discussion of how culture does not directly mold the direction of that society's discussion. "Equally problematic, finally, is the assumption that the growth of classical Chinese rhetoric was a mere 'reflection' of or 'response' to preexisting 'cultural patterns and crises of ancient China'" (Liu 153). He argues that this approach "treats 'existing social or cultural conditions' as a given and a prior order ontologically separated from discourse (Liu 153). Essentially culture just sprouted and it is what defined ancient Chinese people, denying "discourse's role in creating social and cultural meanings that shape the perceptions, desires, feelings, and hence behaviors of individual or institutional actors" (Liu 153).

Is he then arguing that discourse, or rhetorics molded culture? I foresee similar issues with this proposal as the ones he references when discussing how "preexisting cultural patterns and crises" could not have affected Chinese rhetorics. It's sort of a chicken and egg dilemma, which came first? I posit that the two are entirely dependent upon one another, and that they do not exist apart from one another. Or, as Liu recounts: "as a special form/mode of discourse, rhetoric must necessarily have interacted with, impacted on, conditioned and in turn been conditioned by other discursive and institutional practices of ancient China" (Liu 153).

One cannot easily separate the differences between a culture's representation, and how this is represented in a culture's discourse. You see, a culture is represented through its discourse, as the discourse is represented through the culture, the two are not separate from one another; rather, they are linked as one, feeding off one another, and ceasing to exist with the other's departure.

Ultimately, Liu attempts to redefine "classical Chinese rhetoric as an 'architectonic productive art,' one that contributed vitally to the cultural and ideological production of the time by rendering possible meaningful interactions among divergent thoughts and ideologies" (Liu 161). However, this posits that speech and the presentation of this speech through writing is what molded culture. This is an impossibility, as I mentioned earlier, the two are entirely dependent upon one another only because it is impossible to discern the point of origination. Essentially culture impacts the way people speak, and the way people speak affects the culture they are speaking to.

A Conversation about Community

I’ve found this unit on Chinese rhetoric somewhat challenging, perhaps from an unfamiliarity with the culture. However, I feel like I can start to make sense of things by bringing the three texts we’ve read into conversation. Across all three selections on Chinese rhetoric, we see the importance of community within the Chinese culture. This value is developed and reinforced by rhetoric. Zu and Lyon get at this through their explanation of Confucianism. However, Liu goes beyond Confucianism, arguing that despite the differing ideologies within China (like the Confucians and the Mohists), a shared rhetoric ensured at least some sense of community, resulting “in an outburst of seminal ideas, diverse and significant perspectives, and culture-shaping ideologies instead of degenerating into fruitless bickerings” (155).

Recall when Zu discusses Confucius’s idealized social order, and the harmony which is destroyed with glib talk (p. 120 for example). As I understand, Confucius desired harmony in terms of a stable hierarchical society, which would have to be built upon some kind of community. That is, everybody would have to get along and be respectful in order to maintain a social order. To facilitate this kind of community, Confucius emphasized slow and cautious speech (two rhetorical moves), which would prompt action while avoiding aggression.

Lyon furthers this discussion, particularly by including remonstration in her argument. She discusses silence (like Zu), as well as remonstration as rhetorical moves which emphasize action while also showing respect. We see how this works to reinforce relationships and community as a cultural value with her example of a child remonstrating with a parent. “The child who remonstrates with the parent allows the errant parent to find his potential while preserving the relationship between parent and child” (141). Because the child showed the correct way rather than argued it, the child and the parent maintain their status and their connection.

Liu takes a step farther, looking at ancient Chinese texts beyond Confucianism. This analysis posits that community resulted in shared rhetorical strategies which reinforced community. Consider when Liu says, “A brief look at classical Chinese texts would suffice to reveal rhetoric’s role as the supplier of these shared assumptions, concepts, techniques, etc.” (155). Liu goes on, “No matter what discursive community one belonged to, a practitioner in ancient China was likely to subscribe to a body of basic assumptions about the nature and function of rhetoric” (156). That is, despite belonging to differing ideological groups within China, individuals shared similar rhetorical practices, simply as a result of sharing a similar culture and holding at least somewhat similar basic values (partaking in a community in a broad sense). Sharing these rhetorical practices, then, reinforces community as a value.

Common place rhetoric

I felt that Sweeny’s article was much more intuitive than the past ones I have read so far. I say so because she is tapping into everyday rhetorics. She is using these historical texts to speculate on how common layperson’s interact. So far, we have been only seeing rhetorical contexts provided social elites who do not include the overwhelming majority. I have always wanted to know about how regular people become rhetorical and how well they fair in the rhetorical situation.

For that, I would like to speak on my favorite example from the article. On page 104, she gives the example that, “ Naunakthe, a woman living at Deir el-Medina, bequeathed her property to those of her children who had supported her in old age cutting her ungrateful children out of her will.” The woman she is describing is using antithesis and parallelism in this rhetorical situation, (Sweeny said so a page earlier) The woman in question made the case that she cared for her children and that not all of them cared for her in return. Therefore, those who did not reciprocate do not deserve inheritance (a gift of kinship).

The other thing that Sweeny did well to illustrate this was the emphasis on pathos over the other two. It makes perfect sense because common people did not have any sense of ethos in rhetorical situations like court cases, nor did they (frankly) have much logos to use to their advantage. Sweeny pointed out this as an example, “Culprits might also insist that false accusations had been brought against them out of personal enmity….”.  By placing someone in an untrustworthy light the defendant evidently is constructing immoral motives on making him a defendant in the first place. It does not prove him/her innocent or guilty, but it sways the juror, emotionally.. What is interesting is that it is not too uncommon for people to use this rhetorical tactic in civil disputes today.