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.
Erlend,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your honest feelings toward these ancient Chinese rhetorical analyses.I think that one of Liu's valid points was when he stated that "the general understanding of rhetoric as dealing with effective use of symbolic resources in discursive and sociocultural practices is applicable cross-culturally" (147). Personally, as I view ancient Chinese rhetoric in comparison to ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian I can see some overlapping rhetorical strategies or values. The theme of self-preservation is evident in all cultures as kings assert their claims and sages work hard to maintain the hierarchies established. Another value is the ideal of persuasion through artistic expression. This is apparent in different forms, such as Egyptian court persuasion being oral and the Mesopotamian use of hymns. In the ancient Chinese culture I saw this mainly through the sage's sharing wisdom which was not considered persuasion, however I think that the persuasion is hidden in the message that the sages are sharing and therefore influencing people to do as they say or do.
Overall, I agree with you that Liu (and the other authors) incorporate "glib talk" into their essays, but they do demonstrate how intricate the Chinese rhetorical system was and different strategies to examine it from a rhetorical perspective.
I am quite partial to the silence that Confucianism preaches. I do not think their culture was about putting down those who had wit, but reminding people that wit was not all that was important in life. They did use a great deal of ethos and pathos precisely because they did not want to chain themselves purely to reason. Also, silence serves many functions even in our culture. After all, the quite people may be the one who hears the most, who knows the mot about people, and therefore knows how to persuade most effectively when they do speak.
ReplyDeleteI am quite partial to the silence that Confucianism preaches. I do not think their culture was about putting down those who had wit, but reminding people that wit was not all that was important in life. They did use a great deal of ethos and pathos precisely because they did not want to chain themselves purely to reason. Also, silence serves many functions even in our culture. After all, the quite people may be the one who hears the most, who knows the mot about people, and therefore knows how to persuade most effectively when they do speak.
ReplyDeleteErlend,
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that you talk about Confucius as condescending and enjoying an imbalance of power. I would agree with this notion, however, it is interesting that throughout Chinese rhetoric we have seen much more consideration for audience and for creating rhetoric that can be widely understood. I think the consideration for audience and resistance of glib talk contrasting against your notion that Confucius is somewhat condescending shows us a good example of what rhetors say within their text and what they actually practice. Also, you talk about how this kind of rhetoric is very contained to China, you also talk about how Confucius preferred an imbalance of power. I think most times rhetoric is used (in many peoples definitions anyway) it is merely to gain or keep some kind of power, which can be applied to almost every culture. It is very interesting to me how rhetors and Chinese rhetoric contrasts itself and something you point out a bit in this post.
Erlend,
ReplyDeleteI thought your rant was great. While I have found our diversification of rhetoric beneficial and important, I also prefer the armchair rhetoric, at least for now. I found Confucius’ points to be somewhat arrogant or condescending also. I can pretty much imagine Confucius listening to someone speak and trying to make meaning from a conversation and stop them with: “Silence! Quiet your glib tongue!” I personally liked the concept of nan pretty well, that is, Han Feizi’s point about the rebuttal. What is rhetoric if it is only one sided? I feel that rhetoric doesn’t have to be speaker and audience necessarily, but rather an ongoing conversation in which multiple parties can engage and participate in. I think that our Aristotelian armchair rhetoric at least gives way to multiple speakers and, or rebuttal, whereas Confucianism seemed pretty one-sided to me, as if Confucius himself were the only one enlightened enough to even speak. The real benefit that I got out of ancient Chinese rhetoric though, is that there are multiple rhetorical discourse communities, and that rhetoric is not a singular concept.