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.
I agree with you in that I did not understand the concepts that Liu was trying to get across. I understand that Liu wuld like us to assume a gerneral understanding of Rhetoric to look at more texts. However, the discoveries by the end had me thinking was my mindset/lens for reading this text wrong? and if we are suppose to be looking at more texts than why are all of them problematic in some way or form? On the other hand the discoveries listed at the end are made evident through the many texts listed. I'm not sure on how to read this text in regards to Chinese Rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI agree that she seemed to give ideas without giving specifics and that generally lead to more questions. While I understand that that style of writing can be frustrating, I think it is important to point out that this essay in and of itself is a kind of introduction into opening up this field of rhetoric more. It is supposed to ring up questions so we will study them. In that way, I think this article might have been geared to readers with more expertise, although I would argue that we still benefit from reading it.
ReplyDeleteTHANK YOU! I also got lost in all the undefined Chinese words and exclusively using Chinese rhetoric. I hadn't looked at the moves she was making as attempting to criticize the way others study Chinese rhetoric. It's true that much gets lost in translation, especially when you apply Western rhetoric, but isn't there some value to understanding something, even if it isn't totally accurate? Or is she right--- that Chinese rhetoric should be studied the way it's supposed to be studied? I don't know the answer, but I certainly would have enjoyed the article more if I could have understood it.
ReplyDelete