Culture Culture Everywhere

Ending with Eagleton’s After Theory for this class’s last reading (sympathetic sigh) was a great way to have some closure on the content of this course. I, like I’m sure many people in the class did, enjoyed his use of style and voice as he sumed up the decades of theory and intellectual movements in a scholarly and witty manner that can only be articulated in the knowledge of hindsight. The new theory at hand seems to be better than the previous: “There was a general excited sense that the present was the place to be” (24). We don’t know if it works until we try it, then we can rag on it years later, much like disco.

The similes and out-of-left-field analogies that Eagleton sprinkles throughout the text were particularly entertaining to me: “In certain postmodern quarters, the word ‘progress’ is greeted with scorn usually reserved for those who believe that the face of Elvis Presley keeps mysteriously showing up on chocolate chip cookies” (179) . Anyone who spits a little pop reference to The Simpsons, Brad Pitt, Satan, George Bush, Mick Jagger, Elvis and Four Weddings and a Funeral all in the same piece has captured my attention.

The territory that Eagleton covers is immense, to say the least, so I cannot in a sober state attempt to highlight all pivotal excerpts. I can, however, speak about what Eagleton reinforces about the achievements of cultural theory: “it has disabused us of the idea that there is a single correct way to interpret a work of art” (95)—which is what got me into teaching and continuing my education in the first place. This doesn’t mean that “anything can mean anything”, but the freedom of this idea of interpretation is appealing and desirable for people as opposed to a fettered approach preached by authorities. If evidence exists to support a meaning, in a comprehensible and traceable manner, your claim is feasible. That is exactly why I am not a Math teacher.

“To be inside and outside a position at the same time—to occupy territory while loitering skeptically on the boundary—is often where the most intensely creative ideas stem from” (40).

Maybe Shakespeare Killed Marlowe . . .

See, I can make assumptions too.

Between reading Barry and this week’s articles, what kept arising in the forefront of all this non-fiction for me was the aspect of identity and main vein connection to reputation. As we know, words are very powerful and assumptions are even more dangerous. Stigmatizing a specific culture or group can have infinite ramifications in the present and future, as we see in Goldberg’s article. Yes, we all know I love me some English Renaissance, so the Marlowe article was particularly interesting to me. As an undergrad I learned of Marlowe and what my professor called his reputation as “the bad boy of the renaissance who was stabbed in the eye with his own dagger”—very Sapranos. So, when I read the article accusing him of being a homosexual, I wasn’t too surprised at the assumption knowing the society of the time. I don’t think of him as any less of an author, or any more for that manner; but I do think conservatists might feel the former when they read the article. So, my question for those would be, was he any less of an artist? any less of a contributor to the canon? Any less of a human being?

If so, then we must remove hundreds and hundreds of artists from the Western canon. Under such evidence that was used against Marlowe by Baines could also suggest that Shakespeare was a homosexual with is sonnets to a young man—are we then going to eradicate him as well? Maybe Shakespeare was part of Marlowe’s murder, only to use his pieces to jigsaw his own plays (The Jew of Malta is awful close to The Merchant of Venice which was acted a short few years after his death. . . hmmmm)

What I have the most problem with is the idea that someone’s personal preferences can marginalize them from society even if it does not affect the society around them. Making damaging accusations of one’s character with unfounded evidence is commonly known as McCarthyism (Instead of witches we are now conveniently hunting down anyone with Middle Eastern descent because they are all terrorists . . . . "it’s in their DNA”) After reading Barry, I now understand the motivation for lesbian feminists to break away from mainstream feminist theory and combat the misrepresentation of the movement. There will always be misconceptions and enemies will always exist; what we can do is educated those who have been misinformed.

“[R]ebellion never manages to find its own space; but always acts in the space that society has created for it” (Goldberg, 80)

The Church and the Red Light District of Elizabethan England

As I read Greenblatt’s “The Circulation of Energy” chapter, I was reminded of how the Elizabethan theater was both a censored institution and a venue for political criticism. After reading Barry, I feel that Greenblatt is a cultural materialist (179) who scrutinizes the marginalized details of the text in order to uncover the overlooked histories of the English Renaissance. He focuses on the medium of the theater to flesh out the “half-hidden cultural transactions” and attempt to create a “whole-reading” of a work. (4)

Although artists at this time were censored (8) by their superiors (like the prohibition of using the name “God” in a play—p.10), the theater also became a place of political commentary (in the most disguised of ways—p.19) and also served as a propaganda medium for the powers in the control. Like churches and its art, the theater was often used to educate the illiterate and lower classes of the dominant ideology (Foucault’s discursive practices) and used these mediums to control the masses from rebellion (Williams structures of feeling): “An audience watching a play, Nashe suggested, would not be hatching a rebellion” (18). On the flip side, it was also used to reinforce monarchical power and secure the division of social classes. (i.e.: the term “Sirrah” used to generalize the name of a servant, just like the name “Mary” was used to generalize female slaves—Yeah Morrison class!)

Now, I am a lover of Shakespeare and have always used a political and social lens when interpreting his plays (obviously plays like MacBeth and Richard III scream political commentary or were created to please the superiors), but now I am interested to read such pieces like The Comedy of Errors (not mere slapstick, but perhaps a commentary on economics?) or even The Taming of the Shrew (feminists are pissed off, I’m sure).

I Best Get Me A Education

As I read Bourdieu over the last several days (in intense hour increments) I was reminded of an activity that I do with my students to demonstrate Bourdieus concept of cultural capital and how it relates to social mobility (i.e. economic, social statues) in the real world. In a time of another American recession, jobs and economic security is at the forefront of everyone’s mind, especially high school students who are entering the workforce or pursuing a post-secondary education in an extremely competitive job market. Now, I dislike teaching traditional grammar as most English teachers tend to do after so much formulaic instruction (if I liked it so much, I would’ve become a math teacher) but it seems absolutely essential in order for students to achieve what Bourdiue calls a ‘linguistic capital’ that contributes to an individual’s cultural capital (ex. Language type, grammar, spelling, style) that factor into attain a specific ‘social space’.

“Moreover, the distribution of linguistic capital is related in specific ways to the distribution o f other forms of capital (economic capital, cultural capital, etc.)[. . .][h]ence, differences in terms of accent, grammar and vocabulary—the very differences overlooked by formal linguistics—are indices of the social positions of speakers and reflections of qualities of linguistic capitals ( and other capital) which they possess” (18).

I give my students an “Income Grammar Test” from the pedagogy book Image Grammar that measures a student's grammatical knowledge and then uses that measurement to predict the student's potential income if they entered the work force now. This is used to motivate students to be considerate of written and oral communication in a formal setting.

http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/133/136334/grammartest.pdf

“Every day individuals who make grammatical errors are victims of a pervasive but seldom discussed prejudice. People assume that those who make frequent grammatical errors are unintelligent, not very knowledgeable, and incompetent. None of this may be true. Language habits are more indicative of social background than education and ability. However, any business executive will support the notion that grammatical skill directly affects promotion. So, the idea behind the Grammar Income Test is valid, although the scored income level may not be” (Noden).

Bourdiue states “The question of performative utterances becomes clearer if one sees it as a particular case of the effects of symbolic domination, which occurs in all linguistic exchanges” (72). After students take the test (depending on the grade level) they seem to be more cognizant of their formal communication exchanges and how “incorporated signs (such as manners, ways of speaking)” assist in creating an image used as a tool to judge and individual’s character (class, capital, etc) and worth seen by others. (123)

So, if you have some time, try the quiz above WITHOUT looking at the answers, and see what degree of symbolic power designated by your cultural capital you may possess based off of your performance.

Walter Benjamin and Shepard Fairey

As I read this week’s reading, I couldn’t help but think of Shepard Fairey and his “HOPE” piece on Obama as I read Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. It was interesting to read about Benjamin’s perception on the origins and value of art and how they “are received and valued on different planes. Two polar types stand out: with one, the accent of cult value, the exhibition value of art work” (1237). As arts is viewed by the masses, the value shifts to a more commodified form, and subsequently away from the “magical” value that was emphasized in more prehistoric times. As this distancing of values widen, and “with emancipation of the various art practices from ritual go increasing opportunities for the exhibition of their products” (1238). The word that hit me here was the use of “products” and how it disenchants the idea of art and artistic expression, and cheapens it to a factory form. Art is no loger seen as a documentation of humanity, or even a material circumstance at best, but is created for conspicuous consumption that is perpetuated by the elite.

The most influential piece of pop art that immediately popped into my head as I read this was Shepard Fairey’s Obama “HOPE” piece (which has been thought of as Andy Warhol meets Social Realism) that was absolutely instrumental in the campaigning techniques for this past election. Shepard Fairey, who started out as a street artist and skateboard designer (famous obey line and Andre the Giant—thought as a guerilla artist), created an iconic art piece that was mass produced, replicated and even parodied. This propaganda piece appeals to those who frequent the Lenisits critisim approach to art: art that is explicitly committed to the political cause of the time. Ironically enough, Shepard’s gear was for the liberal side, whereas Lenin outlawed such liberal views in the 1934 and direct control over literature and art was exerted. (Barry) Even though Shepard Fairey is attempting to move away from his celebrity status and has created breath-taking pieces that reflect his guerilla roots, he will never be viewed again as a cult or even a cultural artist, but rather will be remembered for his propaganda image and a “sell out” by his pre-Obama followers.

As the purpose art continues to drift away from the ritual, the more art is able to be reproduced. “Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice—politics” (1237).

Phallolocentrism in Entertainment

As I read the Barry section on Feminist Criticism, the section that stuck out the most would have to be the section concerning language. The idea behind this section is a discussion on gender oriented language and it’s restraints on women writers “so that when a woman turns to novel writing she finds that there is ‘no common sentence ready for her to use’” (Barry 121). This male-oriented language creates a bias in the medium which effectively disables the female writer from expressing herself in an unrestrained fashion. These constructs perpetuate gender bias language and impedes female expression.

This bias doesn’t only exist in literature or other genres of writing, but gender variation language has been a recent subject of interest in the field of sociolinguistics concerning oral communication and entertainment forums (eg: cartoons, sitcoms, etc.) In The Study of Language by George Yule, he discusses current findings on such studies in contemporary English concerning “male and female talk”. He found when analyzing dialogue between genders that:

“[t]here is a pattern documented in American English social contexts of women co-operating and seeking connection in language, whereas men are more competitive and concerned with power via language. In mixed-gender pairs having conversations, the rate men interrupt women is substantially greater than in reverse. Women are reported to use more expressions associated with tentativeness, such as ‘hedges’ (sort of, kind of) and ‘tags’ (isn’t it?, don’t you?), when expressing an opinion: Well, em, I think that golf is kind of boring, don’t you?” (Yule, 2002, 242).

So, although we currently are in the “3rd wave feminism” movement, the focus of gynocentrics seems to be dominated on literature (at least on what we read in Barry for this week), it seems to me that focus should also be split to re-evaluate other mediums, specifically media: television and programs aimed at the youth that perpetuate such phallolocentrism ideologies. If such mediums are overlooked, then the "mechanics of patriarchy" will continue and female traits will be determined by cultural and social constructs of America.

Determinist Marxism for some . . . miniature Liberal Marxism flags for others!

Although Marxists share the same baseline of thought when it comes to literary criticism, “that a writer’s class and prevailing ideology have a major bearing on what is written by a member of that class”, I was unaware of the division between Determinist Marxism and Liberal Marxism in the context of gauging how much social, political, and economic variables influence writers. (Barry 152) Determinists, according to Barry, believe that art is a passive product of socio-economic forces while the “liberal-line” believes that these forces are much more distant and subtle. Jameson argues that political interpretation of literary texts are not “some supplementary method [. . .] but rather [functions] as the absolute horizon of all reading and all interpretation” (On Interpretation 181).

This hermeneutic view of cultural literature made me reevaluate readings of some canonized texts that are taught in the secondary classroom, and I came to realize that, in some degree, this rings true. Almost all science fiction can be seen as social criticisms (Fahrenheit 451, 1984, even the commercialized Halo series), Shakespeare wrote his plays in response to political, social, and economic commentary (Macbeth, The Merchant of Venice, Julius Caesar), the Beats rebelled against the country’s ideology and literary practices of the time (broke away from traditional conventions of subject matter, religion, syntax and prescriptive grammar). I bring up these specific pieces up only because they are on the curriculum I teach at the high school level.

Although poetry seems to be autonomous from this hermeneutic view (a genre that is popularly thought of as individualized expression) inspiration for such pieces can be traced back to socio-economic or political strife if the reader digs deep enough.

Now, I understand that this is a huge generalization, and I know that many will refute this, but I believe if we put enough effort and research behind any major literary piece, we could find some degree of social, political or economic context. So, I can agree to some extent with Jameson on his “On Interpretation”, that “[t]he only effective liberation from such constraints begins with the recognition that there is nothing that is not social and historical” to some degree. (183) So, depending on the text, I can rationalized taking a determinist stance on some works (like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle) or the liberal-line approach (Ezra Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro”) depending on genre and piece that is being interpreted.

Latter-Day Platonism

What intrigued me the most about Barry’s reading on Post-Modernism was Bauldrillard’s theory of “hyper-reality” and its parallels to Plato’s Cave. This illusion and misrepresentation of ‘objective reality’ was articulated as a response to electronic media in the 1980s and its nature to blur the lines between reality and illusion. These gilded representations create a fabricated mood, tone, attitude and abstraction for an individual who becomes bombarded with fragmented experiences and interpretations. The production speed of these images creates a distanced reality composed of images and experiences devoid of depth and truth of basic reality. This idea of Bauldrillard’s simulacrum creates emptiness because the surface value of images collapses reality and makes it hard to distinguish it from simulation. This concept reminds me of today’s youth and their reliance on electronic media.

In such a technologically advanced society, the younger generation is born into a wealth of simulated reality. With the popularity of role-playing games, interactive media, social internet sites, reality television and the jaw-dropping speed of innovative technology, it is almost impossible for individuals to distinguish between basic and simulated reality. This distancing also creates a malsocialized generation terrified of human interaction (which, as a teacher, is a frightening peek of humanity in the not-so-distant future.

What social, political and historical ramifications may result as this generation takes the helm?

I Like Me Some Barthes

In the past few discussions we have had in class, the main focus on theory seems to have revolved around the text and the author: specifically their socio-political, literary-historical, and autobiographical context. The argument of “the critic” also arose concerning their authority and overall place in theory and criticism. I have been wondering why the reader was never a point of focus during this discussing. (Yeah diagrams!) Although I posed the question, it was never really discussed; however, now that we have moved onto post-structuralism, I feel that it is appropriate to discuss in light of the introduction of Roland Barthes in this week’s reading.

When Barthes published his essay, “The Death of an Author” in 1968, he helped create a significant shift in the way theorist perceived the idea of authority. In previous theory, text value was often associated with the author, context, and intention of the piece when the dreaded critic assessed the piece’s worth and integrity. On the other hand, Barthes view in early post-structuralism in regards to his essay, he “makes a declaration of radical textual independence: the work is not determined by intention, or context. Rather, the text is free by its very nature of all such restraints” (Barry 63-64). This figurative death of the author shifted theorists their view from the author's intention to the reader: it is the reader that produces the text instead of the author creating it. This reader-centered approach by Barthes in the early phases of post-structuralism captures an authentic purpose of literterture and the experience that it creates for individual readers.

Now, just like we discussed concerning Quintilian, several new theories and pedagogical “innovations” existed long before their termed publications; it is simply re-packaged for modern times. Although Reader Response Theory was practiced since 1937 by Louise Rosenblatt in the pedagogical realm, it did not gain its popularity in literature or pedagogy until the 70s. In her 1938 publication, Literature as Exploration, she remarks on literature as an “event” rather than a static text:

The special meaning, and more particularly, the submerged associations that these words and images have for the individual reader will largely determine what the work communicates to him. The reader brings to the work personality traits, memories of past events, present needs and preoccupations, a particular mood of the moment, and a particular physical condition. These and many other elements in a never-to-be-duplicated combination determine his response to the peculiar contribution of the text. (pp. 30-31)

In short, reader response theory reject the New Criticism which assume that the texts themselves were central, and that instructors were to teach the skills of close-reading while suppressing—the expression of and attention to—differences in students' own individual responses. Then in the late 60s and early 70's there occurred a paradigm shift in the teaching of literature away from viewing the text as authority, to a view that focuses on the reader's relationship and experience with text.

So I ask, what is the point of literature? Why do we write it? To get judged, critiqued, labeled? Or is it a form of expression or entertainment? If we cannot agree on the function of literature, then how can we assess it?

Sometimes I Like My Eggs, Sometimes I Want the Chicken

After reading Barry’s sections for this week’s reading, I am now evaluating how I interpret a text: do I lean towards liberal humanism or towards Structuralism? In the metacognitive stint, I realized that I am a little bit of both depending on the piece of literature, specifically the genre. I like my eggs when it comes to poetry because I feel, personally, that the genre is more of a therapeutic device in the aspect of composition and interpretation (reader-centered). If I read the author’s background, researched the events that helped create the work, or read other poems created by an author as a collective work, then my interpretation may be more scripted and artificial because the context will influence my reading. The “organic” and untainted freedoms are gone because ‘close-reading’ is not implemented. So the idea that “[t]he literary text contain its own meaning within itself” in the genre of poetry sits nicely with me (Barry 17). I feel that the broad genre of poetry relates more to human nature (in its essence form) due to the ‘soul’ of the concept, as opposed, perhaps , to non-fiction. Pouring over too much of the external context can pave a path that you necessarily don’t want to follow.

On the other hand, when it comes to such literary genres as science fiction, I lean towards Structuralism when considering the interpretation of the piece. Science fiction can be read both in isolation (which brings more of an entertainment element to the piece) and in context; but it is the contextual interpretation and understanding of a text can be deepened by the socio-political context in which it was written. One of the main characteristics of science fiction is based around social criticism (this can be seen in such Bradbury pieces) and if a reader desires to deepen their understanding beyond the “surface-text”, they need to be knowledgeable about a number of external contextual elements. For example, they should be familiar with the characteristics of the genre (the voyage, sciences, technology, etc.) so they can evaluate the author’s decisions and motivations. They should also be familiar with the historical aspects (the socio-political) of McCarthyism to better comprehend the themes presented in the work. Autobiographical information may also help shape interpretation if they become familiar with the author’s life and his/her involvement in politics, literature, or other institutions that may give him aretē. I guess, in this respect of the science fiction genre, structuralism may be more beneficial for the reader in their understanding of the “larger picture”, instead of the liberal humanism isolation approach. I agree with Lévi-Srauss , in regards to certain literary genres, that some pieces should be approached by understanding that the “individual” piece of literature “from a cycle of” texts composed by an author may not “have a separate and inherent meaning but could only be understood by considering its position in the whole cycle” (Barry 45). So, depending on the genre, I may like my eggs or I may prefer the chicken.

All the world's a stage . . .

Finally, we find someone who writes against the idea Vir Bonus that we have been discussing in class for the past two weeks. Trebizond, in his Rhetoricorum libre quinque, goes against Quintilian’s belief and declares that: “devoid of the requirement that the orator be a good man, in the moral sense. Rhetoric was, rather, a pragmatic political art indifferent to morality” (Conley 115). After reading the rest of Conley’s section devoted to Trebizond, I was not surprised that this man made such a statement, considering his was not a moral man himself (seeing that he did not credit Hermogenes, Cicero or Quintilan for several structural and cornerstone points of rhetoric) Ah, but ambition can corrupt a man, and the truth surfaced after his death as these ancient texts became more available to Greek Rhetorics due to Manuizo printing spree.

What struck me most about the Conley excerpt above was the word “art”. Not once in the past three weeks have I equated rhetoric to art—perhaps I formulated this idea due to the prescriptive nature of rhetoricians in our previous readings. Now, after mulling over this disequilibrium, I do agree with this concept that rhetoric can be considered an artistic endeavor. What is art? Is it a material medium? Do we classify art as “things” we can hang in a gallery or display on our wall? Is it scrap-metal contorted into a twisted image? A splattering of paint and sweat? A performance that we witness in the seats of a theatre? Pieces that can only be seen in antiseptic museums? The Oxford dictionary (yes, I am giving you the cliché definition plug) defines art as, “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” Isn’t the art of rhetoric just that? the aesthetic expression of making a position appealing? Even beautiful to the ears, like Dionysius believed. Philodemus raised this question in his peri rhetirikēs and questions, “[C]an [rhetoric] legitimately be called and art; and on this subject Philodemus take the position that on kind of rhetoric, ‘sophist’ may qualify, but not others, such as courtroom or political rhetoric” (Conley 44). I believe that even the courtroom and political rhetoric can be considered artistic in the realm of delivery: with its orator gestures, facial expressions, body language and vocal tone performances that are taught to persuade the auditor. Augustine, in his De Doctrina Christiana, stresses in Book 4, that “the preacher should adapt his style to both his aim and his audience” and through his style “we wish not only to make ourselves understood, but even enjoyed” (Matsen 360 & 375). This “enjoyment” that the rhetorician wished to bestow upon his audience strike closely to the chords of entertainment—isn’t that what art does? entertain? Mesmerize? Captivate? Inspire?

. . .And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,”
As You Like It (II, vii, 139–143)

As we stray from the courtroom and political forum, and begin to cross the threshold of religious rhetoric, I begin to see how rhetoric can be considered art, and even theatrical (Gorgias). Trebizond believed that being a good orator (not a good man) could not be simply taught, but innate talent and intellect help create the ideal orator. Every successful artists must be talented to some degree; if not, then they are probably not very successful in their practiced field. The manipulation of an audience takes a great deal of talent and the success of an orator is based on his “performance”. I believe you have to have to be an intelligent, well practiced, well educated, quick, have the ability to improvise and charm the audience, and be a bit of an actor in order to be a successful orator. Rhetoric can be seen as an “art” with these considerations.

As an unperfect actor on the stage
Who with his fear is put besides his part,
Or some fierce thing replete with too much rage,
Whose strength's abundance weakens his own heart.
So I, for fear of trust, forget to say
The perfect ceremony of love's rite,
And in mine own love's strength seem to decay,
O'ercharged with burden of mine own love's might.
O, let my books be then the eloquence
And dumb presagers of my speaking breast,
Who plead for love and look for recompense
More than that tongue that more hath more express'd.
O, learn to read what silent love hath writ:
To hear with eyes belongs to love's fine wit.
-Shakespeare, Sonnet 23

(This is for Tony and Scott =)

The Barbaroi in Best Practice

As a high school teacher, it was interesting to read in last week’s assignment the education views that Isocrates held and how he used them to structure his own school of rhetoric. It was equally as interesting to read about the origin of curriculum in the field of education in the Hellenistic period of rhetoric. (Something I was unfamiliar with concerning that time period) The “enkyklios paideia” implemented to standardize education throughout the Greek world was birthed from the political powers and desire for influence over occupied territories. This “barbaroi” actually strengthened the educational and political powers as great minds from occupied territories joined forces to innovate current practices. A particularly interesting innovation in curriculum concept was the implementation of “progymnasmata”: a surprisingly advanced approach in instruction that has recently been practiced in current educational theory. This building-block approach to instruction is utilized by many new-aged teachers as they adopt a “Best Practice” approach to their instruction (as opposed to the more Traditional forms of instruction) but is termed as the method of “scaffolding”. Scaffolding concepts and ideas have proven to increase student achievement and proficiency in higher level skills. It was surprising to read that such contemporary traces of pedagogy came to light in the Hellenistic period.

In addition, the concept of ethics and morality in rhetoric (specifically those concerning law) did not seem to die out with the death of Isocrates. “The good man skilled in speaking” concept can also be seen in Cicero’s “Vir bonus” –“good man” in relation to virtue and ethics in oration as well as in Quintilian. Also, some of Aristotle’s views are whispered in Carneades ideals concerning an orator’s knowledge of an array of topics, but he also believe that effective orators need to be eloquent and be able “to argue “ in utramque partem”, or in the absence of certain knowledge, but can still be able to argue both sides of the conflict. It just goes to show that the art of eloquence and the skills of an orator simply adapt to the government and allowed practices of the times. It does not “die”, like Tacitus’ characters argue over in Dialogue, rather, it simply adjusts its approach to the forum it is given.

Why Can't We All Get Along?

The Conley Readings helped me immensely in concern to the early Greeks and their respective approached to Rhetoric. (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle & Isocrates) This cogent overview prepped me for the detailed excerpts that followed in the joining reading assignment for Matsen. I was surprised to view the Gorgianic approach to rhetoric, as its characteristics are is found in Julius Ceasar during the funeral speeches delivered by Marc Antony and Brutus. Gorgianic view, is “rhetoric is a unilateral transaction between an active speaker and a passive audience” (6) When I teach persuasion in my class, we go over rational and emotional appeals as well as rhetorical devices to deconstruct these speeches. This form of “flattery” that is often associated with the Gorgianic approach is prevalent in Marc Antony’s speech when he appeals to the audiences emotions and weaknesses, rather than facts and logic. (which Brutus utilize in his funeral speech) He uses theatrics, abrupt transitions and loaded language to sway the fickle audience to his side—a strategy that Plato did not agree upon due to its manipulative nature. On the other hand, Brutus uses an angle of Gorgian approach concerning his speech structure (introduction, narration, proof & conclusion) and utilizes the logical approach presenting facts and reasons to the mob. If this forum was meant to be more political, Brutus might have prevailed; however, due to the topic, Marc Antony chooses the more effective approach of the two.

Regardless of the type of rhetoric that these characters in this drama decided to use, they each utilize specific rhetorical devices to accomplish their goal: repetition (“Believe me for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor, that you may believe “ this is also an aretē introduction) Parallelism (As Cesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honor him, but—as he was ambitious, I slew him”) and Rhetorical Questions (Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all freeman?)

A skilled orator should be proficient at all modes of persuasion and rhetoric. Choosing the right approach is a form of differentiation for the audience: what type would work best under a particular set of circumstances is what should be evaluated. A speaker should be able to improvise, a characteristic of speech that Alcidamas stresses: “improvised speech is effective because it speaks to the opportunity or the right moment in time (kairos)” (Matsen 31). This allows flexibility to the content as well as the audience. A speaker should also be linear in a degree, like Aristotle “two parts are necessary; an introductory statement and the argument proper” (Conley 16). This allows a logical structure for the audience to follow. Finally, a speaker should be able to present facts in a credible way, but shouldn’t risk morality as a result—Isocrates idea that orators should be “good men skilled in speaking” and not simply gild a case by “making the worse case appear the better” (Conley 18)