- New rhetorics
-
New rhetorics is an interdisciplinary field [1] approaching for the broadening of classical rhetorical cannon.[2][3] The New Rhetoric is a result of various efforts of bringing back rhetorics from the marginal status [1] it attained by its image and 'negative connotations' of "political lies, corporate spin, long list of Greek and Roman terms for patterns of expression no one knowingly uses, purple prose, boiler-plate arrangement schemas, unimaginative reproductions of bullshit and so on" [4] if not to its previous place of a discipline "associated with social and intellectual prestige" [1] than at least to the level of the other contemporary fields in the social, cultural and liguistic studies. Notoriously the field emerged after the work of Chaim Perelman in his book The New Rhetoric (1969) [5] but we can trace both the notion and the idea for the need of "new" rhetoric, different from the "old" one in the works of Kenneth Burke - A Rhetoric of Motives (1950) and Rhetoric - Old and New (1967),[6] and even before that.
What helped the emergence of New rhetoric was the ideas of the epistemic status of rhetoric, the notion of a clearly definable rhetorical core and other.[1]
New rhetorics attempts to preserve the original field but it also has tense relationship with it.[1] For example New rhetoric will attempt to brake up with the formalistic and logocentric (i.e. patriarchal) Neo-Aristotelian analysis in favour of interplay between text and context, but according to DeGenaro it does not succeed to place itself outside the "Western-patriarchal" with being unable to departure from "elite backgrounds and scopes of study" [3] to a diversity of voices, topics, etc. This probably makes New Rhetoric rather a ground for the Postmodern rhetoric [7] which "puts into question the identities of the speaker, the audience, and the messages that pass between them" [8] with evalutating the intersubjective philosophy [9] because of the inherently accepted in the postmodernistic philosophy idea that "differences cannot be overcome, in Hegelian fashion, by cancelling them under a higher-order synthesis, but must be eroded or defaced in the course of traversing them."[10]
Nevertheless of the succession by postmodern rhetorics (which however couldn't reach the state of "movement" or a "field") after the break out of New Rhetoric in the mid of 20th century, in the mid 2000s new efforts and approches are made in New Rhetoric theory and field in common.
References
- ^ a b c d e Andreea Deciu Ritivoi, Rhetorics: New Rhetorics, in Wolfgang Donsbach (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication, doi: 10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x
- ^ Per example in Defining the New Rhetoric and Proffessing the New Rhetoric
- ^ a b New and Alternative Rhetorics - William DeGenaro, Who says?: working-class rhetoric, class consciousness, and community, Univ of Pittsburgh Press, 2007, pp.5
- ^ George Pullman, Rhetorically Speaking, What’s New?, Georgia State University, What is the New Rhetoric? conference
- ^ Thomas M. Carr, Jr. Some Consequences of The New Rhetoric: A Critical Study, Argumantation 7: 475-479, 1993
- ^ Zachary M. White, Re-examining Kenneth Burke on "identification" in the "new" rhetoric, dissertation @ Purdue University
- ^ Not the rhetoric of postmodernism but postmodern theory and analysis in rhetorics.
- ^ Gary E. Aylesworth, Rhetoric, Postmodern The International Encyclopedia of Communication, doi: 10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x
- ^ Barry Brummett, Some Implications of "Process" or "Intersubjectivity": Postmodern Rhetoric, Philosophy & Rhetoric, Penn State University Press, 1976
- ^ Gary Aylesworth, Postmodernism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy
Categories:
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
