For the upcoming assignment I must say I've thought heavily about using multimodality to complete it. Specifically speaking, I am a huge movie person and there are a lot movies that come to mind specifically to outline my rhetorical philosophy. However, I think the way I'd like to go about it might be to compare/contrast certain ideals with the ways in which certain scenes and dialogue are delivered. It seems to me that I fall specifically in Gorgias and Aristotle when thinking about the rhetoric that I, myself, like to employ. I like that Gorgias argued that one could use rhetoric to argue just about anything, but Aristotle valued virtue to justify why rhetoric is important. I think the combination of these two things, as well as my Ethics course, help me to situate myself in the rhetorical landscape a bit more solidly than in the previous years.
Scenes that specifically come to my mind are the dialogic scenese between Hans Landa and every single character in Inglorious Basterds. The secondary reason this could work in my favor is the fact that Landa is a SS officer for Nazi run Germany in WWII. Instantly, we see that his virtues are out of whack, however, his level of articulation and rhetorical usage are so high that he can manipulate and control just about any situation with just his speech. This brings up a valid point in theory that just because rhetoric can be used for any situation, should it? In Tech Comm. we struggle with this point all of the time. Especially in the case of Katz's "Ethics of Expediency" where perfectly good rhetoric and tech comm. is used to basically hide the fact that mass killings were happening. These types of situations I think help me justify my rhetorical stance further and I want to use something that is heavy in dialogue as well to help me prepare for the Platonic dialogue we are to write later as well.
I'm a big fan of movies as well. There's something about providing a narrative or claim from a variety of perspectives, converging on the center in a denouement, that is cathartic and clever in and of itself. I find many affinities with Gorgias even just in terms of relativity and probable knowledge. I used to be very idealistic in my teaching, but now I recognize that what I think is important in my courses doesn't have to be what my students think is important. And that it is my job, though, to help them make practical knowledge or direct connections--whatever they may be--to course content. Some assignments may seem vague, as a result, but they're not: they're just flexible, open, and inviting. I invite you to think multimodally, for instance. Movies can be the commonplaces of our times. When you say Inglorious Basterds, I immediately have a framework, for instance, that some people may no longer share if I say Anna Karenina. Finding the commonplace, throughout whichever media type or experience, is a good first step in communicating effectively. What woudl you say your top three principles are in your philosophy? Do they follow some things Katz suggests? Are they situational, dialectical? Looking forward to seeing your assignment, Michael.
ReplyDeleteI have a book chapter I fairly recently published that may be of interest to the line of thinking that I had when making this assignment. It may be useful to skim as you massage your thinking on this assignment. See the second chapter of http://wac.colostate.edu/books/eportfolios.
Michael, I haven't seen Inglorious Bastards, but I'm familiar enough with the concept to know where you're coming from. This sounds really interesting. I always enjoy it when a good movie shows us various perspectives or forces us to appreciate - if not agree with - a character simply because of his/her rhetorical abilities. This tension seems especially high in this example because, as you say, the character is clearly supposed to be seen as being in the wrong. I'm curious to see where you go with this.
ReplyDeleteI loved that movie, and Landa's ability to vindicate his stance on killing Jews through articulate and was absolutely chilling. And yes, it also reminded me of "The Ethics of Expediency."
ReplyDeleteThanks, Michael, for your philosophy notes here and also working on Indian student blogs.
ReplyDeleteSome quick notes, Michael, if you have time to include them into your draft due in a few days:
ReplyDelete- go with one space in between sentences
- as a manager you probably need to be able to step in and complete work at a specific level of quality if needed, too
- good logic: role-1 is to get the job, role-2 is to complete it
- does openness include reliably presenting what your team can do and can't do?
- does your team use agile development? what's the project management development strategy you rely upon the most?
- can you be more specific about accountability? How do you go about ensuring the job is done well?
- feedback loops?
- for the assignment, will you hyperlink or meta-reflect over which rhetors most make sense to support your claims?
I had of recent watched the movie 'Inglorious Bastards'and was very persuaded by the character of Hans Landa. It was nice to see how you talked about his use of rhetoric to suit himself in various situations. I hadn't realized it before and now I seem to agree to that thought.
ReplyDeleteI think it is really going to work well for you and I look forward to more of it in your upcoming assignment.
Michael: Your textual observations (spanning some centuries and art forms) raises the issue of whether or not what Hitler practiced (in his speeches) was rhetoric--and by extension Landa. If one sees rhetoric as serving the broad dimensions of humanity in ethical, responsible ways (as Cicero argues), then the axis of Hitler-Landa does not engage in rhetoric, for rhetoric is about persuasion rather than manipulation. In this sense, this observation may help us understand QT's point re: a world (the Nazis create pandemonium, and Pandemonium, according to Milton, is the capital of hell) in which persuasion has no role to play because living under the reign of despotic occupiers only gives birth to the discourse of deception and to using language that deceives.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I'm looking forward to reviewing your teaching philosophy essay and offering you comments via email. You'll receive notes from me soon.
ReplyDelete