QQC 5

Quote: "Knowledge is created  "through relations... between institutions, economic and social processes, behavioral patterns, systems of norms, techniques, types of classification, modes of characterizations; and these relations are not present in the object"

Question: Do you agree/disagree that knowledge is an act of observation? Could he be implying that we don't experience life for what it actually is?

QQC 5

quote: " He rejects the answer that it is the object itself: "It is not enough for us to open our eyes, to pay attention, or to be aware, for new objects suddenly to light up and emerge out of the ground.""


Question: With Foucault's recent work on human sexuality how would we better understand his beliefs?

QQC 5

“Mendel spoke the truth, but he was not “within the true” of the biological discourse of his time...”

Foucault thinks that in this case, the credibility of truth relied on its relation to a cultural moment, or a disciplinary timeline/history. Can a “truth” ever transcend time and its cultural moment? If so, what sort of truth would be accepted as credible without abiding by its current cultural/disciplinary boundaries?

QQC 5

 Self determination is a third principle that usually comprises a feminist world view.


Question: do we believe that these traits of feminisms and masculinity are scientifically true or beloved to be true by the perceptions created ever since the initiation of rhetoric?

QQC 5

Quote: "Discourse is not simply that of which manifests (or hides) desire- it is also the object of desire; and since as history teaches us, discourse is not simply that which translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing for which and by which there is struggle, discourse is the power which is to be seized."

Question: Who has the power to determine what can or can't be a part of discourse?

QQC 5

Quote: "It is always possible that one might speak the truth in the space of a wild exteriority, but one is "in the true" only by obeying the rules of a discursive "policing" which one has to reactivate in each of one's discourse." (RT)

Question: Is there a limit to how much truth there can be within a rhetorical space of discourse? Why?

QQC: #5

"Discourse is not simply that which translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing for which and by which there is struggle."

To what extent do you believe discourse is the thing for which and by which struggle exists? Apart from discourse, can you find another derivation of struggle?

QQC 5

Quote:

"It is perhaps risky to consider the opposition between true and false as a third system of exclusion, along with those just mentioned. How could one reasonably compare the constraint of truth with divisions like those, which are arbitrary to start with or which at least are organized around historical contingencies; which are not only modifiable but in perpetual displacement; which are supported by a system of institutions which impose them and renew them"

Question:

How do you feel about Foucault's claim that our conception of truth is rooted in our historical and social context and is easily modifiable and in perpetual change? Do you agree with it?

QQC #5

“...discourse is no more than a play, of writing in the first case, of reading in the second case, and of exchange in the third, and this exchange, this reading, this writing never put anything at stake except signs" (Foucault 1470)

Do you agree with Foucault’s idea that rhetoric has less to do with knowledge and more to do with signs?  Can you think of another way that discourse would be considered as signs rather than knowledge? How do you think Foucault derived this claim?

QQC 5: Foucault

Quote: "Here is the hypothesis that I would like to put forward[...]: that in every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized, and redistributed by a certain number of procedures[.]" (RT 1461)

Question: Do you think that limiting discourse, either in the ways Foucault says society does or in other ways, is a good idea? Are there situations in which it's acceptable?

"...discourse is not simply that which manifests (or hides) desire -- it is also the object of desire; and since, as history constantly teaches us, discourse is not that which translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing for which and by which there is struggle, discourse is the power which is to be seized."

In this quote, it seems to me that Foucault is saying that discourse causes struggle and must be "seized" if this struggle is to stop. Do you think this is true? Does discourse cause struggle? Does this mean discourse has no ability to bring about resolution?

QQC 5

Quote: "On the other hand, strange powers not held by any other may be attributed to the madman's speech: the power of uttering a hidden truth, of telling the future, of seeing in all naivete what the others' wisdom cannot perceive."

Question: Do you agree with Foucault that only the speech of a "madman" can hold these qualities (or "powers")?

QQC 4

"discourse is not simply that which manifests (or hides) desire it is also the object of desire"

Question: would seeking out discourse, under this definition, lean towards a more patriarchal understanding of rhetoric? How could a feminist understanding be applied? 

QQC

Q: Knowledge is created not by the act of observing, Foucault says, but through "relations...between institutions, economic and social processes, behavioral patterns, systems of norms, techniques, types of classification, modes of characterization: and these relations are not present in the object."

Q: Do you believe this is a more effective way in gaining knowledge?

QQC 5

Quote: "Knowledge is created not by the act of observing, Foucault says, but through relations... between institutions, economic and social processes, behavioral patterns, systems of norms, techniques, types of classification, modes of characterizations; and these relations are not present in the object." (Foucault, 1127)

Question: Do you agree with Foucault's claim that knowledge is created through relations? Why or why not?

QQC 5

Quote: "Knowledge is created not by the act of observing, Foucault says, but through relations...between institutions, economic and social processes, behavior patters, systems of norms, techniques, types of classification, modes of characterization; and these relations are not present in the object."

Question: Would you agree that knowledge is solely based off of relations? Or do you think it is a combination of observing and relations?

QQC #5

Q:"His word [madman] may be considered null and void, having neither truth nor importance, worthless as evidence in law, inadmissible in the of deeds or contracts... On the other hand, strange powers not held by any other may be attributed to the madman's speech: the power of uttering a hidden truth, of telling the future, of seeing in all naïveté what the others' wisdom cannot perceive."

Q: I feel we are growing as a society in terms of acceptance, but historically we have been quick to jump the gun to rid or condemn someone with different beliefs, practices, or ideas that are centrifugal according the the majority. Can you think a time in history where the centripetal society was wrong and the "madman", or woman, or centrifugal forces were right or eventually credited?

Quote: "Discourse is not simply that of which manifests (or hides) desire- it is also the object of desire; and since as history teaches us, discourse is not simply that which translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing for which and by which there is struggle, discourse is the power which is to be seized."

Question: How does desire and power play a role in exclusion? The reading gives the example of the prohibition, what is another?

QQC 5

“discourse is not simply that which manifests (or hides) desire it is also the object of desire; and since, as history constantly teaches us, discourse is not simply that which translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing for which and by which there is struggle, discourse is the power hitch is to be seized” (Foucault pg 1461).

Q: if discourse is the thing to be digested and seized that would mean that rhetoricians use discourse as a tool to further their power over the audience. Do you think that using discourse in such a way is effective?

QQC 5: Foucault

Quote: "Thus in a philosophy of the founding subject, in a philosophy of originary experience, and in a philosophy of universal mediation alike, discourse is no more than a play, of writing in the first case, of reading in the second case, and of exchange in the third, and this exchange, this reading, this writing never put anything at stake except signs" (Foucault 1470).

Question: Foucault lists three philosophies of discourse (theories of rhetoric) that, to him, obscure the reality of discourse: the founding subject, that states discourse happens when a rhetor uses language for his own aims; the originating experience, that states discourse happens when meanings already in the world are put into language by a rhetor; and the universal mediation, that states discourse is created by the unfolding of events that leads to an exchange and uncovering of meanings.

Do any of these three philosophies of discourse challenged by Foucault correspond to any of the rhetorical theorists we have learned about thus far? What theorists (if any) might challenge Foucault by saying that rhetoric, contrary to Foucault's claim, has little to do with knowledge and everything to do with signs/language?

Reflective blog post 2

Ratcliff does a splendid job at emphasizing just home crucial the listening portion of a conversation is to the conversation itself and the act of transferring knowledge. Ratcliff’s rhetorical listening concept is like an act that the receiver of the rhetoric does in order to grasp the information best. Ratcliff explains how we generally lack the content of the communication becuase we are busy thinking about  our own identity and how thisnifemaotion might apply, but we aren’t learning we are just applying in the moment it’s like a reflection while processing the information but that leaves no room to digest the information just room to prepare a response to the information. She also stresses how listing Ian seen in this society as more of a feminine trait while being a skilled speaker is seen as a masculine trait. I think that this is a correct observation of the world because if anyone is expected to misinterpret information it would be the women. Also, thoughout history, rhetoric has been reserved for mostly white males rather then women. I enjoyed learned pivot the important of listing when trying to achieve the purpose of a conversation or when attending a speech.

Reflective Blog Post

     Ratcliff tries to defines the issues of rhetorical listening and how that differs from many of the other rhetoricians we have heard from. Ratcliff tries to interpret rhetorical listening as an invention to be used by the public. I think that in fairness she is trying to insist that by listening rhetorically you will better understand and you will make the person speaking feel acknowledged, but I do think that by listening you put yourself at the mercy of the people talking. You have to give them your full attention and completely understand what they are saying. You do get a better understanding to what the person has to say but you must listen to them use their own rhetoric. The think here is that you have to make your decision and decide if you disagree or agree with what they are saying. Ratcliff is trying to show that you have to first understand before you can interpret and make up your own argument.

Reflective Blog Post

In Ratcliff's exploration of a rhetorical listening concept, she defines the notion of rhetorical listening as a performance that, simply put, allows for identification to occur between a persona and their "self" as well as a person and a "other". This, on a base level, already sounds like Burke's theory of identification in the sense that it recognizes the existence of "recognition" as an idea that is spurred from the sense that there is a disconnect between all things. This all seems very similar in essence, but a part of the theory that Ratcliff expands upon is the ideas of difference recognition being classically associated with negative connotations. Ratcliff says that, through listening, we would "proceed within a responsibility logic, not from within a defensive guilt/blame one." (Ratcliff 204). The notion that through not necessarily privileging, but paying more attention the the act of listening, individuals would experience a more peaceful rhetorical process, isn't groundbreaking to me. The reaffirmation of "listening" as a rhetorical art and practice is a hopeful one for me. Rhetoric as we have been learning it, is either an offensive or defensive act, which indicates conflict. However, listening is neither of the former. For me, it sits as an act of "vulnerability" that quells the interpersonal fire of "needing the be the one that is right.

I like Ratcliff alot,because at her core it seems like she's just asking for humility. Which is so important in a time when people see to be more afraid of being wrong, then finding joy in doing right.

Reflective Blog Post 2

Communication is what many people believe is the key to healthy relationships, however within communication Ratcliffe does a great job of emphasizing how speaking is something that is praised, on the other hand, listening is an act that is overlooked. Ratcliffe describes listening as something that “broadens our possibilities for interpretative (Page 27).” When we do not listen, we limit our ability to understand and see things from another perspective. I feel as if this directly relates to Burkes theory of identification, because he believed that humans align their interests to establish a connection in order to persuade. That being said how is someone able to align interests, if they are not listening and able to relate? 

            Burke and Ratcliffe seem to both agree that finding a shared perspective is extremely important. When we don’t listen we limit ourselves, as well as the people around us, which in turn can create division. Since listening is so important then why is it something that has been so underestimated for so long? One aspect of the reading that I found incredibility interesting was the negative connotation behind listening and how it is linked to being a “feminine” quality, while speaking is considered to be a “masculine” more positive quality (Page 7). Just like how the act of listening is overlooked, women are overlooked as well, which is a horrible norm that society has constructed. Listening is something that needs just as much educational backing as reading and writing since it is such a key component to life. Not being able to relate or even just understand a person’s actions or feelings is detrimental to society. 

RBP #2-Ratcliff

  Krista Ratcliff discusses how listening in terms of rhetoric has been somewhat neglected and that one does not really consider listening to be as important as it is within the 20th century. She emphasizes on many great points on how we can better our rhetorical listening and why it is so important. I agree with her point of view on this subject matter because I feel as though people don't really take into consideration on how they are listening to something and why they are listening to it so they can get a full understanding on what they are listening to.

  Incorporating Burke's theory of identification into Ratcliff's piece; She expands on her theory of identification through listening. She feels as though one can gain better understanding of truths through how they listen. She goes on by stating that her particular interest (in listening) lies in how it may help us to hear discursive intersections of gender and race/ethnicity (including whiteness) so as to help us facilitate cross-cultural dialogues about any topic (Ratcliff 196). I took this as a more complex version of the saying "putting yourself in someone else's shoes" in terms of rhetorical listening. Burke's theory is more so focused on the commonality between the speaker and the listener in trying to seek for identification. Where as Ratcliff's theory is more so focused on the in-depth understanding of listening whether it be in a written or oral form.

Reflective Blog Post 2

Burke’s theory of identification is based on the idea that in a rhetorical situation, the speaker and audience try to find commonalities between each other by recognizing when they have a shared set of values, histories, or experiences, identity., Burke points out that his theory identification also gives rise to divisiveness; in the same way our commonalities can work to unite us, our differences divide us. 

Ratcliffe does not seem to fully refute Burke’s claims, but she does reject the dichotomy of identification and division that he has established. Ratcliffe’s theory of rhetorical listening offers us a third alternative—one in which our differences, not just our similarities, bring us together, understanding. She explains that this understating is not limited to the rhetor’s intent in saying something or the potentially self-serving intent of the audience who’s receiving the message. The example she provides from the movie An Imitation of Life shows us why this sort of understanding is necessary. In it, the character of Lora Meredith is completely unaware of her houseworker’s life outside of the service she provided her, the thing they had in common. This form of understating involves a lot of self-reflection and an openness to learn from those we consider “other”. 

Ratcliffe’s theory resonates in a country as multi-cultural and with a history as controversial as the United States. As Ratcliffe rightfully points out, we must depend on rhetorical listening to guide our politics and ethics if the goal is peaceful coexistence, tolerance and justice. 

Reflective Blog Post

Ratcliffe takes Burke’s ideas and adds onto them by going off his definition of identification. She argues that you can use rhetorical listening to fully understand Burke’s lenses or terministic screens. Tis idea is that we see a world and that has been constructed by our experiences and comforts. Ratcliffe argues that because of the way we see the world differently as humans, is how we perceive identification. 

Burke’s idea that you can persuade someone through identification and relating to someone goes along with what Ratcliffe is saying. In order to understand and identify someone, you have to try to relate to them. Ratcliffe believes that through listening, you can reach a different level of understanding someone. 

Reflective Blog Post #2

Krista Ratcliffe goes far and beyond the basic notions of identification that Kennth Burke addresses. Burke's theory of identification, in concise form, considers the role of identifying a commonality between speaker and listener in order to optimize rhetorical appeal. Thus, one may persuade or be persuaded by honing in on some identifiable thing, such as a shared experience or way of speaking. This understanding of identification offers a fairly effective avenue to persuasion.

Ratcliffe does so much more, however, by addressing a conscious form of listening that goes farther than a simple connection. Ratcliffe's theory gives way to actual understanding. She addresses the existence of disciplinary and cultural biases that have skewed, or displaced, listening. She emphasizes the discursive nature of rhetorical listening in all of its forms (beyond oral and written texts), which ultimately turns into rhetorical invention. These notions of rhetorical listening turn the intent to understand on the listener, which broadens the possibilities for interpretive invention.

Reflective Blog Post 2

            In Krista Ratcliff’s article “Rhetorical Listening,” she directly engages with rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke’s concept of identification and critiques this “traditional identification” when stating that, “Differences are often glossed over or erased, left outside the circle of consubstantiality” (Ratcliff 208). Burke himself recognized this issue with identification when acknowledging division, its “ironic counterpart” (Burke 1327). However, the Burkean solution to division is unclear, and it is this deficiency that Ratcliff seeks to correct by developing her theory of rhetorical listening.

Burke’s “Definition of Man” can be seen as a part of a project to highlight the ways in which all men are consubstantial and thus provide a means by which we can all identify with one another, thus alleviating Ratcliff’s concern for glossed over differences. However, if one is to rhetorically listen to Burke’s piece, one can hear the echoes of his culture throughout (in his several references to the Cold War) and pinpoint areas where certain peoples are being erased—for example, his inclusion of hierarchy in his definition of man makes those at the bottom of social hierarchies seem almost complicit in their subjugation. The strength of Ratcliff’s rhetorical listening does not only rest in the fact that it fills the gaps of Burkean identification by accounting for and acknowledging the differences lost in this process, but she also provides a way in which we can analyze texts to “hear” the gaps that need to be filled.

Reflective Blog Post 2

Ratcliffe is building on Burke's ideas of identification. Through rhetorical listening she acknowledges the existence of many discourses.  One can use rhetorical listening as a tool to understand Burke’s terministic screens. These terministic screens are compared to a lens through which the world makes sense to us. For example, one's race or gender can help form a screen through which they interpret the world differently. Ratcliffe promotes studying these kinds of "screens" in order to understand completely the authors point of view.

Ratcliffe takes Burke's idea of identification and applies it to her idea of listening. To Ratcliffe, rhetorical listening is a method of reading that offers a unique way of interpreting text. It can be used to distinguish categories such as age, class, history, nationality, religion and politics. In “Rhetorical Listening,” she describes studying, as well as identifying, her own whiteness. She does this by taking the time to read up on other authors viewpoints. She believes this listening will create a deeper understanding.

Blog Post #2

Krista Ratcliffe’s theory regarding rhetorical listening greatly contributes to Kenneth Burke’s notion of identification.  Burke claims that “you persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his.”  His idea of identification elaborates on how it is shown through persuasion. When an individual uses persuasion, characteristics of their identity are shared with the audience.

In addition, Ratcliffe believes that rhetorical listening allows us to be open to new ideas and opinions in cross-cultural dialogues.  Listening is beneficial to seeking the truth because it helps expose us to other viewpoints and beliefs, which will eventually guide us to the ultimate truth. The combination of Ratcliffe and Burke’s theories better our understanding of rhetoric and discourse because it allows for recognizing differences among one another, giving us a more efficient understanding of the rhetor's intentions. These theories are important in today's world because it can potentially help bring humanity together in the sense of recognizing and respecting everyone's differences regarding gender, sexuality, race, and other controversial topics.

RBP 2

In reading Burke and Ratcliff, it is apparent to me that both rhetoricians value the ways in which we communicate with each other in order to gain deeper understanding from these interactions. To me, both are discussing ideas parallel to one another but differ in their approaches, evident in their elaborations.

Burke, in the Theory of Identification, outlined that identification is done by persuasion. He goes on to explain that this is done by identifying with your crowd to appear relatable in order to gain their acceptance. “You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his.” This quote outlines how Burke proposes we appeal to others; by essentially walking and talking like others to form an ally-ship.

Ratcliffe, on the other hand, discussed the importance of listening in her piece. She defined listening as a means of gaining understanding into another’s point of view which can lead to the truth of said matter. It was of emphasis that the way we listen can highlight different aspects of a person’s life such as their demographic and position in life as well as to gain insight to how someone may be approaching a situation. This point lead me back to Burke’s idea on terministic screens, remining me of how explained that we each view the world differently and this can largely be influenced by different cultures.

We see the intersection of Burke and Ratcliffe’s theories in that by aligning yourself with others (Burke) that you can therefore become a better listener to gain a better understanding of something to reach truth (Ratcliff). I feel this is important in our day in age to seek understanding from both sides of a topic, discussion, argument, etc. will help to aid the ways we communicate with one another. This reminds me of the saying that “you never know what someone is going through until you walk a mile in their shoes.”