This is a post about forms of rhetoric unconsciously used in the modern world. "Rhetoric" is technically persuasive speech, but these instance are on the border of speech. Two of those I will list are speech, but one of them is simply the used of a person's name and the other is done through the connotations latently evoked by one word, and the other two are visual, physical-performative, and non-verbal.
But first let me address the larger issue of rhetoric and why I write a post like this at all, which can seem rather negative. In fact, in academic terms, (mostly) conservatives would accuse it of being a "hermaneutic of suspicion" (a big, bad bogey man for many "brave defenders of of object truth" [who themselves wind up being pretty subjectivist at times], a bogey man [meaning you] who accuses everybody of always being twistedly self-seeking and says that there really is no love in the world and that it is an epiphenomenal illusion), and using psychological terms, those who gain by the rhetorics discussed (or more likely those who neurotically wish not to rock the boat with the higher ups, so that the higher ups still gain but don't have to get their hands dirty doing it), are going to accuse of paranoid delusion (although they will do it in "I'm saying this out of interest for your well being" tones like the DD, Withers, in Lewis's That Hideous Strength).
But the fact is that, despite the centuries-long attempts of some types to conform Christianity to gnosticism and despite modern American Evangelicalism's secret lust for logical positivism, the faith still has room to accomodate actual psychology, that (contra gnosticism) marriage of body and spirit and it still recognizes that positive propositions and denotations represent only one aspect of language. And it also remains to true that, as human beings, we are often scared, while at the same time, like some animals (a horrific thought to some, that we might share aspects of animal soul), we can smell the fear of others, and that, without paying attention to these issues specifically, we will probably unconsciously take advantage of their fears through some of these forms of rhetoric ... at which point, if we manage to beat them down, like Jack Lucas in Terry Gilliam's The Fisher King, we will pop in the tape of Edwin saying "OK Jack" (because the real Edwin has been dropped off the line after being psychologically beaten down too badly to answer anything) and go off telling ourselves and others that we "won." When we do that, it might not end up in the pent up lash back being a shotgun in a nice bar, but that doesn't change that we have still done pretty much the same thing. (More often than not, when attempts don't work because the intended victim has a healthy sense of self and some native capability for processing things intelligently, the "plan B" is to engage in conversations with others about how sad it is that the person who refused to play victim is enslaved to their erroneous ways of thinking, or some such terminology, all said of course with the greatest performances of humility [although never admitting that they themselves may be in the wrong ... it's always a very humbling experience for them to have been chosen as uniquely gifted interpreters of reality] and genuine "charity" for the other person ... I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but I have heard some seriously melodramatic conversations in real life, such performances that make Donald Trump's tweets seem positively placid).
Does that mean that that is all there ever is to any human interactions? No. But I think that it does mean that when you deny that these things exist at all (as many conservative Christians do ... at least that they exist universally as issues ... they will admit that the "liberals" have this as a problem all over the place, but it's absolutely and decisively not a problem in their own set), you give them an in to being more powerful because unmonitored. I have long held that it is possible for a person to decisively win an argument without getting one inch closer to discovering truth about a matter (and probably getting further away from it).
So, here they are:
1. The rhetoric of the first name. If I am in a room and talking to you and a couple other people and I say something that I want applied only to you, then using your first name to signal that has a legit function. But if you and I are having a conversation with just the two of us and I use your first name, especially after the conversation has begun, then unless I am a woman who is in love with you and saying ti because I like hearing the sound of it and looking in the eyes and all, there is a pretty good chance that there is some of this rhetorical bullshit going on. It is a way to talk down to a person. The hope is usually to shock the person into "oh my gosh, they're talking to me like I am a child, so I must be being childish ... I need to do what they say." This works on the insecure to avoid any need to provide actual sound reasoning, and that is what somebody who uses it is probably unconsciously hoping it will do.
2. The moral dimension of "admit"adapted in "as you admit." This is kind of a transference of weight from one realm to another via an equivocally used common term, in this case, "admit." One can admit that one things more likely to be objectively the case than another. However, you also admit failings and weaknesses and sins. The use of this is usually unconsciously sort of a gravitational effect. If, by tone and performance, one can get "as you admit," while spoken of a non-moral issue, to latch into the core of moral emotions, then the mark can probably be manipulated into feeling the same moral compulsion concerning the objective matter being discussed.
3. The rhetoric of the exasperated sigh. This is a melodramatic sigh that implies that the sigher is getting exasperated because your silliness is draining them by having to spend so much energy on it. I think you're supposed to feel two things from this. First, your supposed to fear that others will see this effect and then see that you are wrong" "oh no, if they're this exasperated, I must be being silly, and the sighing is also visible to others, so I might get outed as being silly ... I better recant." And second, you're supposed to feel kind of guilty for wasting their time ... so you kind of owe them conceding that they are right.
4. Facial rhetoric: This comes in two forms. But also, by the by, I think they are on the same lines as what is described in prophetic books in the Old Testament (particularly the "minor" books like Habakkuk) as "shaking their heads" at the prophet, basically like Draco making the loony signs with rolling eyes at Harry Potter in Prisoner of Azkaban after Harry feinted on the train from the dementor.
A. The "saving you face" face: eyes semi-popped out and to the side avoiding eye contact in a comical "saving you shame" sort of way = "dude, I'm trying to save you face here by giving you some space to back out because it's obvious you're wrong and making a fool out of yourself by saying what you're saying because it is self-evident that you're wrong" ... to which the response is supposed to be an abashed but thankful-for-the-second-chance retraction, when really the response should be "um, excuse me, you have to demonstrate your logic like anyone else, you don't get to declare ex-cathedra what is self-evident, my dear little self-made pope."
B. The "good-natured" (but actually condescending) incredulity face: Eyes, narrowed, furrowed brow, with slight smile of "you know that can't be true, it's just not sensible, it's not credible, come now, I know you recognize this? I'll smile playfully so as to give you the out of 'was just kidding,' but also, if you persist, observers will see it as being charitable on my part when you're being sort of a loony." And, again, the response is supposed to be an abashed retraction with a sigh of relief at the person's good naturedness in not judging you for your obvious silliness and a willlingness to get on with the business of accepting their wisdom, when really the response should be: "Um, excuse me, what exactly are your qualifications for discerning what is obviously true or not in this regard? Can I please hear you discuss some of the core issues in this question so I can see if you have ANY clue at all how this particular thing works? Because I have seen the same expressions on a lot of people who, I later found out, were clueless, despite how sure they were of themselves."
Conclusion
With all of these, I feel like Professor Lupin in the shrieking shack toward the end of Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban, when Hermione says, "but Professor Lupin, that just can't be right,you know it can't," and Lupin asks calmly, "why can't it be"? When people use these rhetorics, they are often arrogantly convinced of their own rightness (often in the midst of delusions of being so humble), and they never "admit" for one second that it might be their perception that is skewed (my personal favorite among these is appeals to something like "the wisdom of the common man," and lots of quoting G.K. Chesterton's comments on common sense, while not actually discussing any reasoning at all, but rather unconsciously accepting the proposition that they are unique receptacles of some deposit of this wisdom of the common man, usually in some narrative in which their lack of formal education is the very thing that signals that they are such receptacles).A lot of people in Christian circles will ooh and aah over the powerfulness of facial performances in films. But the second you suggest that they or the people they serve emotionally might be using facial or other performances with a real-world power in them (to manipulate), they accuse you of "hermeneutic of suspicion" and paranoia.
Addendum
All of those above I would call "performative" rhetoric except the "admit" one. The name rhetoric is hard to place, but in the end, I would class it as performative because they do not rely on the semantic content of a word in any way. The rhetoric of the first name relies on the referent, meaning you, but not on the semantic content, which would be like if there was some rhetorical impact of the content of the idea of a blackbird, which is what my first name, Merle, originally is, like the rhetorical effect of saying somebody is "admitting" something. So I will call these two classes "semantic rhetoric" and "performative rhetoric."
Another semantic rhetoric is what I call the "rhetoric of disappointment." Evangelicals and .. probably mainly because humans of all stripes love it. And once you learn to see through it, it goes to another level of what I call the "rhetoric of depression": you get so tired in your soul when you see over and over again this attempt to shame, and when you see that they actually believe that it works on you because it actually works on them, and then you realize that trying to make any headway in an actual understanding friendship is futile.
Another performative rhetoric is the "oh well" rhetoric, rhetoric of resignation. The person has accepted that they cannot sway you and they are not going to try to shame you etc, they are will to accept things as they are (so charitably) ... but they're making sure by their performance of it that you know very well that it is a thing of resignation and that it makes them a little sad because it takes energy to keep up with your attitude in your wrongness. It's sort of a last-ditch effort to get all or at least part, an "if I can't get what I want, I will take what I can get" approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment