Do the Evolution

Do the Evolution

In our reading, Williams showcases the evolution of rhetoric. For Williams, this is important because it establishes the foundations for what we will presumably learn in the chapters that follow. Before heading out to Ancient Greece, Williams defines rhetoric as both, "…the field of study that examines the means by which speakers and writers influence states of mind and actions in other people…", and as "the application of those means" (1). Also of concern for Williams is the spreading of what he labels the 'restricted code'. Williams admonishes contemporary students lack of vocabulary and their "inability to communicate abstract" ideas (2). Williams believes the ideas presented in this book might work as an antidote to this lack of erudition. Refreshingly, Williams does not place the sole blame on the student. He makes astute observations about the complexity of teaching writing and therefore solidifies the urgency of his work.

    It was somewhat rewarding to ride along with Williams and his tour of the history of rhetoric. When reading the section on Classical Greek Rhetoric, Rhetoric and the Greek Philosophers, and on the Sophists, I couldn't help but think that Williams was purposely holding up a mirror to contemporary western culture and politics. This notion is amplified by the fact that we are in an election season and therefore find ourselves being bombarded with political rhetoric from both the left and the right. What perhaps gave the liberal in me the most visceral pleasure was the discussion on how Greek aristocrats would have been opposed to democratic ideas that usurped their sphere of power and influence. Through my progressive lens, that is exactly the behavior I observe in today's economic elite and the party charged with defending them: The GOP.

    The ancient Greeks' dogmatic belief that personal excellence was tethered to civic duty and the greater good – the concept of areté – also holds great appeal to the Liberal in me. Part of the reason I joined the military was because I on some subconscious level shared this sense of civic duty for the greater good and that was somehow a necessary thing in order to become a well-rounded citizen. What came as a surprise – particularly because I dedicated quite a few semesters in undergrad to studying him – was the notion that Plato, politically, was conservative/anti-democratic. It is as if Plato was the ancient Greeks' version of Glenn Beck! Perhaps I was not overly observant all those years ago.

    From the Sophists and Plato, Williams picks up the journey with Aristotle and we see a shift (or evolution) from oral traditions of rhetoric to written traditions of rhetoric. Aristotle's concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos are a metaphorical garden of fruitful thought for discussion and contemplation.

    I didn't really get much out of the section on Roman Rhetoric other than the idea of rhetorician as philosopher statesman and Crassus's division of rhetoric into "invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery". With talent being the "most important requirement" (27). Isn't this exactly what we experience with the modern politician? I may not like Sarah Palin (at all), but I cannot deny the fact that she has a charisma that moves and motivates likeminded individuals.

    I can't leave without discussing Christianity. Wasn't it interesting to read how Christianity felt it was necessary to co-opt (or assimilate) pagan beliefs, symbols, and so on? Now that the foundation has been laid down, it will be interesting to see where Williams takes us.