Historically, rhetoric has been specifically built on oral speech. There had been no writing of any kind. Everything that needed to be remembered was memorized and passed down from generation to generation. Today, very little information is memorized. It is impossible to go through the entire day without using some form of writing. Writing has drastically changed the idea and interpretation rhetoric.
The first ancient writings used symbols and pictographs to communicate. The very first signs of writing included clay tokens, dyed knots of twine, and markings on turtle shells (Wolf 24). These tiny, seemingly insignificant objects trained ancient peoples to communicate without talking. Slowly, these cognitive changes in the brain helped shape oral cultures into written ones over thousands of years. These forms of writing allowed for adaptations to the brain to alter the way humans think (Wolf 25). By developing numbers and letters, ancient societies were able to have a permanent record keeping system. Now, ‘stock’ could be counted without the physical objects being in sight (Wolf 28). These societies used symbolic representation. Each person had to know the difference among symbols to tell them apart, defining which symbols are meaningful.
These new ideas may seem to be irrelevant to rhetoric, however rhetorical communication can be seen everywhere. Before these simple systems of writing and record keeping, citizens had to be present for every transaction. Now, there must be a new trust present. Relying on the fact that what is marked on the token is the truth could be the biggest rhetorical problem in this ancient society. Although writing is very new at this time, having faith in what is written is a new rhetorical concept. The rhetoric is not simply oral; it now has a written form as well.
Early scholars tried to prevent the spread of writing by promoting oration in education. Socrates had many concerns about the transition from an oral culture to a literate one. He believed that to achieve virtue, as an individual and in society, one must examine previous knowledge and the internalization of the highest principles (Wolf 70). By teaching his students to question the words and concepts conveyed through spoken language, they could study what lies beneath them even more. Socrates demanded that students question everything they encounter. Finding the essence of the originating thought was the goal, and understanding how it reflected the values of society, questioning all reasoning was the most effective form of education (Wolf 71).
Socrates had three main concerns about the dangers literacy posed to society. He believed that written and oral words are too different from each other, and will have separate impacts on one’s intellectual life (Wolf 71). Socrates considered written speech as ‘dead discourse,’ words that could not speak back in any way. While ‘living speech’ was full of meaning in every word, by examining sounds, tone, stress or rhythm, one could analyze every layer of a speech (Wolf 73). This is something that could not be done with written. Words are simply ink on a page; there is no considerable interaction between the reader and the writing. Rhetoric is beginning to change significantly. Scholars can no longer simply depend on the delivery and arrangement of their writing, they must physically write down their works and do it in a way that can effectively express their point of view to the reader without being present.
Writing has a different process of development than orally spoken words. Individuals are able to edit the mistakes out of their work as many times as needed. Scholars are able to ‘refine their thoughts’ (Wolf 73). Writers are able to use a new precision in their work that had never existed before. Some people who had difficulty expressing themselves in anyway, could fully process their thoughts through writing.
The ability to write thoughts on paper would greatly influence the intellectual memory. Socrates believed that the internalization of knowledge would be lost forever with the changing norms of literacy. He saw that while this new writing increased the cultural memory, it greatly decreased the individual memory (Wolf 75). Most ancient scholars would commit extensive amounts of orally remembered material to memory to preserve the culture of their society, and in the process increase their own personal knowledge. This is no longer the case with the presence of writing. There is no longer a need to memorize information. There is a physical copy of it that can be referenced whenever it is needed. Written words are set in stone. They will not answer back when asked a question as an orally given speech would (Wolf 76). There is no questioning the writing; it is permanent. This lack of elaboration with written works is a considerable change to ancient rhetoric.
Superficial understanding of written works is another major change that had to be endured with the transition from oral to literate cultures. The literacy ability is allowing individuals to read without an educator (Wolf 76). Anyone literate would be able to read any given work and interpret it as they please. This creates a loss of control of educational knowledge. This all-access pass to knowledge could create intellectual chaos. There would be no control over what was written, who was writing it, who was reading it and how it was interpreted. Socrates considered this a threat to virtue. There is no filter to knowledge. Everyone has access to virtually anything and the individual power to interpret it in any they desire. This may be the most significant change to rhetoric. The author is no longer present to convey the intended message to the audience. The audience is now anyone with the ability to read. Socrates was right to feel the need to defend oral speech. The progression of writing has had multiple effects on rhetoric. Not only does writing change interpretation, it allows for change and revision. However, it may have decreased the importance of memorization, but it greatly increased the access and amount of knowledge to society, which in the long run, is much more beneficial.
After hundreds years of changing rhetoric, the printing press was a new revolution that mechanically changed the production of written works and rhetoric in completely new ways. Gutenberg’s press had begun printing books at amazing speeds, increasing the spread of new ideas across Europe (Bizzell and Herzberg 565). This had a large impact on rhetoric. Writing was now available to a large amount of people. Written works no longer had to be physically written by hand, they could be produced mechanically to huge audiences. The wide spread of the concept of humanism could be contributed to the new use of the printing press, especially in church and in education.
This changing educational rhetoric is a very interesting idea. Charismatic humanists were now able to spread their thoughts with the aid of these new books. Students could now physically hold the information they were learning. This helped spread thoughts to many other states instead of just in one place. Religious promoters were now looking for more ways to spread their views to the public (Bizzell and Herzberg 566). They were now competing with each other for the materials to effectively spread their views.
Writing has some very interesting effects on rhetoric. It seems as if written speech would not be much different from oral language, but after looking at some events throughout history, writing has been proven to have a large impact on rhetoric. There are a lot of very important components of oral rhetoric, delivery being very prominent. With written works, there is much less emphasis on the delivery. The reader has the luxury of interpreting the work in a new way, whether or not it is the author’s intent. Rhetoric is present in everything. A new type of written rhetoric has been developed through the transition from oral cultures to literate ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment