There are several methodologies available for use in the field of modern rhetorical criticism. Using each form and comparing their insights and conclusions against each other will garner an analysis on which is more applicable to the selected artifact chosen for study. This is a criticism on the utility and necessity of the critical styles examined. The styles being tested are Neo-Aristotelian, Feminist, Cluster, Fantasy-Theme, Generic, and Ideology. Each portion will contain a concise definition of the style and its approach to the artifact. The artifact that is a subject of criticism will be fluid, adaptable and broad enough to fit the parameters of all the styles so that each style has substantial content to contribute. After all the styles have been explored, the meta-analysis will show what the potency of each style has. The question of the day is the fairness and appropriateness of the artifact chosen.
The artifact in question is the style itself. Each style will be applied to itself by testing for rhetorical integrity. For example, the rules of the method will be turned on the system itself that proposes those rules. The reason being, is that the enemy of expertise is hypocrisy. If the expert in question lacks credibility through incompetence or sloppy inconsistency, then the expert has forfeited their respect. Self-immunity is a concept that is relevant to the styles’ functionality. It protects against flaws in the system and ensures that the style won’t backfire.
The first style being applied is Neo-Aristotelian. This method pertains to the three appeals of logos, ethos and pathos as well as the persuasive capacity of the claim. So, how does this work other than simply ranking the appeals? First, ranking the appeals should be done if not for other than to be thorough about approaches. What metric should be used to measure the quality of Neo-Aristotelian criticism? The logic of prioritizing logos over ethos and pathos is the safe bet. However, the best way to compare the three is how their persuasive aptitude can be affected by each other. The advantages of logos are factual stability, protection against flawed reasoning by knowledge of the countless fallacies that can be recognized, while disadvantages can include the limits of logic where the unknown cannot be verified. Logos is directly persuasive to the point where ethos and pathos can be expendable. The ethos of logos is near absolute in that once probability and plausibility are established, then dissent is discouraged. Unfortunately, the majority value pathos over logos and ethos is dubiously granted to unworthy rhetors. Pathos is too influential in the public as other philosophies interfere with logos’ effectiveness, such as Epicureanism, valuing the pleasure over virtue. The ethos of pathos is empathy, so when a hyper-rational rhetoric is set forth, pathos suffers from the ignored sentiment that most people prefer to give credence. The logos of ethos rests upon the trustworthiness of the expert or rhetor. Compromised or suspicious rhetors suffer from doubt as their rhetoric will demand more legwork to compensate for its shortcomings.
Feminist criticism involves the act of disruption. Also, decolonization, reframing the narrative and enacting the idea as a living exemplification can bolster the authenticity of the criticism. These elements, when turned on the Feminist style, corroborate the aspirations being attended to in this endeavor. In order to survive its own rules, Feminist criticism needs to be disrupted by having its purest identity critiqued from its own perspective. Self-reflection and self-awareness helps to prove that it is reliable because then the opponents having nothing advantageous to claim when Feminist criticism has already addressed the issue. Disrupting Feminist criticism ultimately means checking for hypocrisy by searching for the same problems that Feminist style seeks to eliminate. When the Feminist style is found to be self-immune, then that proves that the Feminist style is consistent, therefore dependable. Also, the decolonization has to be an absent need from the Feminist world in order to have the authority to speak out against it. If Feminist ideals are spreading in the same manner as colonization, or similar enough, then Feminism loses credibility. Reframing the narrative has to be proven to be a counterproductive ambition so that Feminism can be construed as disingenuous.
Cluster criticism groups words and ideas together and investigates the combinations and permutations of the semantics. The way to test for self-immunity is whether the cluster of permutated words and implications amount to any substantial pattern that justifies the grouping. If not, then arbitrary selecting is exposed in the process. This seems to be the second most straightforward of all the styles, despite its intricate structure.
Fantasy-Theme talks about symbolic convergence theory. When summed up, it is the shared themes or archetypes within an artifact. People who have certain commonalities regarding beliefs or patterns would qualify for this style of criticism. Simply enough, if there are no commonalities, then this style cannot function. Using this style against itself means that conflicting critics using this style cannot find any common ground. This is ironic at its most awkward.
Generic criticism is discussing genres through three steps: Description, Participation, and Application. Description of a genre is just that: listing the attributes of the artifact and identifying its nature so it can be categorized. Participation justifies the placement in that category. Application can lead to a new category for the artifact if participation is not justified. Applying these rules to Generic criticism itself requires that Generic criticism fits into a category itself. The obvious to consider is the variety of rhetorical criticism styles. Easily enough, it should fit as there are other styles of rhetorical criticism to have in mind. So participation is successful but is there a need for a new category or genre? Surely enough, the style accommodates for meta-generic criticism.
Ideology criticism mostly can be defined by memberships, defining events, activities, core beliefs, norms, resources, group relations and ultimate authority. Subscribers to a certain identity can use a sacred text that is a reference for all members. Any loopholes in this system have to be found in the filter of authorizing the revocation of a membership. Technicalities such as official status and whether that membership is still true despite a rejection based in a consensus from overruling voters. The ideology then becomes tainted by tangential priorities such as bureaucracy and politics. Questions such as, can shared events become irrelevant in maintaining the bond between the group and the pariah? What becomes of the ultimate authority when other factors control how the group works? The ideology falls apart and so cannot be studied as a purely functional ideology.
A surprise application will be the rhetoric of this essay itself. Each style will analyze and rectify any misinterpreted injustice done to the representation of the style. If the style was not correctly applied to its own system, then time has been wasted unless there can be lessons learned. This leads to an ultimate style of criticism that can be gleaned from the meta-analysis. Knowing when to choose a style is only possible of the available choices are well understood and accessible. The other issue is whether multiple styles are compatible, complicating the criticism. However, knowing which is the best fit for the occasion is best determined by actually going through with the multiple analyses and comparing which is more efficient and insightful. It helps to have a research question that is best answered by one of the selections.
If nothing else is learned from this criticism, let it be that the style of criticism being used was one supervisory in nature. Transcendent in function, this style is best described as Jeet Kune Do, reminiscent of the martial art developed in the philosophy of the late Bruce Lee. Jeet Kune Do is the “style of no style”. This signifies a fluid adaptability to modify the style with which best fits the environment. The best way to do that is to study many styles and be familiar with the relationship between them all, contrasting the differences so that transitioning between them is a smooth process. Connecting martial arts to rhetoric through the violent means of abusive persuasion implies that one must be well-versed in the arts of self-defense against the onslaught of propaganda. As every martial art caters to a differing environmental stimuli, the different kinds of techniques offer the most relevant option to the pressing need.
Having examined these styles, the conclusion can be made that while each style seems to be self-immune, the potential for misuse is still possible. Knowing that the ideal form of the styles are functional indicates that critical certainty is more probable. The amount of effort spent to challenge the validity of these styles is proportionate to the potency of the style’s ambition to backfire. By running a diagnostic on potentially inherent defects, the critic can be more confident in their appraisal of the artifact. Knowing that the risk is in the competence of the critic, the witness of the critique can judge the merits of it on the quality of the critic. It simplifies culpability in the scenario of severely compromised content.
Works Consulted
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Waveland Press, 2018.
Lee, Bruce. The Tao of Jeet Kune Do. 1975.
Featured Download: CLICK HERE to unlock the methods for preparing your life for creative inspiration and visionary change.
Comment early, comment often, keep it civil: