Rhetoric and Discourse readings

For this class period we had to read a couple articles regarding rhetoric and discourse. I liked the article by Gee about discourse because it mainly had to do with language and linguistics, a field that I am very interested in. Unfortunately this is a very old article that we had to read and many of the ideas or hopes that Gee had have are ready come about and are explicitly known. In the beginning of the article Gee suggests a new field of applied linguistics which he calls “literacy studies” but we know it today as psycholinguistics; the study of human and non-human languages from an interactive psychological and social approach. When Gee finally gets around to discussing discourses he makes a lot of comparisons with second language acquisition. Gee’s idea is that a discourse can’t simply be joined or understood, it is a process of assimilation that is practiced and naturally acquired over a great period of time. Gee then goes on to attempt to distinguish between ‘discourse’ and ‘Discourse’ which I found to be irritatingly superfluous, like most of his article which is overly pedantic. But he does eventually get to say that “discourses are a way of being in the world...integrating words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions and clothes.” He claims that a ‘Discourse’ is a sort of “identity kit” which I found to be an amusing analogy. What I think he is actually describing is a particular facet of a certain culture and their sub-cultures. I feel that all of the things he explains to be a ‘Discourse’ are actually the things that make up human cultures, groups of similar people that are intrinsically connected.

The second article which was by Boyd was about rhetoric. I think one of the most important things she says is right in the beginning of the article, “choosing how to express your meaning is every bit as important as the message itself.” This really stuck out to me because the obvious point of rhetoric is to make effective and persuasive communication, utilizing figures of speech, metaphors, euphemisms, colloquialisms and other compositional techniques. The idea behind rhetoric is persuasion, and more importantly being able to impress your audience enough to make them take your side on matter. She rather thoroughly explains that the effective use of rhetoric will enable a speaker, or writer, to be able to appeal to an audience on any level whether its logical reason, an appeal to their beliefs, or effectively speaking to their emotions.

I think the importance of reading these articles together is that in order to become a part of Gee’s ‘Discourse’, or as I prefer to call it ‘culture’ or ‘community’, is an effective use of rhetoric along with the facade that you are indeed a member of that group. Effective use of rhetoric can appeal to all sorts of communities, thereby making the orator an accepted member. I don’t think that these communities are as hard to join as Gee would have readers believe. What it really takes is knowledge and experience, passion and dedication, networking and respect. If you can prove that you have these qualities to the particular community of interest they will gladly accept you. People like being with like-minded people, and I don’t think that rhetoric is necessary to appeal to all people or to be a part of their community. I think appropriate manners and a good understanding of the society is the best way to join a community, not rhetoric.