Diversity in and among Rhetorical Traditions

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Scott R. Stroud
{"title":"Diversity in and among Rhetorical Traditions","authors":"Scott R. Stroud","doi":"10.1080/15362426.2019.1618051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rhetoric often serves as a way to bridge important differences in the act of persuasion. As a field, rhetoric has worked to include more and more diverse voices. Much more is left to be written, however, on how this admittedly important concept of diversity affects the study and practice of rhetoric. This volume of Advances in the History of Rhetoric serves as a material trace of the American Society for the History of Rhetoric’s recent attempts to highlight diversity in and among rhetorical traditions. It collects essays from those presented at the 2018 symposium on the theme of “Diversity and Rhetorical Traditions.” All of these essays were subjected to additional review to finetune their arguments for this special journal issue. Each displays the perils and promises of engaging diversity as a topic within – and among – rhetorical traditions. Part of the challenge of coming to terms with difference is the confrontation with something, be it a tradition, a thinker, or a text, that challenges one’s own way of understanding the world, possible accounts of it, and our structures of reasoning and justification. Marking something as “different” is better than marking that person, text, or tradition as “wrong” or “misguided.” Coming to terms with – and even simply recognizing – difference is an accomplishment, especially when it’s not followed by dismissal or rejection. We too often default to the familiar – familiar texts and standards of judgment. These tensions over engaging differences in texts and people are the classical challenges facing comparative endeavors and the field that explores diversity among rhetorical traditions–known as comparative rhetoric – has made progress in navigating these demands. Early studies in the rhetorical practices of “non-western cultures” (a term that highlights the normative challenges of difference in naming objects of study) served as important, but imperfect, starting points. For instance, Robert T. Oliver’s 1971 book, Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China, represents one of the first sustained enquiries into the rhetoric of China and India, putatively on their own terms. It was a grand project, ambitious in its aims. Yet in his pursuit of respecting difference in these traditions from the familiar GrecoRoman rhetorical tradition, some have argued that Oliver emphasized a “deficiency model” that emphasized Chinese or Indian rhetorics’ lack of","PeriodicalId":38049,"journal":{"name":"Advances in the History of Rhetoric","volume":"22 1","pages":"120 - 124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15362426.2019.1618051","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in the History of Rhetoric","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15362426.2019.1618051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Rhetoric often serves as a way to bridge important differences in the act of persuasion. As a field, rhetoric has worked to include more and more diverse voices. Much more is left to be written, however, on how this admittedly important concept of diversity affects the study and practice of rhetoric. This volume of Advances in the History of Rhetoric serves as a material trace of the American Society for the History of Rhetoric’s recent attempts to highlight diversity in and among rhetorical traditions. It collects essays from those presented at the 2018 symposium on the theme of “Diversity and Rhetorical Traditions.” All of these essays were subjected to additional review to finetune their arguments for this special journal issue. Each displays the perils and promises of engaging diversity as a topic within – and among – rhetorical traditions. Part of the challenge of coming to terms with difference is the confrontation with something, be it a tradition, a thinker, or a text, that challenges one’s own way of understanding the world, possible accounts of it, and our structures of reasoning and justification. Marking something as “different” is better than marking that person, text, or tradition as “wrong” or “misguided.” Coming to terms with – and even simply recognizing – difference is an accomplishment, especially when it’s not followed by dismissal or rejection. We too often default to the familiar – familiar texts and standards of judgment. These tensions over engaging differences in texts and people are the classical challenges facing comparative endeavors and the field that explores diversity among rhetorical traditions–known as comparative rhetoric – has made progress in navigating these demands. Early studies in the rhetorical practices of “non-western cultures” (a term that highlights the normative challenges of difference in naming objects of study) served as important, but imperfect, starting points. For instance, Robert T. Oliver’s 1971 book, Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China, represents one of the first sustained enquiries into the rhetoric of China and India, putatively on their own terms. It was a grand project, ambitious in its aims. Yet in his pursuit of respecting difference in these traditions from the familiar GrecoRoman rhetorical tradition, some have argued that Oliver emphasized a “deficiency model” that emphasized Chinese or Indian rhetorics’ lack of
修辞传统的多样性
修辞通常是在说服行为中弥合重要分歧的一种方式。作为一个领域,修辞学已经努力包含越来越多不同的声音。然而,关于多样性这一公认重要的概念如何影响修辞学的研究和实践,还有很多工作要写。这本《修辞学史进展》一书是美国修辞学史学会最近试图强调修辞传统多样性的一个重要线索。它收集了2018年研讨会上以“多样性和修辞传统”为主题的论文。所有这些论文都经过了额外的审查,以调整它们在本期杂志上的论点。每一个都展示了将多样性作为修辞传统内部和之间的主题的危险和承诺。接受差异的部分挑战是与某种东西的对抗,无论是传统、思想家还是文本,都会挑战一个人理解世界的方式、对世界的可能描述以及我们的推理和论证结构。将某件事标记为“不同”总比将该人、文本或传统标记为“错误”或“被误导”要好。接受——甚至只是承认——差异是一种成就,尤其是在没有被解雇或拒绝的情况下。我们经常默认熟悉的文本和判断标准。这些关于文本和人之间差异的紧张关系是比较努力面临的经典挑战,而探索修辞传统多样性的领域——即比较修辞——在满足这些需求方面取得了进展。早期对“非西方文化”(一个强调研究对象命名差异的规范挑战的术语)修辞实践的研究是重要但不完善的起点。例如,罗伯特·T·奥利弗(Robert T.Oliver)1971年出版的《古代印度和中国的传播与文化》(Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China)一书,代表了对中国和印度修辞的第一次持续调查之一,据信是根据它们自己的条件进行的。这是一个宏伟的工程,目标远大。然而,在他追求尊重这些传统与熟悉的希腊罗马修辞传统的差异时,一些人认为奥利弗强调了一种“缺陷模式”,强调了中国或印度修辞缺乏
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in the History of Rhetoric
Advances in the History of Rhetoric Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信