Entrenched in Twos and Threes: the Western Categorical Imperative

In most of the readings we have done for class so far, we have encountered systems of categorization that are three-fold: Leitch, M.H. Abrams, Aristotle- all find the triplet system of categorization to be most effective. And though I suppose a trifecta is slightly better than a typical western binary, I still can't help but feel that this characteristically western way of thinking is ultimately limiting.

For instance, take Aristotle On Rhetoric. He creates three "genera of rhetorics" (48): deliberative, judicial, and demonstrative. He them breaks these divisions into smaller sub-divisions, usually opposing each other: praise and blame, for instance, or past and future. And while several of Aristotle's distinctions make sense, the overall trend is unsettling. In my mind, the most dynamic rhetoric would be that which encompasses or moves throughout multiple categories.

Of course, in this class we are investigating specific historical trends in theory, the thoroughly western trends included. Certainly these systems, whether limiting or not, have value as critical tools. However, I do look forward to reading from a wider range of perspectives later this semester.

Reader Vs. Hearer: When Charisma Counts

As I read Aristotle On Rhetoric with a trace on audience in mind, one distinction became increasingly clear to me: that between the audience of the written word and of the spoken.

As Aristotle point out, "Character is, so to speak, the controlling factor in persuasion" (38). When we watch a speech being given, we have a tendency to agree with the speaker more if they, for instance, have a commanding presence, a controlled voice, an attractive and professional appearance. The psychological "halo effect"- associating good looks with general smarts and competency- applies here tenfold. When simply reading the written word, however, there are none of these factors affecting our persuasion (or lack thereof). True, such aspects as stylistic flair or vocabulary might affect our judgment; but for the most part, it's simply the argument and us, the audience, without appearances clouding our judgment.

As I contemplated this, however, I reached a (somewhat unrelated, somewhat picky) point of confusion: why are there pictures of authors on book jackets? Do we rely so heavily on images in our media-and-ad-focused culture that, no matter how "good" (in this case, persuasive) a piece of writing is- a book, a column, whatever- we want a face to put to the logos?

Of course a simple image would not affect the audience's interpretation of a piece so much as an entire presentation complete with speech and presence. But it is still powerful enough, I think, to affect our interpretation slightly. I know (hope) I'm not the only one who's read a great book and then felt somehow betrayed when the image on the jacket flap doesn't fit the image I've created for the author in my mind.

And I wonder- if Aristotle's image had been tucked into the last pages on On Rhetoric, would I have liked it more or less? Or would I have cared at all?