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.