Rhetoric & Technical Communication
Rhetoric & Technical Communication
Toscano, Aaron, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of English

Resources and Daily Activities

  • Conference Presentations
    • SEACS 2021 Presentation
  • Dr. Toscano’s Homepage
  • ENGL 4182/5182: Information Design & Digital Publishing
    • August 21st: Introduction to the Course
      • Rhetorical Principles of Information Design
    • August 28th: Introduction to Information Design
      • Prejudice and Rhetoric
      • Robin Williams’s Principles of Design
    • Classmates Webpages (Fall 2017)
    • December 4th: Presentations
    • Major Assignments for ENGL 4182/5182 (Fall 2017)
    • November 13th: More on Color
      • Designing with Color
      • Important Images
    • November 20th: Extra-Textual Elements
    • November 27th: Presentation/Portfolio Workshop
    • November 6th: In Living Color
    • October 16th: Type Fever
      • Typography
    • October 23rd: More on Type
    • October 2nd: MIDTERM FUN!!!
    • October 30th: Working with Graphics
      • Beerknurd Calendar 2018
    • September 11th: Talking about Design without Using “Thingy”
      • Theory, theory, practice
    • September 18th: The Whole Document
    • September 25th: Page Design
  • ENGL 4183/5183: Editing with Digital Technologies
    • April 14th: Cohesive Rhythm
    • April 7th: Rhetorical Effects of Punctuation
    • Efficiency in Writing Reviews
    • February 17th: Verb is the Word!
    • February 24th: Coordination and Subordination
      • A Practical Editing Situation
    • February 3rd: I’m in Love with the Shape of You(r Sentences)
    • January 20th: Introduction to the Course
    • January 27th: Rhetoric, Words, and Composing
    • Major Assignments for ENGL 4183/5183 (Spring 2021)
      • Rhetoric of Fear
    • March 10th: Midterm Exam
    • March 17th: Choosing Adjectivals
    • March 24th: Choosing Nominals
    • March 31st: Stylistic Variations
    • March 3rd: Form and Function
  • ENGL 4275: Rhetoric of Technology
    • April 13th: Authorities in Science and Technology
    • April 15th: Articles on Violence in Video Games
    • April 20th: Presentations
    • April 6th: Technology in the home
    • April 8th: Writing Discussion
    • Assignments for ENGL 4275
    • February 10th: Religion of Technology Part 3 of 3
    • February 12th: Is Love a Technology?
    • February 17th: Technology and Gender
    • February 19th: Technology and Expediency
    • February 24th: Semester Review
    • February 3rd: Religion of Technology Part 1 of 3
    • February 5th: Religion of Technology Part 2 of 3
    • January 13th: Technology and Meaning, a Humanist perspective
    • January 15th: Technology and Democracy
    • January 22nd: The Politics of Technology
    • January 27th: Discussion on Writing as Thinking
    • January 29th: Technology and Postmodernism
    • January 8th: Introduction to the Course
    • March 11th: Writing and Other Fun
    • March 16th: Neuromancer (1984) Day 1 of 2
    • March 18th: Neuromancer (1984) Day 2 of 2
    • March 23rd: Inception (2010)
    • March 25th: Writing and Reflecting Discussion
    • March 30th & April 1st: Count Zero
    • March 9th: William Gibson’s Neuromancer (1984)
  • ENGL 4750-090 & ENGL 5050-092 Video Games & Culture
    • Assignments for Video Games & Culture
    • August 25th: Introduction to the Course
    • November 10th: Aggression & Addiction
    • November 3rd: Moral Panics and Health Risks
    • October 13th: Narrative, ludology, f(r)iction
    • October 20th: Serious Games
    • October 27: Risky Business?
    • October 6th: Hyperreality
    • September 1st: History of Video Games
    • September 22nd: Video Game Aesthetics
    • September 29th: (sub)Cultures and Video Games
    • September 8th: Defining Video Games and Critical Theory Introduction
      • Marxism for Video Game Analysis
      • Postmodernism for Video Game Analysis
  • ENGL 6166: Rhetorical Theory
    • April 13th: Umberto Eco & Jean Baudrillard
    • April 20th: Moving Forward on Theory
    • April 27th: Last Day of Class
    • April 6th: Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition
      • What is Postmodernism?
    • February 10th: St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine [Rhetoric]
      • Oratory and Argument Analysis
    • February 17th: Knoblauch on Magical and Ontological Rhetoric
    • February 24th: Rene Descartes’ Discourse on Method
    • February 3rd: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Books 2 and 3
      • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 2
      • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 3
    • January 13th: Introduction to Class
    • January 27th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Book 1
    • March 16th: Friedrich Nietzsche
    • March 23rd: Mythologies and Meaning of Meaning (part 2)
    • March 30th: Derrida’s (refusal to have) Positions
    • March 9th: Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women
    • Rhetorical Theory Assignments
  • LBST 2212-124, 125, 126, & 127
    • August 21st: Introduction to Class
    • August 23rd: Humanistic Approach to Science Fiction
    • August 26th: Robots and Zombies
    • August 28th: Futurism, an Introduction
    • August 30th: R. A. Lafferty “Slow Tuesday Night” (1965)
    • December 2nd: Technological Augmentation
    • December 4th: Posthumanism
    • November 11th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 2)
    • November 13th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 2 con’t)
    • November 18th: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Part 1)
      • More Questions than Answers
    • November 1st: Games Reality Plays (part II)
    • November 20th: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Part 2)
    • November 6th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 1)
    • October 14th: More Autonomous Fun
    • October 16th: Autonomous Conclusion
    • October 21st: Sci Fi in the Domestic Sphere
    • October 23rd: Social Aphasia
    • October 25th: Dust in the Wind
    • October 28th: Gender Liminality and Roles
    • October 2nd: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    • October 30th: Games Reality Plays (part I)
    • October 9th: Approaching Autonomous
      • Analyzing Prose in Autonomous
    • September 11th: The Time Machine
    • September 16th: The Alien Other
    • September 18th: Post-apocalyptic Worlds
    • September 20th: Dystopian Visions
    • September 23rd: World’s Beyond
    • September 25th: Gender Studies and Science Fiction
    • September 30th: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    • September 4th: Science Fiction and Social Breakdown
      • More on Ellison
      • More on Forster
    • September 9th: The Time Machine
  • LBST 2213/HTAS 2100: Science, Technology, and Society
    • December 10th: Violence in Video Games
    • December 15th: Video Games and Violence, a more nuanced view
    • December 1st: COVID-19 facial covering rhetoric
    • December 3rd: COVID-19 Transmission and Pandemics
    • December 8th: 500-word Essay
    • November 10th: Planet of the Apes. (1964) Ch. 27-end
    • November 12th: Frankenstein (1818) Preface-Ch. 8
    • November 17th: Frankenstein (1818) Ch. 9-Ch. 16
    • November 19th: Frankenstein (1818) Ch. 17-Ch. 24
    • November 3rd: Planet of the Apes. (1964) Ch. 1-17
    • November 5th: Planet of the Apes (1964) Ch. 18-26
    • October 13th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 5 and 6
    • October 15th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 7 and Conclusion
    • October 1st: The Golem at Large Introduction & Ch. 1
    • October 22nd: The Time Machine
    • October 29th: H.G. Wells and Adaptations
    • October 6th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology) Ch. 2
    • October 8th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 3 & 4
    • September 10th: Science and Technology, a Humanistic Approach
    • September 15th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 2
    • September 17th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 3 and 4
    • September 22nd: Collins & Pinch Ch. 5 & 6
    • September 24th: Collins & Pinch Ch. 7 & Conclusion
    • September 29th: Test 1
    • September 8th: Introduction to Class
  • New Media: Gender, Culture, Technology (Spring 2021)
    • April 13th: Virtually ‘Real’ Environments
    • April 6th: Capitalist Realism
    • February 16: Misunderstanding the Internet
    • February 23rd: Our Public Sphere and the Media
    • February 2nd: Introduction to Cultural Studies
    • January 26th: Introduction to New Media
    • Major Assignments for New Media (Spring 2021)
    • March 16th: Identity Politics
    • March 23rd: Social Construction of Gender and Sexuality
    • March 2nd: Foundational Thinkers in Cultural Studies
    • March 30th: Hyperreality
    • March 9th: Globalization & Postmodernism
  • Science Fiction in American Culture (Summer I–2020)
    • Assignments for Science Fiction in American Culture
    • Cultural Studies and Science Fiction Films
    • June 10th: Interstellar and Exploration themes
    • June 11th: Bicentennial Man
    • June 15th: I’m Only Human…Or am I?
    • June 16th: Wall-E and Environment
    • June 17th: Wall-E (2008) and Technology
    • June 18th: Interactivity in Video Games
    • June 1st: Firefly (2002) and Myth
    • June 2nd: “Johnny Mnemonic”
    • June 3rd: “New Rose Hotel”
    • June 4th: “Burning Chrome”
    • June 8th: Conformity and Monotony
    • June 9th: Cultural Constructions of Beauty
    • May 18th: Introduction to Class
    • May 19th: American Culture, an Introduction
    • May 20th: The Matrix
    • May 21st: Gender and Science Fiction
    • May 25th: Goals for I, Robot
    • May 26th: Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot
    • May 27th: Hackers and Slackers
    • May 30th: Inception
  • Teaching Portfolio
  • Topics for Analysis
    • American Culture, an Introduction
    • Feminism, An Introduction
    • Fordism/Taylorism
    • Frankenstein Part I
    • Frankenstein Part II
    • Futurism Introduction
    • Langdon Winner Summary: The Politics of Technology
    • Marxist Theory (cultural analysis)
    • Oral Presentations
    • Our Public Sphere
    • Postmodernism Introduction
    • Protesting Confederate Place
    • Punctuation Refresher
    • QT, the Existential Robot
    • Religion of Technology Discussion
    • Rhetoric, an Introduction
      • Analyzing the Culture of Technical Writer Ads
      • Rhetoric of Technology
      • Visual Culture
      • Visual Perception
      • Visual Perception, Culture, and Rhetoric
      • Visual Rhetoric
      • Visuals for Technical Communication
      • World War I Propaganda
    • The Great I, Robot Discussion
      • I, Robot Short Essay Topics
    • The Rhetoric of Video Games: A Cultural Perspective
      • Civilization, an Analysis
    • The Sopranos
    • Why Science Fiction?
    • Zombies and Consumption Satire

Contact Me

Office: Fretwell 280F
Phone: 704.687.0613
Email: atoscano@uncc.edu
ENGL 6166: Rhetorical Theory » January 27th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Book 1

January 27th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Book 1

Plan for the Evening

  • Canvas Prompts are due on Fridays and there are no make ups
  • Leading class discussion schedule is up…any more
  • Encomium of Helen (if needed)
  • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric (Available here)

Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 1

Aristotle Highlights

A way I describe Aristotle is “the great organizer.” He was particular concerned (according to my interpretation of the historical record) with explaining his philosophy on judicial rhetoric. However, he also has much to say about other types of rhetoric. Let’s consider the three genera (or species) of rhetoric according to Aristotle (1.3.5, Kennedy p. 48; Part 3, para. 1 Online):

  • Deliberative (political): deliberate about a future action in the best interests of the state.
  • Judicial (forensic): prosecution or defense in court.
  • Epideictic (demonstrative, ceremonial): speeches of praise or blame on someone or thing: often ceremonial but not seeking immediate action.

Major Aristotelian quotes:

  • Rhetoric and dialectic:
    “Rhetoric is an antistrophos* to dialectic; for both are concerned with such things as are, to a certain extent, within the knowledge of all people and belong to no separately defined science” (1.1.1, Kennedy p. 30; Part 1, para. 1 Online)
    *counterpart, correlative
  • Aristotle defines rhetoric:
    “Let rhetoric be [defined as] an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion” (1.2.1, Kennedy p. 37; Part 2, para. 1 Online)
  • Three kinds of persuasion (Aristotle 1.2.4, Kennedy p. 38; Part 2, para. 3 Online)
  • Ethos: “[There is persuasion] through character whenever the speech is spoken in such a way as to make the speaker worthy of credence; for we believe fair-minded people to a greater extent and more quickly [than we do others] on all subjects in general and completely so in cases where there is not exact knowledge but room for doubt.” (Aristotle 1.2.4, Kennedy p. 38; Part 2, para. 3 Online)

Syllogisms and Enthymemes:

  • “A syllogism is wholly from propositions, and the enthymeme is a syllogism consisting of propositions expressed” (Aristotle 1.3.7, Kennedy p. 50, italics mine; Part 3, para. 5 Online)
    • “I {Aristotle} call a rhetorical syllogism an enthymeme” (1.2.8, Kennedy p. 40; Part 2, para. 5 Online) 3rd sentence down
    • In Aristotle’s case, enthymemes deal in probablities (1.2.14, Kennedy p. 42; Part 2, para. 9 Online) and used for persuading as opposed to demonstrating a truth.
    • Consider an enthymeme as such:
      *Major Premise (assumed by audience)
      *Minor Premise (assumed by audience–either the Major Premise or Minor Premise is assumed)
      Therefore, a likely conclusion or a probable conclusion.
  • Modern view of enthymeme
    • The word “expressed” in the above quotation (1.3.7; “expressed” is not in Part 3, para. 5 Online) should be “implied” because, many scholars agree, that an enthymeme is a syllogism with an assumed or implied major or minor premise.
    • For instance,
      Socrates is mortal because he’s human.
  • Syllogism: an argument consisting of a Major Premise, a Minor Premise, and a necessary Conclusion
    • All men are mortal;
      Socrates is a man;
      Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
    • The above is the classic example of a syllogism.

The study of rhetoric and philosophy is quite daunting but highly rewarding. I encourage all of you to delve deeper into rhetoric and philosophy. At a basic level, these fields analyze and contemplate what makes us uniquely human–our ability to think. What else makes us uniquely human?

Rhetoric and Sociology

Someone once claimed that my worldview (although he…or she meant pedagogical and scholarly disposition) was sociological. After trying to explain that all disciplines have a rhetoric, way of communicating knowledge, it dawned on me that I could argue that all disciplines stem from rhetoric. Now, some scholars critique the idea that all philosophical tradition should read as footnotes to Plato (here’s the direct quotation from Alfred North Whitehead), but, because of the emphasis Western culture places on Classical Rhetoric, it’s safe to say (or, more accurately, argue) that Rhetoric is an interdisciplinary study.

  • What do Plato and Aristotle do when they claim that this or that is believable?
  • By whom is this or that claim believable?

Let’s pause from a wider class discussion and freewrite or note what your community knows or believes. If it helps to think politically, that’s fine. What are some claims that “go without saying,” beliefs that are deeply rooted in social consciousness?

Several Terms to Know

The following list isn’t exhaustive, just introductory. The terms below are major terms for rhetoric:

  • ethos: the presentation of one’s character
  • pathos: appeal to emotions
  • logos: appeal to reason or logic
  • eidos: specific topics
  • idiai: specific proofs
  • koina: commonalities (Kennedy, p. 50)
  • pistis (pisteis, pl): proof
  • telos: objective, end
  • topos: the “place” where a speaker may look for the available means of persuasion.
    Note: in modern usage, topoi has come to mean “commnplaces”

Contemporary Enthymeme

I assume we’re in the second half of class by now.

If you followed the political theatre surrounding the 2012 presidential election, you were inundated with rhetorical examples (as you are in all campaigns). Here’s one from Newt Gingrich comparing Barack Obama to Saul Alinsky:

“The centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.”

Let’s break this down into two parts: 1) American Exceptionalism 2) Saul Alinsky.

1) Essentially, Gingrich is claiming his campaign (Gingrich ran for president in 2012) and, therefore, he himself are proponents of American exceptionalism. The syllogism could look like this:

  • Assumed Major Premise = {The ideal candidate for the presidency is the one who embraces American exceptionalism};
    Minor Premise* = I [Gingrich] embrace American exceptionalism;
    therefore, I [Gingrich] am the ideal candidate for the presidency.
    • I realize this isn’t the exact language Gingrich uses, but it’s implied. Let’s discuss the difference between “implied” and “assumed.”
    • In the above context, “implied” is the not directly stated commitment to American Exceptionalism.
    • In addition, “assumed” is the commitment to American Exceptionalism Gingrich believes we should all have. The Republican Party believes in American Exceptionalism (GOP, “A Dangerous World,” para. 3; “America: The Indispensable Nation,” para. 3), and assumes all (good) Americans do too.

The Enthymeme could look like this:

  • Gingrich is the ideal candidate because he embraces American exceptionalism.

2) Essentially, Gingrich is claiming Saul Alinsky is a radical, and he was a community organizer. He is attacking Obama for being like Saul Alinsky, emphatically stating Obama’s a radical. The syllogism could look like this:

  • All community organizers are radical;
    President Obama was a community organizer;
    therefore, President Obama is a radical.

The Enthymeme could look like this:

  • President Obama is a radical because he was a community organizer.
  • As Kennedy claims (p. 50), audiences will assume some propositions and, therefore, conclude the way the speaker wants them to conclude.
  • In Gingrich’s case, he’s told his audience Saul Alinsky, a community organizer, was a radical.

Let’s think of some other examples. Notice how syllogisms use absolutes. Aristotle believed in universal truths, but he also recognized probabilities and likely conclusions based on generalities. Let’s think about generalizations for a bit.

Issues about Democracy

Time permitting, let’s consider Aristotle’s discussions on Democracy in Book 1. Here’s a section to take a look at the following passage:

  • “except for the best constitution, all the others are destroyed by loosening or tightening [their basic principles of governance]; for example, democracy not only becomes weaker when its [principle of equality is] relaxed so that finally it leads to oligarchy but also if the principle is too rigidly applied” (1.4.12, Kennedy p. 55)
  • “all constitutions, except the best one of all, are destroyed both by not being pushed far enough and by being pushed too far. Thus, democracy loses its vigour, and finally passes into oligarchy, not only when it is not pushed far enough, but also when it is pushed a great deal too far” (Part 4, para. 8 online).

Let’s consider the pragmatism of this and how a contemporary audience might think about “radical” democracy. Also, what about Aristotle’s point regarding oligarchy?

  • How can democracy be pushed too far?
    • Think about free speech and expression. Also consider mob rule or citizen expectations.
    • For instance, access to clean water is probably a “right” no one will dispute. However, do we have a right to sparkling water?
  • Because Citizens United v. FEC claims corporations are individuals, they have “equal” free speech.
  • Do refugees have a right to the pursuit of happiness? If so, why are they blocked from entering the United States?
    • How far will you get debating the above situation?

Forge Ahead on Books 2 & 3 of On Rhetoric

We may refer back to Book 1 next week, but the main focus will be Books 2 & 3. One reason I feel you should read the primary text and try to follow Aristotle’s arguments with as little “noise” as possible from your own filters is because following his argument prepares you for following the arguments of our later figures. Essentially, you’re training yourself to adopt the author’s way of thinking. I recognize this is difficult.

Skip to toolbar
  • Log In