DOCUBENT RESUME

ED 098 646 CS 500 894

AUTHOR Rose, Doreen K. F., Ed.; And OthersTITLE Conference in Rhetorical Criticism: Commended Papers,

1970 (5th, Hayward, California, May 9, 1970).INSTITUTION California State Coll., Hayward. Dept. of Speech and

Drama.PUB DATE 70NOTE 23p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-S1.50 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Communication (Thought Transfer); Cultural Factors;

Debate; *Persuasive Discourse; Reading Materials;Rhetoric; *Rhetorical Criticism; *Sex Stereotypes;Speech Education; Symbolism

IDENTIFIERS Octopus; Plato; Schopenhauer (Arthur)

ABSTRACTAt the fifth annual Cal-State Hayward Conference in

Rhetorical Criticism, upper division and graduate students from 14western colleges and universities presented papers on the theory,history, and criticism of rhetoric. Panels of faculty members fromthe same colleges and universities selected the three best papers forcommendation and publication. These papers were then revised and areincluded in this volume. The titles and authors are "The Rhetoric ofthe First Grade Reader" by Virginia Kidd, "Symbolism, Narrative,History: Rhetorical Planes in The Octopus" by Patricia Logue, and"Arthur Schopenhauer: Iconoclasm in Communication" by Gale Schroeder.The conference address by Dr. Wayne N. Thompson, "Plato's Symposium,"is also included in this volume. (TO)

u S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION IS WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDuCATIONDOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO

OucEO EXACTLY AS RECEIVED E ROMTHE pt RsoN OR OROANI2ATIoN OR 'GINATINt. POtN1`,OI V,EIN Ott OPINIONSsl'Att 0 DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OE riCIAL NATIONAL INsTITLITE OE

OorAT (ON POSITION OR POL icy

CONFERENCE IN

RHETORICAL CRITICISM

Commended Papers

Doreen K. F. Rose, Editor

John Hammerback, John E. Baird, Assistant Editors

California State College, Hayward 1970

Foreword

On May 9, 1970, the Speech and Drama Depart mert of California StateCollege, Hayward, held the Fifth Annual Conference in Rhetorical Criticism.In attendance were upper-division and graduate students as well as professorsfrom fourteen colleges and universities of the western states. The students readpapers on the theory, history, and criticism of rhetoric to panels of professorsacting as editor-critics. The three papers in this volume were rated superior bythe editor-critics and were revised for publication at the suggestion of thevolume's editors. We are indebted to the participating professors for theirdeliberation over the papers and for their critical comments.

The featured speaker at this year's Conference was Professor Wayne N.Thompson, Chairman of the Speech Department at the University of Houston.During the Conference banquet Dr. Thompson enlightened his r,....fTtive audiencewith a penetrating discussion of "Plato's Symposium"; the text of Dr. Thompson'saddress is included in this volume. We express our special gratitude to Dr.Thompson for his scholarly contribution to the Conference and for his enthusiasticparticipation in the activities of the day.

ii

Student and Faculty Participants

STUDENT PARTICIPANTS

Bostick, AllanComp, LindaDelury, CarolynEngelhardt. BertGamba, BarbaraHall. AliceHutton, ChristineKidd. VirginiaKinsey, EugeneLogue PatriciaMilchen. Judy

EDITOR-CRITICS

Oliver. JeffUtah, MichaelRose, D. K.Schroeder, GaleZr:lwartz, GeraldSheklow, MardeSmith, RogerSpencer, MichaelStanley, OwenWilley. Shirley

Professors:Baird, John E., California State College, HaywardBenjamin, R. L.. San Diego State CollegeBochin. Hal, Fresno State CollegeCambus, John, California State College. HaywardCampbell. Kar lyn, California State College. Los AngelesHammerback, John. California State College. HaywardHauth, Lester. California State College, Long BeachHennings, Ralph, Fresno State CollegeJenkins. Steve. Sacramento State CollegeLewis, Albert. Central Washington State CollegeLoebs. Bruce, Idaho State UniversityMc Edwards, Mary. San Fernando Valley State CollegeMohrmann, G.P University of California. Los AngelesMouat, L.H.. San Jose State CollegeShearer, tie . University of California, Los AngelesWurthman, LP.onard. San Fernando Valley State College

DIRECTORS OF THE CONFERENCE

JP.Ines Johnson, Robert Martin, Candy Rose

iii

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

9:30 Briefing: Multi-Purpose Room. Hayward High School

13:00 Critics' Silent Review of Papers in Sections

10:00 "Americana 1970" A Readers' Theatre Production,Directed by Dr. Melvin R. White

12:00 Lunch

1:00 Presentation of Papers in SectionsPresentationComments of CriticsDecision for Commendation and Publication

4:00 Reading of Commended Papers to Entire Conference

5:30 No-host Social Hour, The Ranch Restaurant

7:30 Dinner: Hayward High School Cafeteria

Introducing the Speaker: Dr. Robert C. MartinChairman. Speech-Drama DepartmentCalifornia State College., Hayward

Speaker: Dr. Wayne N. ThompsonProfessor of Speech and Department ChairmanUniversity of Houston

"Plato's Symposium"

iv

Contents

ADDRESS OF THE CONFERENCE

Dr. Wayne N. Thompson, "Plato's Symposium"

COMMENDED PAPERS OF THE CONFERENCE

Virginia Kidd, "The Rhetoric of the First Grade Reader"

Patricia Logue, "Symbolism, Narrative. History:Rhetorical Planes in The Octopus"

Gale Schroeder, "Arthur Schopenhauer: Iconoclasm inCommunication"

v

Page

I

7

11

15

PLATO'S SYMPOSIUM

by BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Dr. Wayne N. Thompson

Last fall when Dr. Martin invited me to be theguest speaker for this fine conference, I went throughthe same creative pains that some of you probably wentthrough when you began work on your papers. What towrite about? What topic would be appropriate? Whatcould I do that would be worthy of this occasion? Whatwas I most interested in that would be appropriate?And I think that no one was more surprised at my finalchoice than I was because for many years I've been adevoted Aristotelian. In fact I feel a little disloyal thisevening over turning Platoists. Perhaps you can helpme keep my straying very quiet.

A little more seriously, there are three reasonsthat I chose Plato's Symposium as a topic. First, thework is a great delight; I've had fun lecturing on it inmy classical rhetoric class as a work that my studentsshould know something about. Second, no one has deltwith the symposium in any serious way. And third, asI thought more and more about the Symposium, I cameto the conclusion that a serious analysis of it mighttend to solve some of the obscurities about Plato as arhetorician, about some of his true views on rhetoric.

For example, there's that much debated and neversettled question, "Did Plato hate all rhetoric, or wasit only sophistic rhetoric that he hated?" You've heardthat question before, I'm sure; and maybe some of youthink you know the answer, you won't have much troubleproving you are right either way you answer for youcan find some honest-to-goodness experts that willagree with you either way. In an miler draft of thisspeech I had some fine quotations, most of which Ihave deleted. Oscar Brownstein in the QJS, December1965, concludes, " . . . but none of this will makePlato a lover of rhetoric. To argue that his criticismwas directed merely against the rhetoricians of his owntime, however, is wholly specious, for his objectionsto rhetoric are as fundamental as his objections topoetry." And I had a similar quotation from Peter J.Schakel in the Southern Speech Journal agreeing withBrownstein, and quotations on the other side from OtisWalter, W. Scott Nobles, Reginald Hackforth, BenjaminJowett, and Lane Cooper. all seeming to say that whatPlato was really against was bid rhetoric.

But there are some other questions about Plato asa rhetorician that we can't answer satisfactorily on the

basis of studying only the Gorgias and the Phaedrus.From those works we know much that he disliked, buton the positive side we know that he favored a rhetoricthat served truth and that he thought that its founda-tions must be and here I quote Benjamin Jowett"founded on knowledge of truth and knowledge of char-acter." Those are important, very important, guide-lines, and it can be argued that all that Plato wantedto de in the Phuedrus and the Gorgias was to offerguidelines, but wouldn't it be interesting to have a fewmore details? And, as I shall argue later in this paper,in these two works we don't even have an acceptableexample of the model speech, as judged by Plato'sstandards.

So, in closing this introduction, let me pose achallenge to you classical rhetoricians. How manystatements can you make about Plato's theories ofrhetoric on the basis of ttie Phaedrus and the Gorgias?You can say, "he detested the rhetoric of the sophists.He believed that rhetoric should serve truth. He be-lieved that rhetoric should he founded on psychology."But how many additional statements can you make,excepting perhaps some elaboration of why he despised?

But before I go to the analysis of the Symposiumfor its rhetorical insights, let me summarize this de-lightful work. For many of you a summary is no doubtsuperfluous, but I would like for all of us to start fromcommon ground.

The occasion for the symposium was Agathon'svictory in the contest in writing Greek tragedy, sup-posedly 416 B.C. And in celebration of this a group ofprominent Athenians had assembled at the villa ofAgathon. About thirty years later the Diologue itselfwas supposedly written. Apolodorus is the first speak-er, he refers to Aristodemus as the one who was theeye witness to these events. And so we find Aristode-mus speaking near the beginning of the dialogue: "Ihappened to meet Socrates fresh from the bath wearingsandles no ordinary doings with him and I asked himwhether he was bound that he had made himself up sofine." And he replied, "To dine with Agathon. Yester-day in fact I escaped when he invited me to his sacra -f ice for the vict ory being afraid of the crowd, butagreed to be with him today. That is why I'm all dress-ed up in order to be beautiful. But you, how do you

feel about going to a dinner uninvited?" And saidAristodemus, "I feel like doing whatever you bid."And then Aristodemus tells something about the journeythrough the streets of Athens to the villa of Agathon.Socrates laggs behind and Aristodemus continues,"When I reached the house of Agathon I found the doorwide open. A servant came right out to meet me. Thenthe moment Agathon saw me he called out Aristode-mus you've just come in time to dine with us. If youare here for any other reason, put the thing off till later.The fact is I've been hunting you since yesterdaybut what of Socrates, you didn't bring him to us?" Andsaid Aristodemus, t,,zned around and didn't seeSocrates behind me, I was wondering myself where hecould be." Whereupon Agathon said to a slave, "Goboy, look for Socrates and tiring him in. As for youAristodemus recline by Ariscimicus.

Socrates finally arrives, not as late as was ordi-narily the case with him, but certainly when they werehalf way through their dinner. Agathon, since he hap-pened to be the last one reclining by himself said,"Socrates come here and lie beside me so that bytouching you I may share the enjoyment of your knowl-edge." And socrates sat down. Socrates, as was hiscustom if he had something to philosophise about,would stop whatever he was doing and stand there un-til he had worked out the philosophic problem.

This is the second day of the celebration. Theday before was spent in a drunken orgy. The men de-cide that they don't want to do this again, and so thequestion arises what are they going to do to celebrateAgathon's great victory. They all agree not to turnthe gathering that day to.drunkeness, but drink no morethan would conduce to pleasure. And finally Phaedrushas an idea, and Aricir..us says: "My notion is in factthat each of us be required to give a speech in praiseof love the finest he can devise, going from left toright, beginning with Phaedrus because he has theleaders place and is father of the plan as well.

So this is the setting for the symposium. Theydecided that giving speeches was better entertainmentthan getting drunk and they set up the contest in givingspeeches all on the common theme of love. These areepideictic speeches, of course. So we have s speechby Phaedrus, and a speech by Pausanias, and then itis time for Aristophanes the great poet to speak. ButAristophanes is unable to speak, he says, "Aricimus,by rights you should either stop my hiccups or elsetake my turn in speaking till I leave off by myself.""Come now," said Aricimus, "I shall do both. I willindeed speak in your place and when you have stoppedyour hiccupping you shall speak in mine." Now we getGreek medical advice on how to stop the hiccups: "Andmeanwhile as I speak, if you will try holding yourbreath a good long time the hiccups will stop, or ifthey don't, gargle with water. If however, they arequite persistent take something that will tickle yournose and sneeze. And if you will do this once ..r twice

2

its persistence witl stop." "Begin your speech with-out delay." said Aristophanes, "And I will do as yousay." Much of this is written at several levels andthere is supposed to be great symbolic significance inthe fact that Aristophanes had the hiccups, causing areversal in the speaking order. But my purpose is notto analyze the symposium from that viewpoint.

We have the speech of Aricimus, then the one byAristophanes a very imaginative speech in which he

'Is about the early days when there were three sexes.her than two. The third sex was the two combined,

making a creature with four legs and four arms, andwhen this creature became excited and wanted to movemore rapidly, it just rolled over and over like a greatball using all its limbs for this purpose.

Then we have the speech of Agathon, the speechpresented by Socrates, with the help of Diotima. Al-cibiades arrives very drunk and creates quite a com-motion. And he gives a speech in praise of Socrates.So we have six epideictic speeches on the topic oflove, and a final epideictic speech in praise of anindividual.

This speech by Alcibiades is largely on the forti-tude, the physical endurance of Socrates. Plato want-ed Socrates to excell in every possible way, includingthese physical attributes, and so, we get to the veryend of the dialogue which closes as follows:

Thereupon Aristodemus said. 'Arai znius and Phac-srus and some others took their leave. As for him-self, he fell asleep and slept very heavily bei aus.the nights were long and he did not awaken tilltowards the day when the cocks already were crow-ing, When he was awake he saw that everybodyelse was sleeping or nad left. and only Agathon andAristophanes and Socrates were still awake. Andthey were drinking from a mighty goblet passe.: fromleft to right, while Socrates was having a discus-sion with them. Aristodemus said that he did notremember all the argument since he had not been byfrom the beginning. And besides, his head wasnodding. Rut the main thing was that Socrates com-pelled them gradually to admit tha: the same menwould write comedy and tragedy. and that he whois through art a tragic poet, is a comic poet. too.This they were compelled to grant. Nut followingvery well and nodding, Aristophanes was the firstof them to go asleep, with Agathon following. ThenSocrates, when ire had laid them both to sleep, gotup and went away. He went into the street of thelycium and took a bath and passed the day like anyother. And having done so toward evening. he wenthome to rest.So that's the work we're talking about tonight

not as a philosopher might, probing the several levelsof meaning, but as rhetoricians. Now for the first mainsection of this paper, "What do we know about Plato'sattitudes toward rhetoric through this analysis of theSymposium?"

Two things: First, a more favorable attitude; agreater respect for the craftsmanship (4 the sophist-rhetorician. A contrast here with the /shardruN is in-structive. Recall with me the miserable address thatPlato constructed for 14'sias in the Phardru, . It didnot define terms, "the parts of the speech." Socrates

observes. "had been tossed off topsy-turvy." It wasa repetitious, long-windedeambling speech. Not onlywas it wrong morally but'also it was deficient in theproficiencies of rhetoric as a technical art.

Reginald Hookforth says of it: "This tediouspiece of rhetoric deserves little comment. It is a flat,monotonous, repetitive composition .. . in which littleis discernible, the arguments being tacked or "glued"together by formulas of mechanical connection .. Andthe flatness of the style is matched by the banality ofthe sentiment."

In the :Ntrnposiam the situation is different atleast to a degree. The two sophists, Phaedrus andPausanias. speak first, and this position probablyindicates that Plato overall gave them the lowestposition inferior in prestige to the doctor, the poet,and the philosopher. However, as a logographer writingspeeches adapted to the character of the speakers,Plato created for one of the sophists Phaedrus aspeech that was technically excellent. The speech byl'aui-,anias does not possess the same points of excel-lence. but I see some significance in the fact thatl'ato to concede that at least one of thesophists v-:,s a master of his own craft able to con-

.:peech that was admirable in structure, inclarit.. in inventiveness, and in its use of a number ofthe. (lt ices of proof. including examples, enthymemes,arorment s of probability. contrast, and proof bywit ot.--.:o,;.

T11. :-:etond point on Plato's attitude toward rhet-oric, as sound in the Ntmp,..iiim. is one that reinforceswhat is perhaps the most significant single point madeui t P;.(/,,r,r;.: The difference between false and;rue rhetoric is knowing and respecting truth. The

btween the two works is striking. Plato -sotonly makes the same point. but also does so in thesame .n the Hurt irtb. the first speech by Socra-tes is an admirable specimen of sophistic rhetoric. Itis followed by a dialogue in which Scorates specifiesth crucial flaw. An invisible visitant checks Socra-tes for his toolish, impious speech and calls upon h:mto recant and to cleanse himself of his shame. Socra-tes, speaking of the speech of Lysias and his own,says : "Therein they both transgressed concerningLove; .oid. liesides, the fatuity of both was absolutelydroll. tor. while neither of them contained a thing thatwas -4t,11:1(1 or true. the both assume.' a solemn air ...In the II, pf of cheating manikins and winning their

"lhe third stage in the Phudrus is thepresatarior by Socrates of a true masterpiece one

truth with the skills of the sophist-rhetori-c 1,111.

t ure of one section of the ..%mpoNiuttt isident tual. Agathon gives a speech that is a rhetoricalmasterp,ece by sophistic standards. It is clear, tightlytruc lured. filled with plausible enthymemes. Beyondthat. its invention shows great imagination and re-sourLefulness. am; much of it soars in imagery to

BEST COPY AVAILABLE3

heights of poetic beauty. Those present, other thanSocrates. are taken in by Agathon's virtuosity. "WhenAgathon had finished speaking." so said Aristodemus,"all who were there applauded loudly; the young manobviously had spoken in a manner w thy of himselfand of the goa." And Socrates, though he immediatelythereafter speaks in ironic criticism of Agathon'seffort, acknowledges some admirable qualities: "Andhow . . . shall I be otherwise than at a loss, I or any-body else you please, who has to speak after a dis-course as beautiful and varied as this has been deliv-ered? And if the rest was not in equal measure wonder-ful, yet who could listen to the close without amaze -ment at the beauty of the epithets and phrases?"

Then, as in the Phaedrus, a dialogue intervenesbetween the two speeches the sophistic masterpieceand the true masterpiece. In the Symposium the crit-icism is the same; only the mechanism of expressionis different. Here the method is a mixture of irony anddirect statement: "In fact, I was stupid enough tothink that in every case one ought to tell the truthabout the subject of the praise. and that this mustserve as basis . . . And I felt very proud indeed tothink how well I was going to speak because I knewthe real way of praising anything. But, seemingly,this was not the way of praising anything whateverfinely. No! The way was to attribute to the objectthe greatest and the finest things one could conceiveof. whether they were so or not. If false, that was nomatter." For further emphasis Socrates adds that hewill not speak if it means "good-bye to the truth,"

And the parallel continues still further. In theS%mpsium after the short intervening dialogue settingforth the faults of the sophistic speech, Socrates pre-sents an example of excellence in speechmaking. Inthe two works, therefore, argument and sequence arealike-- a sophistic masterpiece, critique, a true master-piece. And the flaw in the sophistic masterpiece isthe same the insensitivity to truth.

So much for the attitudes toward rhetoric thatPlato manifests in the Symposium more tolerant, morerealistic, but insistent on the necessity for knowingtruth. Now for the second part of this paper, which ison Plato's principles of rhetoric. Nowhere, as we allknow, did Plato write down in any detail his principleof rhetoric. The second part of the Phaedrus is theonly work that even cones close to dealing with thistopic, and here the guidelines, though certainly im-portant, are quite broad. Besides knowing the truth,one should de:ine terms, organize well, be a philos-opher, and know his audience.

So we cannot know much about Plato's rhetoric byreading his direct statements on the art. If we are toknow any details, we must examine the speeches thathe constructed, observe his rhetorical practices. andinfer that these tell us something about his theoriesand favorite devices. There are certain risks in thisundertaking, but I think that they are worth taking.

Here we have a considerable body of speechmaking toexamine seven speeches.

In the seven speeches. there is an abundance ofevidence pointing to a series of precepts and practices.Let's make a game of this part of my paper. Let's sup-pose that Plato was writing a handbook for speakersI can't imagine anything less Plato like. anything thatPlato would have been any less likely to do; if hisreincarnated soul is anywhere among us tonight. I willsurely begin feeling some frightful vibrations. But letme take this risk and play the game of make-believe.What advice would Plato have put in his handbook ifhe had written one? First, on the canon of arrange-ment in respect to epideictic speechmaking, let meremind you what would he have said? Three things,I believe.

Number one, he would have said, "Keep the in-troductions and the conclusions simple." What do hisintroductions consist of? They point out errors inpreceding speech, they indicate the speaker's purpose.and they preview the oration. Char and concise, theyare restricted to serving the content of the speech.What don't they do? They do not embellish, conciliate,emphasize, or try to heighten attention. Conclusions,likewise, are brief, simple, and content oriented. Ex-cept for some brief references to the immediate sur-roundings, they are restricted to restating the thesisand summarizing main points.

Number two on arrangement, Plato would have saidthat an epideictic speech need not have any fixednumber of parts. This position, also, is consistentwith n larger view namely, that conveying truth takesprecedence over observing a rhetorical nicety. Phae-drus has three parts to his speech. Eryximachus andAristophanes give four-part speeches: introduction,statement of thesis, body, conclusion. Agathon givesa five-part speech: introduction, thesis, crtition,body, conclusion.

However, on a final aspect of arrangement, Booki, Chapter 3 of our imaginary handbook Plato doesseem to be prescriptive. Speeches of praise shouldfollow certain lines of development. Both Agathon andSocrates speak on this point. Says Agathon: "yet theone right method, in every form of praise on every topic,is, namely, to explain the nature of the agent who isthe subject of the speech, through which such and sucheffects are brought about. This therefore is the properway for us to praise the God of Love, to tell first ofhis nature, then of his gifts." Socrates agrees, and Ithink without being ironical: "The right procedure,Agathon, as you explained, is first to tell what Erosis, and what he is like, and then to tell of his works."

Moving now to Plato's advice on invention, wecan make some well-supported guesses. This is bookii, Chapter 1. "Adapt your speech to the remarks ofthe preceding speakers." The Symposium is filledwith examples of adaptation not only in the intro-

4

ductions but also in the bodies of the speeches. Aga-than, for example, well along in his speech, says,"With Phaedrus I agree on many other points, but dis-agree on this, that Eros is of earlier date than Cronusand Iapetus." Later Agathon makes a similar adapta-tion through a reference to the earlier speech byEryximachus.

On this matter of adaptation, however, there is adanger that we may mislead ourselves. All of us, Isuspect, have become accustomed to viewing adapta-tion in the context of persuasive effectiveness weadapt in order to per :wide and there is no evidencethat Plato's frequent use of adaptation was for thesame purpose. The speeches were not overtly anddirectly persuasive, and it seems likely that the func-tion of adaptation was to provide continuity.

Book ii, Chapter 2, on speech composition: Platobelieves in the value of internal summary. This deviceappears in several speeches, and in the address ofAgathon it is conspicuous with a summary about every300 words. These are brief, and often the summary iscombined with a topic sentence that leads into thenext section: "Now we have treated of the justice,temperance, and courage of the god. There remainshis wisdom." "Concerning the beauty of the god letthis suffice, though much remains unsaid. It is Love'svirtues that must be our ne.t consideration." In theother speeches internal sumrn4ries appear sufficientlyoften to justify the conclusion that this device is afavorite with Plato. For one other example I return toEryximachus, who salvages something from a longwind-ed discourse with the clear-cut summary: "Whence Iinfer that in music, in medicine, in all other thingshuman as well as divine, both loves ought to be notedas far as may be, for they are both present."

Now in regard to speech composition we come toadvice that pertains to Plato's favorite device for ex-plaining and developing his ideas comparison andcontrast, Book ii, Chapter 3. Although Plato uses agreat variety of rhetorical techniques in the SI tripoN /um.comparison and contrast arc by far the most common.Here are some examples of contrast: Alcibiades says,

. . . but the purpose of the image will be truth, andnot amusement," Aristophanes gives us the contrastbetween the fate of the man who alienates the godsand the bliss that comes when " . . . once we becomefriends with Eros, and made our peace with him."Phaedrus says, " . . . neither kindred, nor honour, norwealth, nor any other motive is able to implant so wellas love." Pausanias develops a section of his speechwith a series of contrasts between the noble lover andthe ignoble. Achilles and Pericles can be compared toothers; says Alcibiades, but in contrast Socri tees canbe compared to no mortal. And other instances are tobe found some that clarify, some that ::.,ize,and some that function as logical argument.

As for comparison, instances are many and varied.Some are logical argument. Eryximachus SayS: "

Si COPY AVAILABLE

and as Pausar.ias was just now saying that to. indulgegood men is honourable, and bad men dishonourable:so too in the body the good and healthy elements areto be indulged, and the bad elements and the elementsof disease are not to be indulged." Diotima followsthe sound preen,- . of a.:guing from the concrete to theabstract. After talking about bodily changes fromyouth to old age though the individual continues tobear the same name, she says, "And that is true notmerely of the body, but also of the soul; true of ourways, our character, our notions, longings, pleasures,pains, and fears; not one of these remains the same inany individual, but some of them are being born whileother' are passing away." Similarly Alcibiades at-tempts to clarify his pain at being bitten by Socrates'philosophic discourses to the pain of anybody bittenby an adder. I counted no less than eight uses of com-parison in the speech of Alcibiades some for clari-fication. some for amplification, some for emphasis,and some serving more than one purpose: Socrates,Alcibiades reports. affects him much more stronglythan do Pericles and other able orators.

Also in the family of comparison is analogy. Dio-time uses this device as part of her definition of Love.Pausanias uses analogy as argument: "Take, forexample, that which we are now doing, drinking, sing-ing, and talking these acticas are not in themselveseither good or evil, but they turn our in this way ac-cording to the mode of performing them; . . . and in likemanner not every love, but only that which has a noblepur pose, is noble and worthy of praise."

Finally in this consideration of contrast and com-parison is an example of the tapas of opposites. Aga-thon reasons, " . . . obviously the love or beauty, foreros is not based on ugliness."

But comparison and contrast are not Plato's onlydevices. As further advice in a make-belief handbook,Chapter 4, he would have said, "Use whatever devicewill foster the presentation of truth." Plato's speakersin the svmpo.iiiim use almost every rhetorical devicethat can be imagined instances of the use of witnessand authorities. of intensifying devices, of achievingunity through using the same allusion in the conclusionas in the introduction, of argument by residue, ofhistorical allusion. of the extended narrative, of theconcrete and the specific, of vivid description; of thehypothetical example, of hypothetical conversation, ofa digression for the sake of audience adaptation, ofthe axiom, of using snatches of verse for embellish-ment. of invented dialogue, of artistic ethos, of prom-ising to take an oath, of personal testimony, and ofnarrative examples. These last two are major devicesin the speech by Alcibiades.

Finally, in regard to Plato's ideas on invention,we find from a study of the speeches in the Nvmpasiumthat he gave logos a high place. Enthymemes are fre-quent, thus, Plato, like Aristotle, stresses in his rhet-oric the importance of deductive reasoning directed at

5

the beliefs and values of his listeners. True enough,the speeches are uneven in the use of e nhymemes, butoverall this means of invention is important. Thespeeches of Phaedrus and Agathon are especially richin the use of this device, and Aristophanes has someinteresting examples in his introduction. Here aresome quick examples: Phaedrus utilizes the beliefthat the first and the eldest is the best as the basisfor his argument that Eros is best among the gods.

Another example from the speech of Phaedrus:Love, he argues, is praiseworthy because it is a forcefor honour and bravery. Expanded into a syllogism,this argument begins, "Whatever is a force for honourand bravery is praiseworthy." The use of a commonbelief as the basis for the enthymeme is clear. Stillanother example: Aristophanes uses the common beliefthat temples are erected when the power of gods isrecognized as the basis for proof through negation thatthe power of Eros is unappreciated. Just afterwardsAristophanes argues from the premise that healingbrings the greatest happiness to mankind to the con-clusion that Eros, who is a healer of ills, is man'sgreatest iriond. And there are many others of these.

Proof by example, also, is common. Phaedrusoffers Alcestis and Achilles as examples of heroism,and the case of Achilles and Patroclus as an exampleof the love of man for man.

In summary, enthymemes and examples appear toooften and too artfully for their use to be accidental.Plato clearly believed that they had major roles toplay in invention.

With this I complete the second section of thisspeech. From the Symposium, I conclude, we can learnmuch about Plato's ideas on rhetorical precepts andpractices. Now for my third and final section: Whatdid Plato regard as the ideal speech? Here I think weare to identify the great contribution that the Sympo-sium makes to rhetoric. The Phaedrus, I shall argue,does not give us a good example of Plato's ideal speech,whereas the Symposium does perform this function.Plato, Everett Lee Hunt, your speaker a year ago,tells us, believed that dialogue is superior to con-tinuous discourse. The second speech by Socrates inthe Phaedrus is a continuous discourse, and though itis philosophic truth, it does not illustrate the value ofdialogue. As Oscar Brownstein notes in the QuarterlyJournal, " . . . the third speech has the limitations ofany continuous discourse it cannot be perfected bycross-examination." It is ir. the Symposium that Pla-to's rules for good speaking are fully illustrated. Solet us give our attention to the speech of Socrates,much of which is cast in the form of a speech by Dio-tima.

Socrates begins his turn by examining Agathondialectically for the purpose of exposing the falsity ofthe preceding address and for the further purpose ofshowing the true nature of Eros. After that he explainsthat he will use for his speech the remarks that he

once heard from Diotima. She begins with definition, aquality of speechmaking that socrates insisted on inthe Phaedrus also. It is not definition in the sense ofa one-sentence statement, but definition in the form ofan extended analysis and description. Diotima answersthe question "What function has Eros?" and explainshis parents and origin. Then after an internal summary,she answers operationally the question "What valuehas Eros for mankind ?" Diotima finishes with an un-interrupted passage of about 2,000 words in translation.At this point we find specific-evidence that Plato as-sociated continuous discourse with sophistic rhetoricand a dialectic presentation with true rhetoric. Socra-tes comments as he introduces this longest monologuewithin his whole contribution, "And she, replying likea finished Sophist." After that Socrates gives instruc-tion on how to acquire the benefits of Love. Thespeech then reaches a climax that unifies the preced-ing This passage is one of poetic beauty andit is the culmination of the philosophic inquiry. At theend is a conclusion of about 200 words that applies tothe audience specifically the thoughts emphasized inthe climax.

The Socrates-Diotima address is admirable in manyways. It is clear, pointed, inventive, well arranged,and beautifully poetic. But, more important, Platoillustrates not only the presentation of truth but alsothe development of truth through dialectic inquiry. Thecontent of this speech is largely dialectic. Socratesin his conversation with Diotima uses the dialecticprocess by which truth is found about Love. The idealspeech becomes a combination of rhetoric, poetic, anddialectic rhetoric in purpose, dialectic in content,and poetic in expression. A second quality of thispresentation is that it is highly conversational inmany ways a nonspeech. Rhetorical devices can befound, but they are kept inconspicuous. Although thesophiiticated rhetorical analyst has no difficulty inidentifying strategies and devices in abundance, to theordinary reader these surely must be unobtrusive. Thedevices are subordinate to the ideas they clarifyand heighten ideas; they are not used for their ownsake. Unlike in sophistic rhetoric, the functions ofdevices are not those of conforming to rules or dis-playing the speaker's virtuosity. Finally, in the cli-max Plato gives us rhetoric at its finest: the philos-opher - speaker is stating the truth, reached dialectical-ly, with poetic beauty and without outward signs ofart if ice.

What was Plato's ideal rhetoric, then? It was apresentation of dialectic inquiry reaching truth; it wasa conversational, nonspeech whose rhetorical deviceswere unobtrusive. It brought dialectic, poetic, andrhetoric together. It did not abstain from rhetoricaltechniques, but it used them to present truth and notfor ostentatious display. 'Whether Plato would callthis type of discourse "rhetoric" can be questioned.This issue is beyond the scope of this paper, and

6

frank y whether his label for such a presentationwould be "speech" or "dialectic conversation" orsomething else and whether he would classify thepresentation as "rhetoric" or "dialectic" do notinterest me very much. The purpose was rhetoricaland rhetorical devices are plentiful.

In closing, I shall make no attempt to summarizefully the preceding remarks. The Symposium is acharming dialogue, whose importance to rhetoric hasbeen largely overlooked. In it Plato confirms muchthat he does and states in the Phaedrus. There isfurther evidence that Plato not only was a master ofrhetorical techniques but also that he appreciated theircontributions to oral discourse, though insisting thatwhether the orator knew the truth was the critical testfor rhetorical excellence. In combining dialectic withrhetorical purpose in the Socrates - Diotima speech,Plato went beyond tly, Phaedrus in recording an exam-ple of the rhetoric that he approved. To me the Sym-posium removes whatever doubt there has been aboutwhether Plato opposed all rhetoric. I think very clear-ly that he did not.

BEST con AMBLE

THE RHETORIC OF THE FIRST GRADE READERby

Virginia Kidd

Graduate in Speech Communication, Sacramento State College

In the fall of 1969, 369,444 students were enrolledin the first grade in the California public schools.1They were ostensibly taught to read, write, do arithmetic,skip as many as two bars at a time on the playgroundequipment, and engage in a variety of miscellaneousactivities.

In addition, they were quietly and without much noticetaught something of a different nature. "Our moral pre-cepts and practices are made an integral part of theschool curriculum." wrote Nathaniel Hickerson in hisbook I:Lineation leer iliena:ion. He advanced the con-cept that education is merely an instrument of the soci-ety, disseminating cultural mores as well as the threeR's.2

Arthur Allen, writing in The .\ationul ElementaryPrint ipal. cited one method these moral precepts aretaught: "We can reasonably conclude that children'sbooks of every era play a vital role in communicatingattitudes and cultural values."3

When over 300,000 students per year are being ad-vanced particular view of society's values, it seemsimportant to determine exactly what values are beingadvanced. To this end, I wish to examine the mainstayof a chili:'s introductory schooling the inevitable firstgrade reader, certainly in terms of audience reached, aformidable piece of rhetoric.

This paper will not deal with the acquisition ofreading skill. Rather, it will investigate the rhetoric ofthe texts to determine (1) what values are advanced,(2) what rhetorical methods are used to support thevalues, (3) what the probable rhetorical effects are, and(4) what evaluations can be made of the rhetoric.

In 1969. California adopted a new line of textbooksfor use throughout the state for four to eight years.4The major line of first grade texts is the Harper and Row

1Department of Administrative Research. CaliforniaState Department of Education.

;Nathaniel Hickerson, Education for Alienation (Engle-wood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966). p. 42.

3Arthur Allen. "Micro-boppers, Life Styles and Books."The National Elementary Principal. 49 (November, 1969),pp. 26-9.

4E/ementary School Textbooks Adopted by the StateBoard of Education for use in California during 1969-70(Sacramento: California State Department of Education, July,1964). p. 2

7

Basic Reading Program. This paper will examine thosefirst grade readers from this series designed for use in"usual" classrooms.5

The first observation to be made about the Harperand Row readers is something we al; had realized yearsago about Dick and Jane and Baby Sally: namely, theyadvance relentlessly with us. That is, the first book isabout Janet and Mark. The second book is about Janetand Mark. The third hook is about Janet and Mark.Janet and Mark and their ever-patient Mother and Daddybecome the first grader's everyman. There are noalternatives. There is only one world the world ofJanet and Mark. Eventually it becomes simply TheWorld. Official and in print, year after year, Mark andJanet march on bearing the standard that is World With-out End. Amen.

Though there are many values advanced in this re-curring world, there seem to be three major value sys-tems: Janet and Mark live in an antiseptic world; Janetand Mark know the tz.ocial roles they should play in thisworld; Janet and Mark know the economic role theyshould play. A more detailed analysis of these systemsindicates the rhetoric.

In looking at the world portrayed in the first gradereader, one aspect is immediately obvious: there areno extremes in this world. The rhetoric is clear: abland world is a good world. The world includes nodeviances; the attitudes of all characters are uniform.Events that occur in the books do not provoke criticism.Disagreement arises when we realize that the samekinds of events occur regularly to the exclusion of allpossible variations. This sort of homogeneity seems tosuggest that such variations are in fact undesirable.

Janet and Mark live in a plain house in a plain sub-urb.6 They go to the playground,7 they go on a picnic,8

5The books in this series are the following: .the firstpreprimer, Janet and Mark; the second preprimer. Outdoorsand in; the third preprimer, City Days. City Ways; the fourthpreprimer, Just for Fun; and the primer, Around the Corner.There are special texts designed for the disadvantaged andfor special readers, but this paper will not deal with these.

6Mabel O'Donnell, City Days, City Ways (Sacramento:California State Department of Education, 1969). p. S. Sinceauthor and publisher are the same for all primers. futurereferences will be by title and page only.

7Janet and Mark. p. 6.

8Outdoors and /n, pp. 2- 12.

they visit grandma,9 they own a dog." They buy shoesin a building conveniently named "Shoe Store,"11 andthey give to the Red Cross.12 Mother wears clothing ofanother era. She still wears gloves to town13 and adress on a picnic.14 (On one risque occasion she doesdon knee-length shorts." While it could be noted thatshe was at a swimming pool at that time, still we mightgenerally agree that it represents an improvement overthe skirt and blouse she wore in the speedboat.)16

In keeping with modern trends, Janet and Mark havefriends of different races. Negro children are easilyrecognizable on the playground.17 Mark's friend Davidis clearly dark." But Janet still cheers the cowboyover the Indian, and it becomes evident that face colorscould be changed indiscriminately without affecting thestories.19

The difficulty with this description of a world liesin the omissions. Janet and Mark do not: talk aboutschool, paint pictures, take music lessons, write verse,or wonder about God. There are no crises in theirworld; their parents do not divorce, their grandmotherdoes not move in, they do not wear glasses, their dognever gets pregnant, they're never embarrassed orashamed.

They learn this from their parents, who never: quarrel,espouse political ideals, engage in artistic activities,hire baby sitters, get sick, display mutual affection,or most tragic of all speak to one another. In 410pages, Daddy and Mother say only two lines to oneanother: "I want a speedboat ride, Daddy,"" and"Look in the box, Mother."21

The transcendence of Mark and Janet's world fromalternative to prescriptive is accented by the languageof the reader. This is demonstrated clearly in Mother'sspeech when she talks of Mark's birthday party: "Thisis what he wants . . . this is what all boys want. "22And again, when she described the food of the party:"Just what all boys like! Just what all boys want!"23

9City Days. City Ways. pp. 64.71.10 Janet and Mark. p. 24.11City Days. City Ways. p. 19.

12 Around the Corner, pp. 147 -157.

13Ctty Ways. City Days. pp. 30-23.14Outdoors and In. pp. 2 -12.

15/bid.. pp. 58 -62.

ow pp. 52 -66.

17 Janet and Mark, pp. 6-11.

18fbid.. P. 9.

191bid.. pp. 25 -28.

"Outdoors and In. p. 52.

21/bid.. p. 69.

22Around the Corner. p. 141.

237bid.. p. 143.

8

The constant underlying implication that this is theonly world, for all people, is the frightening potentialof this rhetoric.

Within the limits of this antiseptic world, the char-acters play clearly prescribed roles. Mother's chiefoccupation in life, it is clear from the pictures, is wash-ing dishes, cooki:;;;, sewing, ironing, and wearingaprons. (There are 18 stories featuring women in thehome; the w o ma n wears an apron in 12 of theri.)24Daddy's chief occupation is coming home. Daddy isnever seen wiping away Janet's tears or helping Markclean his room; he plays ball with Mark.25 Mother nevergoes to work or drives the car; she helps Janet make acake.26

Janet and Mark continue this dramatization of sexualroles. The story of Janet's new skates illustrates thepoint clearly: Janet tries on the skates and falls.

"Mark! Janet!" said Mother."What is going on here?""She cannot skate," said Mark."I can help her.

I want to help her.Look at her, Mother.Just look at her.She is just like a girl.She gives up."

Mother forces Janet to try again."Now you see," said Mark."Now you can skate.But just with me. to help you.'"

The indoctrination of Janet, and through her thechildren of California, is clear. It is more firmly em-bedded by the fact that Janet never makes a similarcomment to Mark.

Companion stories, featuring each child separately,continue the same viewpoint. Mark shows Janet histoys: parachute, rocket, space suit, helmet, gloves,and boots. He declares himself Mark, the astronaut.28Then it is Janet's turn. She shows her toys: playhouse,chairs, curtains, dolls, buggy, doll bed, dishes.29

Within the text a "Just for Fun" section featuresanimal stories. The text is careful, even here, to followthe same value trends. Mother no longer looks like JaneWyatt on Father Knows Best. Now she is clearly a bear.But she is still wearing an apron and still dryingdishes." Little Bear, given the pronoun "he," is ajolly sort, who spends "his" story looking for fun.31Little Frog, given the pronoun "she," sits on a rock

24This pattern is c on sist en tstudied.

25Around the Corner. p. 80.26 Outdoors and In. pp. 39-44.27Around the Corner. pp. 45 -46.28Janet and Mark. pp. 37-42.29/bid.. pp. 43 -47.30Around the Corner. p. 83.

31/bid.. pp. 83- 93.

in all five of the books

asking people what to do.32Society has varying views on the appropriate behav-

ior of males and females. Certainly there are those whowould accept the tradition of Janet running from Mark'sgrass snake.33 The criticism is with the lack of choice.Janet is never a potential artist, senator, scientist.Mark never represents the actor, professor, gourmet.And Janet and Mark, like death and taxes, are with usalways, and always they act the same confining parts.

Loi. playing is demonstrated not only in the socialworld, but also in the economic world. Janet and Markare :in eterate consumers. American business would beproud of them. The value of acquiring objects is illus-trated in each of the preprimers, but it is the primer,Around the Corner, that most exactly demonstrates thevalue.

On page 29, Janet and Mark find a dime and reachone of the emotional climaxes of the book by quarrelingover it. Mother, rather than reprimanding them, divides,giving each a nickel. Janet's instant comment is:"Now we can get something." They leave imme-diately.34

On page 41, Mrs. Long brings skates for Janet.Mark's first observation is, "What do I get?"35

On page 67 Janet expresses a desire to do somethingexciting. Mother's solution is to buy T shirts andearrings.36

The consumer model reaches its height on page 75when Mark finds a pigeon. His friend David offers tobuy it.

"Will you give him to me?Will you give him to me for a nickel?"

Mark could conceivably give several alternative repliesat this point: you may have this pigeon as a gift; youmay have the pigeon if you will care for it; we must letthe pigeon go free, etc. Each would teach a differentvalue. The reply chosen illustrates the actual view-point expressed in the book:

"For a nickel!" said Mark."What good is a nickel? .. .You can have my pigeon for a dime."37

Notice that Mark is not selfish. Rather, both Mark andDavid are functional operatives in a consumer society.

Janet's role as a consumer is similar. "I'm going tohave a birthday," she says, "You can get somethingfor me." Daddy's reply?

"Good for you," said Daddy"Look out for yourself, Janet."38

321brd., pp. 103 -109.

33Around the Corner, pp. 21-22.34 ibid.. 32.

35Ibid p. 41.36 ibid. 67.

37/bid.. p. 75.

381bid.. p. 145.

BEST 60P1 AVAILABLE 9

These three value systems a bland, uniform world,confined social toles, and a consumer orientation arecontinually achanced in the first grade readers. Thenext question of concern is what rhetorical methods areused for support of these values.

In his master's thesis, Gunnar Aarresstad definedpersuasive efforts in language textbooks as the attempt

. . . to modify behavior, attitudes, or values throughthe manipulation of symbols and individual desireswithout the conscious knowledge or awareness ofthe person being manipulated.39

The key phrase here is "without the conscious aware-ness of the person being manipulated." The valuespresented in the first grade readers are presented insuch a fashion, to persons concentrating on the meaningof words and the study of a skill, not the value pritternsin the context.

Roger Brown, in his book Social Psychology, pointsout that persons learn behavior patterns by imitation.He further mentions that these patterns can be learnedby observation alone and need not be experienced bythe persons involved 40

Here is the key to the rhetorical style of the readers.The children learn by imitation, yet ate given but onemodel to imitate. Certainly the readers are not the onlybooks to which the children are exposed, nor is theteacher without influence in their reaction to the material.Still, the children are not questioning or refuting thematerial. They are in a school setting, where accep-tance of textbook content is a definite virtue. No onequestions the statements in the math book; no one denysthe descriptions in the science text; in a like manner,Janet and Mark are very likely to be a c c ept e d asappropriate models.

Dr. Edward Hall, in The Silent Language, summarizedthis kind of persuasion:

The principal agent is a model used for imitation.Whole clusters of related activities are learned at atime, in many cases without the knowledge that theyare being learned at all."The persuasion is furthered in this instance by lack

of a strong defense against such rhetoric on the part ofyoung children. Piaget, in his studies of the thoughtprocesses of children, marks the ages of seven or eightas the beginning of what we term logical thought.42 Alogical defensive response to the imitation model wouldseem to call for more astuteness than can reasonably beexpected for an average six year old.

"Gunner Aarresttad, "An Analysis of Apparent Psycho-logical Persuasion in an Audio-Lingual Foreign LanguageTextbook Series" (unpublished master's thesis, SacramentoState College, 1968), p. 8.

"Roger Brown, Social Psychology (New York: The FreePress, 1965). pp. 394-401.

4IEdward Hall, The Silent Language (Greenwich, Conn:Fawcett Publications. Inc.. 1959). p. 70.

42 Jean Piaget, Six Psychological Studies (New York:Vintage Books, 1968). p. 41.

E m p i r i c a 1 studies of reading and its effects onchildren's attitudes indicate a relationship between thetwo. Jackson showed that reading just one story affect-ed temporary attitude toward Negroes." Websterdemonstrated that reductions in fear of the dark ar4 ofdogs could be accomplished by read i n g.44 Tauranstudied attitudes toward Eskimos, and indicated thatattitudes of children were influenced either positivelyor negatively depend ing upon the type of meter i a Isread.45

Though no studies have been conducted specificallyon the Mark and Janet readers and their audience, wecan make certain s p e c u 1 at ions as to the effects ofcontinuous exposure to such material. Traditionally,analysis breaks down audiences into three groups theneutral, the committed, the opposed. Upon suchaudiences certain results are highly probable.

Children with no strongly developed values in theareas taught in the books have no reason to reject thematerial. The ideas are approved by those whom thechildren approve; they are presented not as argumentsbut as accepted mores. Without reason for objection tothe values, the children would be very likely simply toaccept them.

Upon children who already accept the values express-ed in the first grade readers, the persuasive effectwould be that of reinforcement. The books verify theirworld; what they observe and what they read coincide.The persuasion strengthens their beliefs.

The most complex reaction to the rhetoric wouldappear to lie with children whose family life styles areunlike the world of Janet and Mark. While we cannotspecify the exact response of such children, it is safeto presume such repetition and exposure to situationscontrary to their real world would produce conflictswithin the children.

There is every reason to believe the rhetoric of thefirst grade reader is effective in persuading its audi-ences. While we cannot explicitly ascertain the directintent of the authors of this work, we can examine 'hework itself, see the overt persuasive appeal of it, andreason that upon young children who have not fullydeveloped reasoning processes, who are patterned tolearn by imitation, who are presented material by trustedauthority-figures and who spend a grew. deal of time onthe material, the rhetoric would be highly persuasive.

G4ven such an effect, the next question to be con-sidered must be, is this desirable? Since it seems

43E.P. Jackson, "Effects of Reading Upon AttitudesTow/ad the Rego Race," Library Quarterly. 14 (1944), pp.47-54.

44J. Webster, "Using Books to Reduce the Fears of FirstGrade Children." The Reading Teacher, 14 (1961), pp.159- 162.

45R.H. Tauran, "The influence of Reading on the Atti-tudes of Third Graders Toward Eskimos." (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1967).

10

impossible to present valueless reading matter, whatshould be the legitimate values presented in a firstgrade text? Conceivably there could be as manyanswers to this question as hearers of it. As a begin-ning, however, let us take the answer of the same agencyresponsible for the texts the California State Depart-ment of Education:

Individual differences should be appreciated ratherthan merely tolerated . . . It is because of them thatindividuals are able to make contributions tosociety 46

It seem highly unlikely that such individual differ-ences would be fostered by the presentation of a singleview of society. A much more stimulating approach issuggested by Dr. Arthur Allen:

The vast differences in range and depth of interestsin a society where cultural pluralism is characteristicdemand that children's books should take into accountthe reading interests of broader, more representativegroups groups that cross socio-economic, culturaland grade levels:"In a pluralistic society which holds individualism

as a basic national tenet, it is important to be aware ofthe dangers presented by rhetoric supporting culturaluniformity. It is only appropriate that the most harshwarning should be embedded in the rhetoric of the textitself. Laid out clearly, for all to see, is the deadlyimplication of the rhetoric of the first grade reader:

"What can I be, Mother ?" said Little Lamb."I want to be something new."

"What can you be?" said her mother."Someday you will be a sheep.A sheep .. . just like me."Little Lamb ran up and downin the green meadow.Little Lamb was happy.48

"Teachers Guide to Educition in Early Childhood(Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1956),p. 2.

47Allen, "Micro-Boppers," p. 28.

"Around the Corner, pp. 101-102.

BEST

4040SYMBOLISM, NARRATIVE, HISTORY:

RHETORICAL PLANES IN THE OCTOPUSby

Patricia LogueSenior in Rhetoric, University of California, Dauis

When Frank Norris' novel The Octopus was published,reviewers immediately recognized the book's persuasiveimpact.1 One critic predicted that this story of a strug-gle between California wheat farmers and the railroadmonopoly would "awaken people from the death-dealingslumber that has been brought about by the multitudinousinfluence' of corporate greed, controlling governmentand the opinion-forming agencies of the Republic."2No less a figure than Teddy Roosevelt mentioned TheOctopus as one of the factors shaping his opinion of therailroads.3 Classed with such exposes as Upton Sin-clair's The Jungle and Lincoln Steffens' The Shame ofthe Caies,4 Norris' work fits squarely into the Muck-raking tradition as Richard Hofstadter describes it:

First reality must in its fulness beexposed, and then it must be made thesubject of moral exhortation; and then,when individual citizens in sufficientnumbers had stiffened in their determinationto effect reform, something could be done.5

To the modern reader, the urgency for reform may besomewhat diminished, but the book is good literatureand still makes enjoyable reading. Because of its con-temporary impact as a piece of Muckraking literatureand the insight it provides into that movement, TheOctopus should interest the rhetorical critic. Even moreinteresting is an examination of the book to determinewhat it reveals about Norris' own rhetoric. The methodhe employs to build his case against the railroad can beanalysed on three rhetorical planes: symbolic, narrative,and historical.

The first installment of an intended trilogy on theproduction, distribution, and consumption of wheat, TheOctopus tells the story of the wheat farmers in Califor-nia's San Joaquin Valley and of their unsuccessful fightto save their land from confiscation by the railroad. The

1See especially B.O. Flower: "The Trust in Fiction:A Remarkable Social Novel," The Arena" (May, 1902), 547-54 and William Morton Payne: "Recent Fiction," The Dial31 (September, 1901) 136.

2Flower, p. 554.

3lrving McKee: "Notable Memorials to Mussel Slough,"Pacific. Historical Review XII (February, 1948) 26.

4Richard Hofstadter: The Age of Reform (New York,1955) p. 201.

8/bid., p. 202.11

very title launches the reader into the symbolic plane.The octopus is the symbol of the railroad, with "tenta-cles of steel clutching into the soil."6 The imagery ishighly affective. Even a map of the fictional Pacificand Southwest Railroad resembles an octopus, with allthe lines radiating from the central point at San Fran-cisco. Drawn upon a white background, "the redarteries of the monster stood out, swollen with life-blood,reaching out to infinity, gorged to bursting; an excre-scence, a gigantic parasite fattening upon the fife -bloodof an entire commonwealth."7 Throughout th, story therailroad is pictured as an evil creature, unexpectedlyrising from dark depths to capture and crush an innocentvictim in one of its infinite appendages.

Another symbolic indictment of the railroad is Norris'use of helpless animals to represent the human beingsvictimized by the monopoly. At the beginning of thenovel, a flock of sheep wanders on to the train tracksjust as an engine roars by. The character witnessingthis incident is horror-st:!(!ken by the slatghter, "a mas-sacre of innocents . . . To the right and left, all thewidth of the right of way, the little bodies had beenflung; backs were snapped against fence posts; brainsknoc:ced out."9 Immediately preceeding the climax ofthe book, when five of the ranchers are killed, a rabbitround-up is held, in which the animals are driven into apen and beaten to death, "blindly, furiously."9

The characters in the book also function symbolically.In offering social commentary, Norris believed his char-acters should represent personality types. He wrotethat "the social tendencies must be expressed by meansof analysis of the characters of the men and women whocompose that society. X10 For this reason, many of thecharacters in The Octopus are stereotypes, and eventhose who emerge as distinct individuals tend to beportrayed in black-and-..thite terms, depending upon theirrelationship to the railroad. The same distasteful char-acteristics of the malevolent S. Behrman, local agent of

6Frank Norris: The Octopus (New York, 1958), p. 33.71 bid., p. 192.

81bid., p. 32.

9/bid., p. 336."Franklin Walker: Frank Norris, A Biography (Garden

City, 1932), p. 258.

the Pacific and Southwest, are mentioned every time heappears in the novel. He is "fat, with a vast stomach,the cheek and neck meeting to form a great, tremulousjowl, the roll of fat over his collar, s pr inkle d withsparse, stiff hairs . . . the heavy watch chain clinkingagainst the pearl vest buttons . . . placid, unruffled,never losing his temper, serene, unassailable, en-throned."11 Genslinger, editor of the railroad-controlledBonneville Vereury, "speaks with great rapidity andwith nervous, abrupt gestures." He is a "brown, dry,lean little man. Exact dates are his delight."12 Shel-grim, omnipotent president of the railroad, possesses"an ogre's vitality . . . sucked from the life-blood of anentire people."13

While the characters associated with the railroad areall manifestations of evil, those opposed to the Pacificand Southwest are symbols of goodness and purity."Governor" Magnus Derrick, head of a farmers' organi-zation formed to fight the railroad, is always "erect,"imposing, commanding respect wherever he goes. HilmaTree is "hale, honest, radiant . . . the embodiment ofday."14 Dyke is slow and good-natured, always refer-ring to his daughter as "the little tad."

In addition to symbolizing good and evil, the char-acters in The Octopus also function as tools in Norris'second rhetorical plane, that of the action in the story.Norris' technique in his narrative is to cause thesesymbols of goodness to suffer horribly on account of therailroad. The indictment is plain. No grief imaginableseems to be escaped, the railroad apparently leaving nosource of exploitation unexploited. At times the effectbecomes rather bathetic, but an enumeration of some ofthe tragic episodes is necessary to i 1 lus t r a t e theirfunction in shaping the attitude of the reader.

In his fight a g a i n s t the Pacific and Southwest,Magnus Derrick compromises his lifelong political prin-ciples, sees one of his sons bribed by the railroad andthe other killed by one of its agents, loses his ranch,and finally goes insane. Dyke, jovial engineer, is firedfrom his job on the railroad and goes into hop farming,only to be financially ruined by a sudden increase inhauling rates. Angered, he becomes a train robber andmurderer, to the anguish and shame of his mother anddaughter, who are left without means of support. WhenHoovan, an immigrant farmhand on Derrick's ranch, iskilled in a gun battle against the railroad's agents, histwife and two daughters are forced to try their luck inSan Francisco. Minna, the elder daughter, becomesseparated from her mother and sister and turns to

11Norris, p. 140.

12Lars Ahnebrink: The Beginninas of Naturalism inAmerican Fiction (New York, 1961), p. 464. This volume con-tains the first publication of the character sketches Norriswrote for The Octopus.

13Norris, p. 382.14Ahnebrink, p. 462.

12

prostitution to support herself. In a scene which hasbeen called both the most artistic and the most ridiculousof the book,15 Mrs. Hoovan starves to death a few stepsfrom the door of one of the vice-presidents of the rail-road. Mercifully for the reader, these tragedies arespaced throughout the book, so that one does not have toendure the ludicrously overdramatic effect of seeingthem all at once. The fact remains, however, that onlyone railroad character comes to any harm in the book,and his downfall is ascribed to the vast forces of naturerather than to opponents of the railroad.

Norris' characters are the convenient vehicle bywhich he unifies the symbolic and narrative rhetoricalplanes. All the characters who are symbolically goodare also anti-railroad. Characters connected with thePacific and Southwest are evil, thereby arousing thereader's sympathy for the ranchers and against themonopoly. These sympathies are reinforced in the nar-rative plane: the good figures are plagued by tragedy;the evil figures, prospering at the expense of the poorand innocent, escape unpunished.

The characters also take the reader into the thirdr het oric a 1 plane of the novel. At this level Norrisutilizes historical events as a device for influencingopinion about the railroad. While the characters are use-ful symbolically and in the narrative, they are modeledafter people who actually lived the events in the story.16The powerful Shelgrim bears more than a coincidentalresemblance to Collis P. Huntington, the financial andpolitical mastermind behind the Southern Pacific Rail-road. Norris managed to interview Huntington as part ofhis preparation for the nove1,17 so the resemblance isnot particularly surprising. The physical similaritiesbetween the two ;re most striking, even down to thedetail of both men wearing s k u 1 lc lips while theyworked.18 The portrait is made even more convincingwhen Shelgrim justifies his railroad's activities withexactly the arguments Leland Stanford had publicallyarticulated over the years.19

Nor are the railroad supporters the only charactershaving historical counterparts. "Governor" MagnusDerrick is modeled after a Major McQuiddy, the presidentof the farmers' organization formed to fight the railroad.Delaney, a ranc hand who turns gunfighter, parallelsWalter Crow, a sharpshooter believed responsible forthe deaths of several figures prominent in the railroad

15Cf. Ernest Marchand: Frank Norris. A Study (Stanford,1942), pp. 157-60, Donald Pizer: The Novels of Frank Norris(Bloomington, 1966), p. 158, and Warren French: Frank Norris(New York, 1962), pp. 102-3.

16McKee, p. 25.

17Pizer, p. 1.24.

18Cf. the description of C. P. Huntington in Oscar Lewis:The Big Four (New York, 1938), pp. 217-19 and the descrip-tion of Shelgrim in Norris, p. 383.

19Pizer, p. 143 and unnumbered note. Also note on p.137.

contrc wersy. The story of Dyke is very close to that ofChris Evans, a train robber captured in 1893.20 Eventhe symbolic use of the octopus to represent the railroadwas familiar to Norris' readers, since political car-toonists of the day had so pictured the monolithic natureof the organization.21

Besides the historical significance of Norris' char-acters, another persuasive device employed is the useof events which actually took place during the lastquarter of the nineteenth century as the backbone of thenovel's plot.22 The fictional Pacific and SouthwestRailroad represents the Southern Pacific, which wasinvolved in a land struggle during the 1b70's and 1880's.

To induce people to settle along railroad lines, theSouthern Pacific offered ranchers the opportunity tofarm on railroad property along the lines, leading thefarmers to believe that they would receive the firstoption to buy the land once it was formally appraisedand offered for sale. When the land was finally put upfor sale seeral years after the ranchers had startedproducing wheat, they discovered that the selling pricewas not based upon the condition of the land at the timethey had occupied it, but rather upon the condition ofthe land as it had been improved h% the ranchers. Aseries of long court cases and appeals ensued, with thefarmers eventually losing. The struggle culminated inthe famous "battle" of Mussel Slough on May 11, 1880.Since the farmers had refused to pay the railroad's pricefor the land, a Federal marshall and posse were dis-patched to evict the ranchers. For an undeterminedreason a gun battle began, ending with the deaths offive of the ranchers and two posse members. Thememory of the incident was long kept alive by foes ofthe railroad as an example of Southern Pacific's tyrannyover the people of California.23 After spending sei,eralmonths investigating this incident, Norris decided to useit as the climax of his book.

As a rhetorical choice. Norris' decision to use thisparticular event as the critical incident in the novel isan excellent one. Since Mussel Slough had received aprevious fictional treatment24 and was mentionedconstantly by foes of the railroad, the memory of the"massacre" still caused public resentment as late as1901, when the book was published. Writing at thebeginning of the Muckraking movement, the authorcapitalizes on the discontent which Americans felttowards big business in general and the railroads inparticular. Cleverly, Norris includes enough detail in

2016td., p. 125 and McKee. p. 25.

21See the cartoons reprinted in Lewis, facing pp. 292-3.22The best historical background of these events avail-

able is the McKee article.23 MtV., p. 23.

24Josiah Roy. e: The Feud of Oakfirld Creek: .4 Norf../of Catifornia Life (1887).

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

the novel for his readers to recognize that his fictionalcharacters and incidents closely resemble real peopleand actual events. In terms of plot structure, the inci-dent unifies the three rhetorical planes of the novel byconsummating the triumph of the railroad and the down-fall of the farmers.

Although Norris uses symbolism, narrative, andhistory in his attempt to create an antagonistic attitudetoward the railroad, the author was not so naive as tobelieve that all the social problems of his day could beattributed to the railroads or to trusts in general. Ratherthan propose a panacea for ail the evils he observes,Norris exposes his readers to the enormous complexityof the situation. The blame for the downfall of all thegood characters appears to be placed upon the railroad,but Shelgrim presents the railroad's point of view inthis manner:

... you are dealing with forces, young man.when you speak of whet and the Railroads,not with men . . . . The Wheat is one force,the Railroad, another. and these is a lawthat governs then: supply and demand.Men have only a little to do with the wholebusiness . . . Control the Road! Can Istop it? I can go into bankruptcy if youlike. But otherwise if I run my Load, as abusiness proposition. I can do nothing . . . .It is a force born out of certain conditions,and I no man can stow or control it.25

While some critics have interpreted this passage tomean that Norris is trying to absolve the railroad ofblame for the tragedies in stcry,2" the rest of thebook and public reaction when it was released beliethis interpretation. Rather, Norri.; reveals the extent ofthe problem to show that it will aot le solved easily.In this respect he typifies the Muckraker's desire toexpose and arouse public° indignation over socialproblems. As an example of Muckraking literature, thebook is of interest to the rhetorical critic. Because ofits literary merit, The (ltopu has survived the periodof its immediate social impact, allowing the modernreader to see how one novelist employs rhetorical de-vices to build his fictional case. While the power of arailroad monopoly seems an insignificant worry today,Norris' novel is still exciting reading:

Then faint, prolonged, across the levels ofthe ranch, he heard the engine whistle forBonneville. Again and again, at rapidintervals in its flying course, it whistled forroad crossings, for sharp curves. for trestles;ominous notes, hoarse, bellowing, ringingwith the ac .ents of menace and defiance;and abruptly Presley saw again, in hisimagination. the galloping monster, the terrorof steel and steam, with its single eye,Cyclopean. red, shooting from horizon to

13

25Norris. p. 3326 French. p. 101 and Marchand, p. 155.

horizon; but saw it now as the symbol of avast power, huge, terrible, flinging the echoof its thunder over all the reaches of thevalley, leaving blood and destruction in itspath; the leviathan, with tentacles of steelclutching into the soil, the soulless Force,the iron-hearted Power, the monster, theColossus, the Octopus? 7

14

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER:BEST con

ICONOCLASM IN COMMUNICATIONby

Gale Schroeder

Graduate in Speech, University of California, Los Angeles

The study of communication demands an investigationof the practice of communication, as well as an inquiryinto the philosophical bases of speech communication.The relationship between philosophy and practice issuch that one implies the other, for theories can only bederived from an investigation of practice, while, in turn,theories modify practice. Fundamental to the philosophyof communication is a study of man's perception of real-ity, for the nature of his perception necessarily influ-ences his communication with others. This paperdiscusses Arthur Schopenhauer's views as they relate tothe theory and practice of communication today, andexamines how his perception of reality influences hisphilosophy of speech communication.

The study of a philosopher's views and their appli-cation to the field of speech is not new, but there hasbeen little research done in the area.' Even so,Schopenhauer is not a new name to the field of speech.In 1917, James Albert Winans, mentioned Schopenhauerin reference to effective delivery;2 and in 1918 CharlesWoolbert credits Schopenhauer for his understanding ofthe "unconscious judgment."3

Among contemporary scholars in speedh communi-cation, James McBurney and Kenneth G. Hance give anexcellent pithy discussion of Schopenhauer's stratagems ,4while Henry Lee Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer acknowl-edge Schopenhauer's work on stratagems.5

Although portions of Schopenhauer's thought havebeen used by writers in the field of speech, no system-

1Three recent articles regarding a philosophy for rhetoricinclude: Robert T. Oliver, "The Rhetorical Implications ofTaoism," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XLVII (February,1961), pp, 27-35.Raymond E. Anderson, "Kierkegaard's Theory of Communi-cation. "Speech Monographs, XXX (March, 1963). pp. 1-14.Donald L. Torrence. "A Philosophy for Rhetoric from BertrandRussell," Quarterly Journal of Speech XLV (April. 1959).pp. 153-165.

2James Albert Winans, Public Speaking. (New York: TheCentury Co.. 1917) pp. 47. 65.

3Charles H. Woolbert "The Place of Logic in a Systemof Persuasion." Quarterly Journal of Speech Education, IV(January 1918), p. 21.

4James H. McBurney and Kenneth G. Hance, "Obstaclesto Reflective Thinking," Discussion in Human Affairs, (NewYork: Harper & Brothers Publishers. 1950) pp. 138-147.

81-lenry Lee Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer. Discussion andDebate Tools of a Democracy, (New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. Inc.. 1951)

15

atic review of the applicability of his thought to com-munication has been made. To this end, this paper isdirected. Accordingly, I will focus on 1) Schopenhauer'sgeneral philosophy; 2) his investigation of communica-tion as revealed in his concept of the syllogism, rhet-oric ,6 and dialectic;? and 3) the significance of Schopen-hauer's philosophical insights for the field of speechcommunication today.

Arthur Schopenhauer, an early nineteenth centuryGerman philosopher, lived in an age of philosophicalgiants and refused to be a pygmy himself . While Kantpursued his Categorical Imperative and Hegel developedhis abstract metaphysics, Schopenhauer perceived manas a victim of will and insisted that the Will the human"will to live" is the primal force in the world.Schopenhauer's philosophy is an attempt to answer theqtestion: How does one get through a life not worthliving? This question derives from the view that theWill is equated with desire, which produces onlysuffering, and is therefore evil. Schopenhauer'spsychology of desire is grounded in Plato and in easternphilosophy, that to satisfy one desire only gives rise toanother, and therefore, to satiate the will is an endless,fruitless course like" . , . forever trying to carry waterin a sieve."8 Thus, Schopenhauer's pessimism is aresult of the view that fundamentally, man cannot escapethe Will, and is doomed to a life of suffering.

Despite the pessimistic speculation that it is better"not to be," some elements of optimism, probably ofEastern origin, can be discerned in his philosophy. Headvances the conception of unity of the universe; thatis, he sees in compassion, the identity of one's selfwith others. This identity allows one to share not onlyanother's suffering, but also another's well-being andnappiness.q The principle of identity, or identification,

6Arthur Schopenhauer, The World us Will and Idea. II(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, 1883). pp. 285 -406.

7Arthur Schopenhauer. "The Art of Controversy". ThePessimist's Handbook, ed. Hazel E. Barnes and trans. T.Bailey Saunders, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.1964), pp. 550-613.

8Hazel E. Barnes. "Schopenhauer, Evangelist of Pessi-mism," The Pessimist's Handbook, ed. Hazel E. Barnes(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964). p. xvi.

9Richard Taylor, "In tr oduc t ion," On The 1-lasis ofMorality by Arthur Schopenhauer. trans. E.F.J. Payne. (NewYork: The Bobbs-Merril Company. Inc., 1965) p. xxiii.

is an important psychological concept in the persuasivetheories of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries andplays a role in his theory of stratagems as well as hismoral. philosophy.

Schopenhauer develops his doctrine of communicationby drawing ideas from many sources, as well as makingoriginal contributions of his own. For his interpretationof conventional philosophical problems, he has oftenbeen labeled an iconoclast." In the field of communi-cation, Schopenhauer also rebels against classical theory,and offers alternatives currently explored in moderncommunication research.

Schopenhauer's main philosophical work lays thefoundation of his communication theory." He desig-nates the proper boundaries of logic, dialectic, andrhetoric and incorporates these three tradit iona 1elements into the same conceptual sphere:

Logic. Dialectic. and Rhetoric go ogether, becausethey make up the whole of a technic of reason, andunder this title they ought also to be taught Logicas the technic of our thinking. Dialectic of disputingwith others, and Rhetoric of speaking to many(concionatio); and thus corresponding to the singular,dual. and plural an to the monologue, the dialogue,and the panegyric.)4

Schopenhauer's theory of logic maintains that althoughformal logic has great theoretical interest, it has littlevalue for judging the validity of one's personal thoughtprocess, "For the errors of our own reasoning, scarcelyever lie in the inferences nor otherwise in the form, butin the judgments, thus in the matter of thought."13Logic has little rhetorial significance because, accord-ing to Schopenhauer, man does not err in his inferences,but in his basic perception of reality which revealsitself in value judgments and serves as the foundationfor inferences.

Schopenhauer's theory of the syllogism is not anexploration of the form and laws of thought; rather, thesyllogism consists: " . . . in the process of thoughtitself, and the words and propositions through which itis expressed only indicate the traces it has left behindit. "14 Schopenhauer demonstrates how man intuitivelydevelops judgments through the mental, non-verbalprocess of syllogistic thought, and then searches foracceptable knowledge and logical form in which toexpress the newly formed thought. In reality, premiseslie in a half-conscious, inarticulate state and are com-pared with the rest of our stock of knowledge until". . . at last the right major finds the right minor, andthese immediately take up their proper places, and atonce the conclusion exists as a light that has suddenlyarisen for us; without any action on our park, as if it

10John Oxenford, "Iconoclasm in German Philosophy,"Westminster Rerieu., LIX, (April, 1853) pp. 202-212.

11 The World as Will and Idea, pp. 285-306.

12 The World as Will and Idea, p. 285.13Thc World as Will and Idea, p. 286.

"The World as Will and Idea, p. 294.

16

were an inspiration."15 Before a thought can be com-municated, Schopenhauer continues, we must conscious-ly" . . . go through our stock of knowledge in order tosee whether we can find some truth in it in which thenewly discovered truth was already implicity con-tained . . ."16

Schopenhauer's discussion of the syllogism closelyresembles current attitudes toward intra-personal com-munication processes. In 1968, Dean C. Barnlunddefined intra-personal communication as:

. . the manipulation of cues within an individualthat occurs in the absence of other people (althoughthey may be symbolically present in the imagination).As such, its locus is confined to a single persontransacting with his environment. He sees what hispurposes require, senses what his organism willadmit, associates signs according to the dynamicsof his own personality."17

It is clear that Schopenhauer was ahead of his time inrejecting a complete reliance on classical logical anal-ysis of thought in favor of the more realistic view thatcommunication is an intricate psychological process.

Schopenhauer's short discussion "On Rhetoric" alsodemonstrates his emphasis on the psychology of com-munication. He gives a definition of eloquence and twosimple rules for more effective communication.18 Hedefines Eloquence as " . . . the faculty of awakeningin others our view of a thing, or our opinion about it, ofkindling in them our feeling concerning it, and thusputting them in sympathy with us."19 Schopenhauer'sdefinition and discussion of eloquence is not typical,for the word "communication" could be accuratelysubstituted for " eloquence". The communicationtheorist today broadly defines the term communicationas a process involving the selecting, sorting and send-ing of symbols in such a way as to help the listenerperceive and recreate in his own mind the same meaningas in the mind of the communicator for the purpose ofsocial control. Th' '.1chopenhauer is in agreementwith current communication theory, for he views com-munication as a process and as a means of socialcontrol: If we are to communicate with others, we mustconduct " . . . the stream of our thoughts into theirminds, through the medium of words, with such force asto carry their thought from the direction it has alreadytaken, and sweep it along with ours in its course.""

Schopenhauer's two simple rules for more effectivecommunication exhibit his insight into the psychologyof persuasion. The first rule is to "let the premises

15The World as Will and Idea, p. 294.

16The World as Will and Idea, p. 295.

"Dean C. Barnlund, "Introduction," Interpersonal Com-munication: Survey and Studies, (Boston: Houghton MifflinCompany. 1968) p. 8.

18The World as Will and Idea, p. 305.

"The World as Will and Idea, p. 305.

"The World as Will and Idea, p. 305.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

come first, and the conclusion follow."21 The psy-chological basis for this rule is twofold: first, thecommunicates will not become as defensive if he doesnot know in advance of the outcome of the com-municator's reasoning; and second, if the conclusion isleft unstated "It will come necessarily and regularly ofits own accord into the reason of the hearers, and theconviction thus born in themselves will be all the moregenuine, and will also be accompanied by self-esteeminstead of shame."22

Schopenhauer's second rule for effective communica-tion is that true premises rather than half-true or inade-quate premises should be used in a dispute. The basisfor this,rule is that the credibility of the communicationsource is increased and protected, for true premises can-not be so easily overturned by an opponent.

Schopenhauer understands the art of eloquence to bethe correct conveyance of a message that produces theintended response. His interpretation of the syllogismas an intra-personal communication process and his tworules for communication places Schopenhauer in accordwith modern communication theory.

Turning to Schopenhauer's consideration of dialectic,we can see that although he departs from the classicalunderstanding of the concept, he often refers to theclassical definition of logic and dialectic." He re-affirms the idea that logic deals with the method orreason of thought, and that dialectic is the art of con-versing between two intelligent and rational humanbeings. Schopenhauer also agrees with the ancientarchetype that logic is a priori to dialectic, but hisjudgment that man is obstinate, vain, and dishonestmakes it necessary for him to distinguish between theideal "dialectic" and the realty "controversiald ialect ic."

"Controversial dialectic is the art of disputing andof disputing in such a way as to hold one's own whetherone is in the right or wrong."24 Such a proclamationdoes not please Schopenauer, for "If human nature werenot base, but thoroughly honourable, we should in everydebate have no other aim than the discovery of truth."25

Schopenhauer draws a comparison between his ownposition on dialectic and aristotle's position. He pro-poses that a sharper d ist i n c t ion be drawn betweendialectic and logic than Aristotle draws, because heinterprets Aristotle's dialectic to include sophistic,eristic, and perastic reasoning, and, therefore, sees itas " ... the art of getting the best of it in a dispute."26

21 The World as Will and Idea, p. 305.

22The World as Will and Idea, p. 306.

23"The Art of Controversy". p. 551.

24"The Art of Controversy". p. 553.

25"The Art of Controversy". p. 554.

26"The Art of Controversy". p. 558.

17

Schopenhauer construes Aristotle's dialectic in this wayto advance his own theory, which includes the beliefthat, unquestionably, the safest plan for getting thebest of it in a dispute " . . . is to be right to begin with;but this in itself is not enough in the existing disposi-tion of mankind, and on the other hand with the weaknessof the human intellect, it is not altogether necessary."27Schopenhauer believes the above statement to be true,because even though a person may be objectively in theright, in the eyes of his opponent and the audience, hemay be judged wrong. Therefore, even when a man hastruth or thinks he has truth on his side, he must knowhow to defend that truth. Such a defense demands theknowledge, understanding, and use of stratagems ortricks. This pessimistic judgment derives from Schopen-hauer's belief that most men do nd seek truth, butrather are interested in the defense of their ownpr opos it ions .28

In advancing his conception of the stratagems,Schopenhauer gives the rationale for his view of contro-versial dialectic:

Dialectic is, . . . the art of intellectual fencing usedfor the purpose of getting the best of it in a dispute;. . . The science of Dialectic, is mainly concernedto tabulate and analyse dishonest stratagems, inorder that in a real debate they may be at oncerecognized and defeated. It is for this very reasonthat Dialectic must admittedly take victory, and notobjective truth for its aim and purpose,'./

I must emphasize that Schopenhauer is not advocatingsophistry, for he agrees with Aristotle that one should"cherish truth, be willing to accept reason even froman opponent, and be ;ust enough to bear being proved tobe in the wrong shoulc truth lie with him. "30 Schopen-hauer injects a Machiavellian realism into the argumentagainst classical thinkers by conceding that "evenwhen a man has right on his side, he needs Dialectic inorder to defend and maintain it; he must know what thedishonest tricks are in order to meet them; nay, he mustoften make use of them himself, so as to beat the enemywith his own weapons."31

Schopenhauer felt that he was the first theorist todiscuss the tricks of human discourse in any system-atized way.32 The stratagems can be categorized inthe following manner. First, stratagems including bothinexact ness and coloring in language. The formerstratagems arise from unfixed meanings and confusionin terms, while the latter stratagems utilize the con-notative meanings of words to deceive the audience or

27"The Art of Controversy." P. 558.

28"The Art of Controversy," p. 55S.

29"The Art of Controversy." pp. 560-561.30"The Art of Controversy." p. 592

31"The Art of Controversy," p. 559.

32"The Art of Controversy." p. 561. Schopenhauer feltthat there is sufficient distinction between his stratagems andAristotle's topics to claim his effort as a first attempt.

opponent in a way similar to the propaganda device of"glittering generalities." Second, stratagems of censor-ship; errors in facts, and overstatements and under-statements. Third, stratagems of divers ion, whichoperate by diverting attention either to another argumentor to an argument with the express purpose of endingthe conversation immediately. Fourth, stratagems ofmanipulation, wherein facts are manipulated through theuse of abstraction or coloring, or confusing the subjectmatter so as to confuse the opponent. Fifth, stratagemsof substitution, in which materials extraneous to thediscussion are used, or the materials are used in amanner injurious to reflective thinking, such as the useof irony or ridicule.

Schopenhauer's stratagems demonstrate his percep-tion of the consequences of high-level abstractions inhuman communication . For example, stratagem I "TheExtension" posits that the opponent will become con-fused and open for defeat if the speaker uses the wordor phrase of the opponent in a very general sense, whileusing his own proposition in a narrow sense. Thus, if aword, phrase, or proposition is used in different sensesby mixing levels of abstractions, the opponent is likelyto become confused.33 Other stratagems illustrateSchopenhauer's understanding of the basic concept of

lo-involvement. The stratagems of "Diversion" sug-gest that if an individual in a communication situationf ores e e s that he will be proved in the wrong, thatindividual wil'_ either change the subject or, if neces-sary, terminate the argument in order to protect hisego." The ego-involvement notion is basic to Schopen-hauer's theory that man and therefore "controversialdialectic" must take victory and not truth as its aim.Now, over one hundred years after Schopenhauer's death,communication theorists are investigating the role ofego-involvement in determining the success or failureof interpersonal communication.

Space does not permit further ex p I or a t ion of thenature of Schopenhauer's stratagems, but it is clear thathis thirty-eight stratagems express not only the tricksemployed in human debate, but also his advanced psy-chological observations of human nature as portrayed inthe art of speaking.

Schopenhauer's philosophy offers extensive materialsfor further study into the nature of dialectic, not only

3"The Art of Controversy." p. 563 "The Extension.This consists in carrying your opponent's proposition beyondits natural limits; in giving it as general a signification andas wide a sense as possible, so as to exaggerate it; and. onthe other hand, in giving your own proposition as restricted asense and as narrow limits as you can, because the moregeneral a statement becomes, the more numerous are theobjections to which it is open. The defence consists in anaccurate statement of the point on essential question at issue."

34"The Art of Controversy," p, 575. "If you observethat your opponent has taken up a line of argument which willend in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to itsconclusion, but interrupt the course of the dispute in time, orbreak it off altogether, or lead him away from the subject, andbring him to others."

18

from the argumentative or practical view, but also fromphilosophical and psychological viewpoint.

Schopenhauer's achievements are worthy contribu-tions to the domain of communication. A classics'scholar, fluent in both Greek and Latin, be displays athorough understanding of the ancient philosophers.35His views reveal a departure from classical rhetoricaltheory and an entry into the modern mode of analysis,as he was one of the first theorists to pay close atten-tion to communicPtion psychology.

Settopenhauer was an iconoclast during his time, buthis iconoclasm was not limited to the field of communi-cation, for it extended into many other areas of humanthought. Sehopenluiuer's attacks on many of the accept-ed beliefs of his time, especially Christianity, causedhis contemporaries to shun his work. Had it not beenfor this rejection, the field of speech communicationmight be further advanced today, for if the rhetoriciansof the nineteenth century had known of Schopenhauer'swork, they might have more rapidly entered into themodern phase of communication analysis.

Schopenhauer's perception of man influenced hisidea of the communication process: the notion of"controversial dialectic," the syllogism as a thoughtprocess, and ego involvement all derive from his centralthesis that the "Will" is the moving force behind man'sdesire to seek victory rather than truth as his aim.Schopenhauer's pessimism impels him to look moredeeply into communication acts instead of acceptingthem at face value. His understanding of the psychologyof persuasion is similar to the type of analysis thatmodern communication behaviorists are utilizing inanalysis of interpersonal communication situations.Schopenhauer's concepts of controversial dialectic andego-involvement are also very similar to the basic pre-suppositions of modern analysis of propaganda devicesand mass-media advertising. The field of communicationmust continue to look to the field of philosophy in itssearch for the understanding of the influence of man'sperception of reality in his communication. In this vein,the field of communication would do well to make closerinspection of Schopenhauer's rhetorical theory.

351n "The Art of Controversy", Schopenhauer shows hisfamiliarity with Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Cicero, andQuintilian, by his continued reference and skillful analysis oftheir thought.