Blogging and Exploring the Manners in Which We See Rhetoric

So, I don't know if anyone had Dr. Sexson when he taught LIT courses at Montana State, but this was the first time I blogged for a class. I was, in a sense, merely testing the waters in the class; however, I found it entirely useful in putting down not only my thoughts about certain readings, but the blog also allowed me to explore what my peers were thinking. The same could aptly be said about this course. While I struggled with some (well a fair number) of the readings, the blog allowed us to venture down the rabbit hole together and attempt to find the nugget of wisdom the theorist wished to bestow upon its readers.Throughout the course I've been exploring the ideas in two major camps: (1) looking at the readings through a gender perspective lens and see how constructs shift and change through the periods, and (2) attempting to find ways that would let me use some of the principles in my future secondary education classroom. While I read the readings in this light, I'm well aware others did not which just goes to show that different perspectives can give a number of insights upon the same text that others can benefit from in the process.

 Overall, the blog has both challenged and at time affirmed some of my understandings whilst grappling with the readings. It was beneficial to have the ability to look into the minds of my fellow classmates. Having the ability to look at 20 other perspectives gave a deeper meaning which at times aptly answered my continuous question: "What the hell did I just read?" I'm quite pleased with having the ability to blog in a course like this, not only due to an hour class time, but also for subject content alone. So, to my fellow Rhetoric and Composition classmates, it's been a pleasure and best of luck in your endeavours.

My "rhetorical tradition"

In “Editing the Rhetorical Tradition,” Patricia Bizzell writes, “it is through inclusions and exclusions in anthologies such as ours that the rhetorical tradition is established, grows, and changes” (109). She goes on to say that many rhetorical “traditions” exist, and each tradition is determined by the rhetorical exigencies of the time and is “made to serve the cultural preferences of those in power” (113).

So how does “Editing the Rhetorical Tradition” relate to a post meant to reflect about a semester of blogging? Well, I thought it’d be interesting to look back over my blog posts as if they were an anthology of a rhetorical tradition—and that way, I can see what the arrangement says about me and my particular rhetorical focuses. Part of my “tradition” was already somewhat determined due to the set, assigned reading schedule. But otherwise, what I found was rather…interesting.

According to Sadie’s rhetorical tradition, ethos apparently takes center-stage over logos or pathos (blog posts # 2, 5, 7, and 9 all dealt with some aspect of ethos); metaphors and simile/examples are major teaching tools (I used these techniques to explain my ideas in blog posts # 1, 2, 4, 7); and textual relevance to the present time supersedes close examination of writers’ ideas (blog posts # 1-8 all tied the concept discussed back to modern practice or application whereas post #9 was strictly analytical). Based on these observations, if I had to compile my own anthology of the rhetorical tradition, I would probably include the writings of people along the likes of Quintilian, who concentrated on rhetoric more for teaching purposes than perhaps “the discovery of truth.”

Actually, that last bit of the preceding paragraph reminded me: none of my blog posts talked about truth, knowledge, etc.  Because the blog posts were supposed to be short, I deliberately avoided the “big” topics to surface in the texts because I felt 250 words were inadequate to even really broach those sorts of subjects. I therefore emphasized other “minor” details, and maybe that’s why I took such a pedagogical approach to my blog posts.

Reflection on Blogging

     Before this class, and the Digital Rhetoric class with Doug, I had never blogged and I wasn’t even really familiar with what blogging was. The first couple weeks of blog posts I had no clue what I was really doing. Sure I understood the basic requirements for the posts, but I had no idea what to write about or how to even make my thoughts come out in a clear and concise way. However, as the weeks continued and as the reading became less difficult to understand the blogging process became easier for me. Not only was the concept of blogging new to me but so was rhetoric, how was I supposed to do weekly posts on a term I knew nothing about?! But just as the fear of blogging diminished, so did the fear of blogging about rhetoric.

     If it hasn’t already been quite obvious throughout this semester, I am not one to talk in class. I have this giant fear of speaking in class, you would think as a senior I would have been able to get over it but I haven’t, so the blogs were a good way for me to feel comfortable voicing my opinions about the readings. In a class where I found myself regularly challenged, being able to put my thoughts and words on a page left me feeling (more) comfortable than being asked to voice those same ideas in a classroom setting. The idea of having the blog as a way of communicating with the class outside of the class is a setting that I felt good about.

     This entire class has challenged my thinking and the blogs were a place where I found myself being challenged by what my classmates wrote about, but they were also a place for me to reassure myself that I was not completely wrong in my understanding of rhetoric and/or the readings. Reading other people’s posts and writing comments gave me confidence knowing that my thoughts were somewhat on track. Even though I sometimes struggled to find something to write about each week for a blog post and would rather not blog, I am (somewhat) happy that blogging was a requirement for this course. It kept me more engaged in the class and it challenged me to make connections to past readings and posts made by fellow classmates.

Blogging Brainstorming

   About a week ago, I decided I was completely blogged out. I had four class blogs this semester that I was asked to participate in. There were also comment requirements. There were several times I wanted to die. But, I didn't. So, that's cool.

   The thing that made me pause while I was reflecting on the semester is that I never dreaded blogging or attending this class. Yes, I forgot to comment by Wednesday on several occasions, but I always managed to blog by Monday. I think the climate of our classroom -- the way we always managed to laugh, but learn something in our conversation, was what helped foster that. Kate has an ability in her teaching that enables me to feel like everything I say is valuable, even if I am still fumbling with it myself. The content we were all fumbling with all semester was so difficult that I never felt too embarrassed or insecure to ask any of y'all for help, or clarification. That sense of inclusion drifted into our blogspace -- where I wasn't afraid to call out what I wasn't sure of, or call out some author on being a total asshole. Reading everyone's posts gave me a diving board into Monday's conversation. It allowed me to formulate the clusterfuck that was my brain on Sunday night after reading. I like making brainspace.

   I still don't know what it was that made this blogging experience different than the others. I'm going to go ahead and blame all of you -- for pushing me to think outside of the box, challenge my beliefs and think more critically about each reading I was assigned. I am so incredibly glad that I was able to get into this class -- and so thankful for the group of people that allowed me to fumble with these difficult texts and help me get to where I am now -- still fumbling, but, conquering!!!!

   Good luck to you all in the next two weeks. Adam, I will definitely join you for beer. And water with lemon wedges. Maybe even scotch. If any of you need warm hugs or cookies, you just let me know! In the meantime, if you feel stressed:

   Hugs and love!

Now What?

I fantasized about this post not only because it’s the last one, but because this is the final chance to say something profound.  After being utterly immersed in rhetoric this semester, I’m not entirely sure what it means to be profound anymore.  Different groups of people respond to different rhetorical strategies, and what may strike some as profound may make others cringe.  I mentioned a particular anxiety of mine in terms of blogging in Doug’s class the other day, which is the permanent nature of blogging.  Everything we say on here now exists in the entire world…some kid might have copy/pasted bits and pieces of our blogs to strengthen his paper, or some beginning rhetoric teacher might have stumbled across our blog page and pulled out examples for class discussion.  Even if we delete our presence after this class ends, we still exist in the abyss of the Internet.  It’s not unlikely, given the human tendency to stretch and distort interpretations, that a simple sentence by one of us in this blog could end up in a new Rhetorical Tradition in the year 4000.  My anxiety is this: we are still in the early stages of our eloquence and articulation, yet our blogs could become a new rhetorical theory long after we die.  Doug says, “Hey man it’s out of our control, just do what you do.”  It is out of our control, but perhaps the way to go about blogging is to compose every thought as if it is absolutely going to be referenced and even depended upon in the future.  It’s a heavy weight to carry, the future of mankind in every blog post, and can definitely create a mental block in terms of saying useful things. 

Looking back, I did not follow my own advice to maintain the highest form of eloquence that I’m capable of, but the simple fact is that sometimes we run out of passion and the damn thing is due in a few hours.  So, in my anxiety-ridden imagination, I risk humankind’s future of informed rhetoric and compose a sub-par post.  This class has filled my head with knowledge, but honestly given me some unwanted isolation with a tinge of fear.  How could one read these texts and not hope to aspire to the legendary reputation of one of the greats of the classical era?  How can we, as writing majors, not hope to guide a future civilization long after we’re gone with the impact of our lingering words?  I’ve realized that this is my goal in life, and it’s massive.  I don’t actually want to achieve this, but it’s like I have to now with all of this knowing. 

Rhetoric united us as a class in a friendly way.  This is some difficult content, and we bonded through figuring it out.  In this sense, I do not feel the isolation of rhetoric in class.  Rather, I feel more at home in that shitty portable classroom than I do in most places.  But after I leave class, rhetoric still decorates the walls of my mind.  Who am I to discuss this with?  Sitting at the Thanksgiving table, everyone talks about normal things like weather, family drama, and current events.  And there I am, stoic and reserved, stuck in the era before Christ, wondering if the Sophistic movement would be significantly further along if Plato’s texts were not so widely circulated.  Who the hell do I discuss this with?  I want to continue to develop my own rhetorical theories, but the more I do the more the world unravels, and the more isolated life seems.  Rhetoricians are like a leper colony this way.  The more we know, the less we can have stimulating conversations with ‘casual’ people, and eventually we can only live amongst each other to intellectually survive.  It’s obviously not that drastic, but man, it sure feels that way. 

On that note, I’d like to end this post with an open invitation: let’s talk rhetoric, even after this class ends.  Let’s go out for a beer, or a soda, or water with a lemon wedge, and expand our heads and limit that intellectual isolation. 

It’s been an absolute pleasure learning with all of you.           

Blogger: Tools and Networks

    In a talk at a GEL conference in 2011, Anil Dash explains the importance of 'New Tools, Better Networks' (That's a link guys!) to create this period of multimedia and the connectivity of peoples on the interweb. Dash makes it clear that now-a-days with our tweeting and our poking and our otherwise zealous use of the world wide web, our potential to grow and gain better global connectivity is at an all time high-- thanks to our fancy new tools. In our case for History and Theory of Rhetorical Studies, we have the same opportunity to utilize these new tools and create better networks, and we have seen the impact of this all semester through using this blog.
   This blogger site is absolutely our best 'tool' for the class. The blog allows us to have collective voices, to elaborate and collaborate on topics we didn't understand, or that required more attention to make meaning. In many cases, I came to the blog first and would browse through to give myself an idea of how my classmates and colleagues approached the text. Eventually I came to see who approached thinking about rhetoric in a similar way as I did, or who was able to do something more or different with the text that I was not. For example, after a reading like Quintillian's excerpt I couldn't make a relative connection to the text, and instead of waiting for the next class period and holding up the learning of the entire group,  I was able to use the blog as a tool for understanding and to look up Sadie's post since she most often approached the texts with modern, relevant connections that really helped me make sense of what was underneath all the damn wordiness. In this case, Sadie used the blog to express a 'mind-blow' revelation she had during the reading, and once she shared, both I and other students (as noted in the comments) were able to make that relevant for our learning purposes, too. It's not often that we have an opportunity to learn in this way, and it gives the reading a whole new dimension to work with.
    One of the most versatile tools we have is the functionality of the Blogger site. We can bring in texts to directly reference them in links like I did in the first paragraph, or incorporate photos and syllogisms directly into our text. There are very few limitations here in this space and what that means for us as writers is-- a whole new ballgame. This is an exciting ability, to be able to connect as a group of students with our thoughts and our work and be able to share them on a mutual text in a productive space.  Though the timeline of posting could sometimes be a limiting issue for reading all the posts, what matters is that they were there when we did need them-- like when we were really thinking critically on one of the paper assignments and wanted to use this network to try to tackle a rhetorical study from a new perspective.
   One of the most predominant benefits of the blog this semester was the way the posts each reflected individual interest in a collective topic. To be brutally honest (sorry, Kate) I don't think anyone was TOO excited to read The Rhetorical Tradition... but I can now easily name a few who DID get excited while posting about something that struck them from the text( I'm thinking about Kelsey's feminism, Adam's interest in the Sophists, etc.). But the really interesting and unique thing about this was that it didn't stop on the blog. This enthusiasm flowed from the blog into the classroom, and that made it even easier to interact in the classroom when we had already had some exposure to each others interests. Crossover like that is invaluable in an academic setting.
   Overall, despite the difficulty it posed when a text was particularly challenging to think through, the blog was a wonderful tool for our class, and I would not recommend teaching this course without incorporating something very similar.
New tools + student network = better learning. Who knew? Now, what's next?

 

The Impact of Blogging on Learning and Understanding

I recall with clarity the first time a professor told me we were going to be required to blog for a class. My prior impression of blogs had not been good; I thought they were mainly places where the unskilled could show their work to the only people who cared, most likely their mamas and creepy ex-girlfriends/ex-boyfriends. But ever since I started using blogs in classes (this was the third) I've been in awe of the usefulness of the form for classroom settings. This class was not an exception. Requiring blogging for classes is genius, if you ask me. And even if you don't ask me, I think it still is. Even when I wasn't particularly excited to write, I at least recognized the usefulness of the mode. If you put a lot into a blog, it has a tendency to come right back. Let me explain why, in this particular class, it was so.

First, the blog forced the whole class to participate if they wanted to make the grade. Yeah, you can write half-assed blog posts, and a handful of people might have thrown a few into the mix when they forgot to read. However, I'm pretty sure most everyone could spot a majority of these posts. It's pretty hard to fake an in-depth understanding of complex rhetorical concepts effectively enough to convince anyone who's done the reading that you've completed the whole assignment. The benefit was that more people read at least once a week to avoid looking foolish, which made for more interesting debate inside and outside of class. And by debating outside of class on the blog, we even got to become collaborators through writing who were comfortable (hopefully) with showing our work with each other in a form less refined and formal than the average revised and edited essay. All great stuff.

But this blog was excellent for more than just making us work, share, and collaborate. The blog helped each one of us find what we care about, what is essential to us about each reading. Maybe it is frustration over disrespect for females. Perhaps it is metaphor. Maybe it's concepts connected with morality. No matter what, each of us was continuously finding what mattered to us and sharing it with others. In "Editing the Rhetorical Tradition," Patricia Bizzell points out that "it is through inclusions and exclusions in anthologies such as ours that the rhetorical tradition is established, grows, and changes" (109). I would argue that, for the purposes of our class, the rhetorical tradition was in large part shaped first by what we were made to read (teacher's choice) and second by what we posted (our choice). I lost count of how many times I heard people bring up the same topics in class that they developed through blogging, and this shaped all our learning and understandings of rhetoric by what we included in posts and what we didn't. And that, colleagues, is pretty darn cool.

Whether we discussed Truth, truth, ethos, feminism, or just hated on Ramus, it was interesting the whole way through, my colleagues. Our blogs gave us the opportunity to learn together, even if we weren't physically together. It helped us build on our perceptions of rhetoric. I wish you all the best in your future rhetorical endeavors, and may they be many and varied.

On blogging and rhetoric

It wasn't at all surprising to me that, come the end of every week, I always dreaded the inevitable 'writing-of-an-obligatory-blog-for Kate'. Having to re-pore through the brick-like blocks of texts for that weekend... having to attempt to construct something articulate about such bricks... having to ready those thoughts to be viewed by others....

I'm certain I don't have to go into detail here; the recipe for dark bloggish loathing, I'm sure, you are all familiar with by now.

But what I was surprised at was how I never failed to be extremely glad to have written every one of those blog posts, no matter how originally reluctant. And not just for the satisfaction of getting it off my chest; indeed, it's almost as if Kate knew that all those unpleasant steps would ultimately lead to (egad!) a glimmer of understanding! 

Even if the text I'd read that week had unrolled through my brain without depositing a single sliver of rhetorical residue, reading over others' blog posts for that week and using their own gleanings and struggles as springboards to wade back into parts of the text, and then using the act of writing itself as a kind of externalized thought process... All this lead to the formation of a thought that much more concrete and stable than anything I had single-handedly hazarded the first go-through. That said, I want to say that I appreciate all of you, reading this; your blogs and comments this semester all helped me, in some way, to get to a place outside of class I could look back on with some certainty and satisfaction. As all of you, I'm sure, my blog posts fluctuated under my end-of-the-week state of mind between the almost-essay-worthy to the compost-esque, but between them all, and as a classroom collective, I daresay they are a matter for some pride. Huzzah, rhetoric-comrades—for sticking with it through the thick and the even-more-thick of dialectic and didacticism, elocution and oratory, mind-numbing prose styles and mind-bending philosophies, the depressing lack of feminine presence and Kelsey's deafening feminism—I toast you all from afar.

Let's talk about FEMINISM.

Aren't you surprised by my topic? I thought you would be. But, here we go:

First of all, let's revisit this. 

Because, 'Yonce.

Second of all, let's talk about the weather:

   

   Okay, I'm ready. Coffee in hand. Let's talk Astell. Is it bad that the entire time I read this, I thought about Regina George from Mean Girls? Because, Astell is so FETCH. No, but really. 

"An Ingenious Woman is no Prodigy to be star'd on, for you have it in your power to inform the World, that you can every one of you be so, if you please your selves," (847).

I'm not entirely sure what Astell's thing with capitalizing words is, but I hope you noticed that she REALLY likes it. Maybe it helps her "to endeavour the Improvement of their Minds," or else, she is really. trying. to. make. a. POINT. Got it. For my final paper, I am thinking somewhere along the lines of comparing the representation of women in texts during this time period versus the representations of women in art during the same period. I think that it would be quite fascinating to compare male authors and artists perceptions against women authors and artists. Even the particular words that Astell chooses to capitalize in order to illustrate her point is interesting to me, because of what she valued in her idea of "women." However, she does caution against the pursuit of perfection, "to imitate the Perfections of all, and avoid their mistakes; for few are so perfect as to be without fault, and few so bad as to have nothing good in them," (853). Obviously, the "few" who are so perfect include Beyonce. Admit it -- you know it -- Karen knew it:

   

   Fake-ness is also a favorite point of Astells, when she cautions, "You disdain the base ungenerous Practice of pretending Kindness where you really mean none," (849). She also motivates women to, "brighten and enlarge your Souls, that the Beauty of your Bodies is but a secondary care, your Dress grows unconcerning, and your Glass is ne're consulted but in such little intervals of time as hang loose between those hours that are destined to nobler Employments, you now begin to throw off your old Prejudices and smile on 'em as antiquated Garbs; false Reasoning won't down with you, and glittering Nonsense," (849). YOU TELL 'EM, ASTELL. Needless to say, I will continue to take notice of the perceptions of women in text, and I'm sure you are all surprised by that as well. Happy Monday!

Sources of Trust

Disclaimer: I forgot my book at home, so I found the reading online. I hope I read the right version/text.

What I read from "A Serious Proposal to the Ladies" by Mary Astell really conveyed a lot about an (female) audience's responsibility. I really enjoyed that she stressed the importance of searching for one's own meaning instead of placing authority in the hands of someone who doesn't necessarily deserve it. More than that she stresses that we as women should "permit us only to understand our own duty, and not be forc'd to take it on trust from others." However, what if we do trust the source, male or female? Would it make me less of a woman to take on "duty" from someone other than myself? Is there a balance of taking knowledge on trust from others and to seek out our own? I'm sure there's a balance to the two, as life thrives on balance, but what can I use as a reliable source? I have a lot of issues with feminism, and this issue is definitely one of them. I am going to have to trust some men to be a feminist. More than that, I am going to have to trust people from every sector of life to be a well-educated feminist, and I'm not sure Mary Astell pushes this idea of equality.

A Good Woman Speaking Well

I found Astell’s discussion on morality in speech and writing particularly interesting. Like Nathaniel, I couldn’t help but revert to Quintilian when I read “The way to be good Orators is to bee good Christians” (855, right column). As we progress in our study of the history of rhetoric, it’s fun to see themes resurface in new contexts. This concept of a “good man speaking well”—or woman, in this case—brought such a lively discussion to class a few weeks ago that I thought it worth revisiting.

This line really got me: “Besides, by being True Christians we have Really that Love for others which all who desire to perswade must pretend to; we’ve that Probity and Prudence, that Civility and Modesty which the Masters of this Art say a good Orator must be endow’d with” (855, right column).

I feel like this idea of “we have the goodwill that other orators pretend to have” came up in previous class discussions. Maybe it was when we discussed Quintilian, but I remember debating whether orators must truly be “good” or whether they can simply act “good” to persuade their audience (if anyone has notes on this discussion, please chime in!) Regardless, Mary Astell must have had this discussion, too, because she acknowledges that there are some fakers out there.

Interestingly, ethos from personal character emerges as far back as Aristotle’s Rhetoric: “Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and readily than others” (182, left column).

I had some question marks scribbled next to this entire paragraph. If speech “is so spoken to make us think him credible,” then why does the orator’s character matter if he can produce an affectation of goodwill? But then he says “we believe good men more fully”…but how do we know if they are good? Or does it matter at all?

If you’re Mary Astell, the answer is simple: Christianity! Also, it's super cool that we've moved on from a "good men" to men and women!

Ok, I should stop here before I start writing a new synthesis paper on Aristotle, Quintilian and Astell’s views on ethos from personal character. Happy Monday, everyone!

A Peculiar Taste

With the advent of the printing press leading to increased literacy, we finally we have a text that acknowledges diversity among readers with Mary Astell’s A Serious Proposal to the Ladies. Astell notes, “Every Author almost has some beauty or blemish remarkable in his Style from whence it takes its name; and every Reader has a peculiar tast of Books as well as Meats”(854). (I love this comparison - is it wrong that I considered Hannibal Lecters peculiar taste in books and meats when I read this line?)

With my primary focus being in creative writing, this text was very exciting to me. Honestly, all semester long I’ve struggled to correlate the importance of the study of rhetoric to to my own interests in writing. Previous texts have concentrated on the parts and mechanics of rhetoric (and more pointedly to oration) but have paid little attention to the employment of style in writing. And certainly not to writing for a broad audience. In these texts any mention of style was truly about reaffirming the necessity for the rhetor to ensure the clarity of their argument. Now we have Astell acknowledging that different styles will please or displease different readers. She is not throwing out the need for clear and concise writing but she is noting that writers may achieve that in different ways, and that those techniques may not be pleasing to all readers. 

Astell is allowing for both the writer and the reader to have stylistic preferences. While she warns of the need to balance ones writing, to not be too sublime or too bombastic, she implores writers to remember that “Good Sense is the principal thing with out which all our polishing is of little Worth, and yet if Ornament be wholly neglected very few will regard us” (854).

Astell goes on to address the ease with which writers critique other writers but refuse to “lay aside Self-Love” (854), thereby refusing to recognize flaws in their own texts. I love that she doesn’t criticize pride per se but she does elucidate that others will see in your writing what you may not see yourself. All good reminders to someone interested in writing. I know that my own enjoyment of the text is irrelevant in the grand scheme of this course, but I was pleased to have finally found a text that truly resonated with me.

Mary Astell and the Pretence of Truth in Logic

    What a wonderfully powerful woman Mary Astell was. She used her rhetoric to propel women toward education and a sense of self empowerment in a world that was often not conducive for these mentalities. She was a dutiful Christian, and used the respect she gained from the church and being a model Christian to further her ethos as an author. This was particularly important for women in this time, since perhaps the only place they could gain ethos was in this church-centered environment. In that sense, I was surprised I did not notice a greater connection to Christine Di Pizon, who used scripture to develop her ethos.

     However, in reading Astell I was struck by her intense commitment to logic, which reads almost like Ramus or could be reminiscent of some of Locke's theories. She is pointed, clear and critical with her approach, asking that rhetors are equally as cautious with their arguments as she. "I fear what we have got by a Pretense to Truth, won't be found to countervail the loss we shall sustain by the Discovery that it was no more. Which may induce us (if other Considerations will not) to be wary in receiving any Proposition our selves, and restrain us from being forward to impose our Sentiments on others" (Astell 852:IV - A Natural Logic) Astell's view on truth seems to be firmly planted in the realm of logic, understanding that the rhetor's goal is not to convince, but to be right-- treating truth as an 'end'. This tries into the way that she views her audience.

    The introduction for Astell's A Serious Proposal To The Ladies states "The rhetor should not seek to humiliate or triumph over her audience. Rather her goal should be to get them to see the truth, and Astell notes that progress to truth is often impeded for people who do not admit that they were wrong" (845). Though I agree and see strong examples (like the citation above) in Astell's text, I find a hiccup in placing this in the logic section. There is a fine line that defines Truth and it's difficult to tell who is persuading well, and who is right. Though Astell is advocating for Truth on the rhetors part, that doesn't mean that Truth will persist. We still find these (mostly moral) conflicts prominently in politics today.

    For example, it seems that in our modern society we tend to equate science and math-- or logic-- with Truth. It has become such a prevailing sentiment, that we have drawn a binary between Faith and Logic. It's interesting that Astell, though a woman of seemingly great Faith, has found such a persisting understanding of Logic.

Let them Think!

I am such a fan! Even in the writings of women, we have not seen such a proponent for equality as we have with this text. Essentially, she says that women should be free to study anything that it "concerns them to know" (50... Sorry.. My actual text is in my car and it's far too cold outside to go out and get it. Any page citations refer to the original text, an online copy of which can be found here: https://archive.org/stream/seriousproposalt00aste#page/n6/mode/1up )

Women: "How can you be content to be in the World like Tulips in a Garden, to make a fine show and be good for nothing." (9) She admonishes the notion that women should be pretty and eloquent and let the men do all of the Making of the world, suggesting rather that the Women make as much of themselves as they choose and create a name for themselves that will outlast their earthly lives and transcend into History.

I always enjoy the grand style that we see in work of this time period. Every word that Astell writes is dripping with enthusiasm, like every syllable is a chance to persuade and to rally the forces of Women to her cause. And so she should!

Pleasing and Appeasing

In the introduction to A Serious Proposal, we learn that Mary Astell's "writings are filled with a genuine love of women and concern for their welfare" (846), establishing her ethos to the max. It seems to be less of projecting one's knowledge for the sake of self-recognition, as seems to be the method of some of our previous rhetoricians, and more of enlightening a group to help them become capable of much more. "for Human Nature is for the most part much alike in all, and that which has a good effect on us, will generally speaking have the same on others. So that to guess what success we are like to have, we need only suppose our selves in the place of those we Address to, and consider how such a Discourse wou'd operate on us, if we had their Infirmities and Thoughts about us" (854: 2nd column). Walk a mile in someone's shoes, says Astell, and you'll learn how best to write something to appeal to them. She understands the kairos of the situation, the context being of utmost importance in her case, and does well to mold her ideas around who she's writing to, rather than pushing for others to try to wrap their heads around and fully grasp everything she could simply drop on the page.

I particularly enjoyed Astell's thoughts on page 854, starting with the second to last paragraph on the left.  She writes of individual style, but goes on to specify certain universal elements: "One is for Easiness, a second for Plainness, a third for Strength, and a fourth for Politeness. And perhaps the great secret of Writing is the mixing all these in so just a proportion that every one may tast what he likes without being disgusted by its contrary." This metaphor of writing as cooking presents a wonderful visual, and still seems to be in play today: carefully scooping and measuring just enough of each ingredient to satisfy our hungry customers. Do we sacrifice voice/individuality, though, when we are too careful to please everyone? And must we always be conscious of these four elements when writing to be as successful as possible? I could play devil's advocate and name authors who aren't quite as cautious as Astell would prefer, but perhaps in an era of newly emerging feminism, a slight timidity is the best method of making one's name known.

Sociology and Mary

     In my Sociology of Gender class we read an article about the feminist movement actually harming gender stereotypes and other genders. And while reading Astell, it's all I could think of. Let's look at some passages.
"How much better are you entertain'd now your Conversations are pertinent and ingenious" (849).
And especially
"I suppose then that you're fill'd with a laudable Ambition to brighten and enlarge your Souls, that the Beauty of your Bodies is but a secondary care, your Dress grows unconcerning, and your Glass is ne'er consulted but in such little intervals of time as hang loose between those hours that are destin'd to nobler Employments" (849).
These two statements make traditionally, culturally feminist attributes negative. It makes caring about dress and appearance negative concerns independent of gender. Which, if we're talking sociology of gender harms everyone. Because who could care about what they're wearing while they're reading?
She makes eloquence sound delightful, and I'm not saying it's not a noble pursuit, but I don't think feminine traditions and intelligence should be separated - that's the harm.
Granted, it took until 1980 to realize the separation might be harmful.
When "you read and you delight in it, because it informs your Judgments, and furnishes Materials for your thoughts to work on; and you love your Religion and make it your Choice because you understand it" (849) is made into a male attribute, it forces eloquent and intelligent females to accept the adoption of male characteristics, rather than intelligent ones.
Also, the entrance of "GOD" - literally all capitalized - seems late, as though it has to be inserted to avoid heresy; it's something we've discussed before. And on the topic of capitalization, let's look at what she's done here. "Labour," "Cost," "Wisdom," "Envy," "Essay," "Bodies," "Choice," "Mind," "Confidence." If writing is brand new, is everything up for experiment? I tried to find some purpose behind these capitalizations and obviously there's reason and it makes each of the words more important (with ultimate importance placed on GOD), but if everything is important, how do you differentiate? Oh wait, you capitalize everything. So we've established that GOD is most important, but why is equal importance given to her "former Essay" as is given to "Wisdom," "Choice," and "Mind?" Perhaps that one is easy. When it came down to a Choice, Astell clearly should boost her own intelligence if she's claiming to teach other females. Go Mary. But what about "Raillery" (Mockery)? And "Country Lady?"
I'm rambling, but I guess my question is whether all of the capitalizations were purposeful.
And I appreciate referring to female intelligence as "real Ornament" (848).

Getting rid of pathos...or not

Have you noticed that many of the women rhetoricians we’ve read highly stress reason and logic in writing and barely even touch upon pathos? I’m guessing that they do so to build their own ethos; as women, they would be accused of being too “emotional,” unfit to compete in the “rational man’s” world. Mary Astell writes, “For the design of Rhetoric is…to Reduce the Passions to the Government of Reasons” (852 2^nd column). In fact, her entire piece is pretty much dedicated to the betterment of ladies’ minds. Astell is definitely pulling the logos card here.

And yet, she seems to also suggest the importance of pathos in a very subtle way. When she advises to “Reduce the Passions to the Government of Reasons,” she could mean one of two things:

1. passions (emotions) should be reduced to such an extent that reason and logic replaces them (so that “government” means “government of self”; a person is governed by logic rather than emotion) or

2. passions should be controlled by reason (so that “government” means “government of the passions”). 

  

We could argue for either of these interpretations, but I think the second interpretation is probably more accurate; Astell goes on to say that the purpose of rhetoric is “to place our Subject in a Right Light, and excite our Hearers to a due consideration of it” (852 2^nd column). If I’m not mistaken, to “excite” someone involves provoking his or her passion and emotion. In other words, we should stir the passion/emotion of the audience (“excite our Hearers”) before they may logically consider the topic (“a due consideration of [our Subject]”). However, Astell also seems to support a reason-controlled passion. We cannot logically accept something without the support of emotion, and yet our passions also cannot approve something our minds have rejected. Upon closer inspection, Astell doesn’t seem to so much discount pathos as to disguise it within the complexities of logos.

Eloquent Rebellion

            Though I have strongly associated with many sophistic tendencies up to this point, I like Astell’s perspective on style and clarity.  While the Sophists rely on the tools of philosophy and rhetoric as fuel for clarity in teaching future rhetoricians, Astell “believes that one can pick up the grammar and spelling of one’s native language mostly from reading good books.”(845) Clarity and brevity take precedence for Astell, and I agree with her that these conversational elements can be acquired simply by being an observant member of society. 

            Much like Margaret Fell, Astell uses religion as a tool for justification in her writings, however Astell has more of a voice of genuine concern toward her sex, whereas Fell employs a crusade-like voice.  Astell empowers the reader through pathetic appeal concerning the quality of a life, stating, “It is one thing to be content with Ignorance, or rather with a less degree of Knowledge, on account of the Station that GOD has plac’d us in, and Another to Chuse and Delight in’t thro a Stupid Carelessness, a fear of Trouble, or an Inordinate pursuit of the Cares and Pleasures of this Mortal Life” (859).  This is eloquent rebellion in a fine state, and I read this quote as, “We will most definitely get into trouble if we intend to live our lives to the fullest.”  In juxtaposition to my caring vs. crusade categorization, this quote from Astell really kicks off the feminist movement, and speaks honestly to the fears that must be acknowledged on this trying path. 

            As a side note, I did some extra research on Astell, and it’s a bummer we got such a short snippet of her writings.  She is responsible for a lot of smart pondering points concerning fairness among the sexes.  Some of my favorites:

“If all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves?” (Reflections Upon Marriage)

“What poor Woman is ever taught that she should have a higher Design than to get her a Husband?” (Reflections Upon Marriage)

“Women are from their very infancy debarred those Advantages with the want of which they are afterwards reproached.” (Book 1 of Serious Proposal)

“If God had not intended that Women shou’d use their Reason, He wou’d not have given them any, ‘for He does nothing in vain.’” (Christian Religion)

Astell’s View on Rhetoric and Words

From the short introduction on Mary Astell (p.841-846) it is known that Astell held similar views as Ramus in regards to rhetoric. “For the design of Rhetoric is to remove those Prejudices that lie in the way of Truth, to Reduce the Passions to the Government of Reasons; to place our Subject in a Right Light, and excite our Hearers to a due consideration of it” (p.853, second column). Astell thought nature was the best teacher of eloquence/rhetoric, which played in women’s favor since schooling was limited.

However, as I continued reading Astell’s work I was intrigued in the passage that said, “And since the Clearness and Connexion as well as the Emphasis and Beauty of a Discourse depends in the great measure on a right use of the Particles, whoever wou’d Write well ought to inform themselves nicely in their Proprieties. a[n] And, a The, a But, a Fore, Etc. do very much perplex the Sense when they are misplac’d, and make the Reader take it many times quite otherwise than the Writer meant it” (p.853, second column). This section reminded me of the reading we did last week on Locke and how words carry multiple meanings, thus making the use of each word important in rhetoric. Astell’s did not go as in depth as Locke did about the use of words, but the fact that she mentioned it in her section about rhetoric made it interesting and important. Even if the view Astell held on rhetoric was somewhat downplayed, the importance and placement of words is still a key tool in being a rhetorician.

Women's Rights for Education, Ladies' Rights for All

In "A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Part II," I thought Astell's section about "The Application and Use of our Knowledge" interesting as it takes the vague and abstract notions of rhetoric which she asserts in the various parts of the reading, but actually applies it to then-present day occurrences relevant not only in the lives of the ladies, but also their male counterparts. In this section she looks at the NATURE of women and their places within a societal framework. I thought it was interesting how she stated that "And all her Eloquence is but an empty noise, who employs it in any other design than in gaining Proselytes to Heaven. I am therefore far from designing to put Women on a vain pursuit after unnecessary and useless Learning, nor wou'd by any means persuade them to endeavour after Knowledge cou'd I be convinc'd that it is improper for 'em" (858, left hand column). To this end, it would seem that Astell is putting constraints upon women and their ability to participate in certain events. What's more, it seems like the audience is an ever-important consideration as well in terms of how one conducts themselves in both the private and public spheres of society. Moreover, she discusses the importance of understanding the hierarchy in place, but also understand HOW and WHY it is in place. "So," Astell posits, "it cannot be thought sufficient that Women shou'd but just know whats Commanded and what Forbit, without being inform'd of the Reasons why, since this is not like to secure them in their Duty" (859, left hand column: first paragraph).

In terms of the introduction to the reading, I've been seeing a pattern that some women seem to marginalise some groups, whilst valuing others; however, Astell "wanted her program to be within the reach of every woman..and the heart of her educational scheme was to be a method of thinking that could be applied in any area" (842). While reading, I noted that Astell called for women's participation in certain affairs not typically afforded to women and argues that "A great deal of Good will be omitted, and very much Evil, or Imperfection at least, stick to us, if we are not thoroughly acquainted with the Law of God and the secret springs and windings of our Hearts, which is scarce to be obtain'd without much Meditation and the helps that study affords" (858, right column). Therefore, she makes a good case of saying that women's rights to education or a place for education would be beneficial not only to women, but also for the men and overarching society in which they were living.