so when one dispassionately and accurately speaks of cluster bombing, depleted uranium, torture at Abu Ghraib, and laying siege to civilian population centres, the response is not that it is just “rhetoric.”
Max Forte at openanthropology (NB: there is something weird with the cascading style sheets which interferes with italic script so I have changed the words originally italicized to underline)
I’ve waited a day before writing my response to this for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that I did not wish to give a purely rhetorical response.
Let me start by giving a definition of the term “rhetoric”: “the art of speaking with propriety and elegance” (from the Etymological Dictionary of the English Language [EDEL], Oxford, 1958). Now, this is a definition that is somewhat at odds with the modern connotations of the term, which tend to have a somewhat negative view; i.e. rhetoric as emotionally inflammatory discourse. This shift in meaning arises from two things. First, the Greek root of rhetoric (ρητορι), comes from the word ρητωρ (”orator” in English) with all the passion that is implied with the current terms of “oratory” or “oration”. Second, the conceptualization of “propriety” (defined as the “proper signification of words”; again from the EDEL) has come to be associated with a more general attribution of mistrust of oratory in general. So, when I wrote
Second, let me further say that I still find a disquieting amount of rhetoric in his post; rhetoric that is at best of tertiary consideration and at worst irrelevant to the broader debate about ethical engagement. For example, whether or not US forces have used cluster munitions or individual soldiers have committed war crimes is irrelevant the debate on the ethics of the HTS - members of the HTS have not done so, although I will freely admit that the HTS opened the door on this in the Misconceptions page.
I was referring to the application of oratory to a context where, I felt, it was inappropriate; to whit, the use of an elegant and eloquent oration on the use of “cluster bombing, depleted uranium, torture at Abu Ghraib, and laying siege to civilian population centres” as a significant part of the context for a reasoned discussion of the Human Terrain System (HTS) and the ethics of Anthropologists working with it.
The reasoning behind my assertion of “irrelevance” was simple: the Principle of Contagion might be valid in magic, oratory and rhetoric, but it is both invalid and extremely damaging to reasoned discourse (see here for a modern example of the danger). One might, for example, argue that since Joseph Stalin killed over 50,000,000 of his own people and that the Soviet Union was a Marxist State, that therefore all Marxists are mass murderers.
Reasoned discourse, on the other hand, requires that we eschew the tu quoque fallacy, another mainstay of oratory and rhetoric. Carl Dyke has an interesting observation on this
It could be that a more balanced analysis blunts the thrust of Max’s politics, and here we may find our disagreement. I’m not much persuaded by righteous critiques of righteousness, which is why I wrote the post before this one. To me Iraq is a vivid but otherwise ordinary case of a lot of people acting in moral good faith according to different understandings of what the content of morality is, and a lot of other people acting out their habitus, and the rest kind of improvising.
Carl’s post is well worth reading in full, and I think he has hit the nail on the head with the comment that “It could be that a more balanced analysis blunts the thrust of Max’s politics,…”. Which brings us back to my description of Max’s comments on cluster bombs et alii as being rhetoric. Max asserts that
so when one dispassionately and accurately speaks of cluster bombing, depleted uranium, torture at Abu Ghraib, and laying siege to civilian population centres, the response is not that it is just “rhetoric.”
but that is incorrect. To decide whether or not something is “rhetoric” requires far more that dispassion and accuracy (both of which might be subject to quibbling as to scope if not to existence), it requires that the speech, no matter how eloquent, be immediately relevant to the specific topic of discourse. If the speech is not immediately relevant, then it not only can but must be characterized as “rhetoric” and excluded if one wishes to engage in rational discourse. Since the topic of discourse was the HTS and the ethics of Anthropologists working with them, and since none of the HTS people have been involved in any of those actions, therefore I can only conclude that the subject of cluster bombs, depleted uranium rounds, torture at Abu Ghraib and sieges of civilian populations are rhetoric.
7 users commented in " Some thought on rhetoric and rational discourse "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackFirst, a sincere apology to Max Forte who just made a comment which I deleted by mistake. Here is the comment he made:
But then you are mistaken. It cannot possibly be irrelevant to speak about the tools, actions and consequences of war, when discussing the ethics of anthropologists taking one side in that war. And remember, you are in fact advocating that anthropologists take a side in that war, but you reduce the discussion of ethics to questions of research procedures. If the ethics of taking a side in the war do not matter, and are irrelevant rhetoric, then you should equally be advocating that anthropologists embed themselves with insurgents. So I don’t accept your line of reasoning, and much less so Carl’s, who hides behind an apolitical veneers which is entirely disingenuous.
Actually, having just re-read Carl’s post, I withdraw my characterization. It is far more balanced than your selective quoting suggests, which is what I was reacting to above. I could so the same selective quoting, as when he says about me and my writing that he is “agreeing with his [my] principles and project”. I don’t think Carl was being disingenuous after my second reading, but as for “blunting my politics” I am not ashamed to be against wars of domination and anthropological supports for such wars. Blunt away as far as I am concerned.
Thanks, Marc. I enjoyed this elaboration of the discussion and Max’s opportunity to rebut. Just a couple of thoughts:
On rhetoric, I’d extend your technical definition a little bit in Max’s direction. Rhetorical propriety and elegance are not ends in themselves but contextual means to the ultimate rhetorical end of persuasion. See this from wikipedia, e.g.: “In contraposition to scientific debates, rhetorical arguments, as in politics or even justice, do not make use of demonstrable or tested truths, but resort to fallible opinions, popular perceptions, transient beliefs, chosen evidence or evidence at hand (like statistics), which are all properly called commonplaces as they help establish a commonality of understanding between the orator or rhetor and his/her audience.” Well, one can wait a long time for demonstrable, tested truths.
The above are the ingredients of speech that might be called ‘effective’, and Max is passionately interested in being effective for a self-evidently valuable cause. So what we’re really telling Max is that the rhetorical strategies he’s using are not effective on us; our persuasive commonplaces are clustered in what we call ‘rational discourse’. What’s frustrating about this sort of discourse is that it excludes passion from the getgo and provides very little leverage for political motivation.
You were right, this discussion might not be positive .
Just a couple of comments. First, I am not “advocating that anthropologists take a side in that war”. What I am arguing, advocating if you will, is that Anthropologists as individuals should be free to choose whether or not they should take a side in the current wars. The two are not the same.
Also, I never said that the ethics of “taking a side” in a war don’t matter, all I said was that they were irrelevant to the specific topic of discussion. Personally, I think that they are quite relevant to the larger ethical debates about either starting a war or supporting a war.
As for advocating that “Anthropologists embed themselves with insurgents”, I would point out that AQI has already done so (see http://savageminds.org/2007/11/01/the-intellectual-arms-race/)
Max, you say that you are “not ashamed to be against wars of domination and anthropological supports for such wars” and I believe you. I have never thought that you were anything but honest in expressing your political views. While the form of our political views differ, the goals are, I suspect, moderately close. I’m also against wars of “domination and anthropological support for such wars”. The major difference between us, I suspect, is that I include within that rubric, wars of systematic terror designed to subjugate the free will of individuals regardless of what ideology is espoused by the agreesors.
Hi Carl,
Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it!
You note that “So what we’re really telling Max is that the rhetorical strategies he’s using are not effective on us; our persuasive commonplaces are clustered in what we call ‘rational discourse’. What’s frustrating about this sort of discourse is that it excludes passion from the getgo and provides very little leverage for political motivation.”
In a nutshell, Yup. Believe me, I get frustrated with it too .
Honestly, I think a lot of it, the “persuasive commonplaces”, goes back back to the foundation of science as separate from religion. Most professional codes of ethics, while they may have a religious base, are not grounded in a theological system; they’re grounded in the secular via negativa that is the ideal of “science”. What bothers me about this entire debate is that the grounding of the debate is not grounded in that ideal which, I feel, lessens our credibility as both a science and a profession.
In general, I would like to move the debate more towards that ideal space. At the same time, the debate touches on too many deeply held beliefs and positions for it to be “dispassionate”. It won’t be, but I still believe that it is a goal worth striving for even if we never achieve it.
Unfortunately, I won’t be extending the discussion much further than what we see above. I just wanted to mention that, on an important point, we actually have found agreement, and that is where you say: “Anthropologists as individuals should be free to choose whether or not they should take a side in the current wars.” I agree not only because these individuals may have the power to act on their motivations, and I do not have the power to either encourage them or stop them, but also because it is their right to decide.
One of the problems I have with “rhetoric” is something that you traveled through in your original post above: there are too many competing definitions of what “rhetoric” means and many of them are not compatible. Having said that, and you identify a range of meanings, you did not specify which meaning you favour. My comment about “dispassionately and accurately” speaking suggests a reference to particular, popular meanings of “rhetoric” which liken it to passion, flourish, word plays, style over content. And I say no: stating that cluster bombs were used, depleted uranium, etc., etc., those are statements of fact. Nobody denies that these things occurred — so whatever notion of “fact” one uses, these statements about the weapons used meets notions. And if “reasoned discourse” is your aim, I would submit that one cannot reason without a sense of facts and contexts. Otherwise, you know what happens? The appeal to “reasoned discourse” simply becomes another rhetorical move, that masks its own quality as rhetoric, and unfairly characterizes all opposing views as “rhetorical”.
As you know, rhetoric is often associated with subjectivity and reasoned discourse with objectivity. I would have thought that by now we had recognized that classic notions of objectivity are, at the very best — and here is some rhetoric for you — clinging to the edge of the cliff by their bare white knuckles
Anyway, I really enjoy writing, and I cannot deny that matters of style really matter to me, more than they used to. If one read my published work — well try, and let me know if you stay awake past page 10 of any item.
In the end, however, there will be certain philosophical differences that will continue to divide us. For example, while I do not reject science, I am not eager to be classed as a scientist. And when it comes to “profession,” I am something far worse than “unprofessional,” I am actually anti-professional. What does that mean? We’ll see, I am still working on it
Anyway, thanks to both of you for engaging in these discussions, they really are enriching, and it’s great to see two scholars such as yourselves blogging, it adds a great new quality to the Internet for me.
[...] Max is building his career of destroying Anthropology based on his own words (see his final comment here) while I do not reject science, I am not eager to be classed as a scientist. And when it comes to [...]
Leave A Reply