Epistemic Rhetoric

Rhetoric or Persuasion by Jane Austen

     Robert Scott in On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic discusses the idea that, “clearly the art of persuasion is granted sufferance only on the grounds that men are not what they ought to be” (Scott 9), and that man is, “…certain only that he can not be certain.” (Scott 14). The rhetorical namesake novel Persuasion by Jane Austen tells the story of Anne Elliot who at nineteen is persuaded by her family and close friends to give up the man she is engaged to.

     Lady Russell, who was like a mother to Anne, “deprecated the connexion in every light. Such opposition, as these feelings produced, was more than Anne could combat….She was persuaded to believe the engagement a wrong thing—indiscrete, improper, hardly capable of success and not deserving it. Anne certainly knew the truth of her affection for Captain Wentworth and he certainly knew the truth of his for her.

     Her family, through pride of rank and wealth, demanded assurance and certainty of current and future wealth and status for Anne, however, no prior truth was available to them regarding Captain Wentworth’s family standing and current wealth. Their analysis was that the match was uncertain of success and that Anne could do better than to marry a mere Captain Wentworth. They were certain that other offers equally appealing to Anne from more socially elevated and wealthy men would follow in due course. They did not follow.

    Anne was miserable after this episode of yielding to persuasion and had as her only comfort the idea that giving up the engagement was morally right. “The point of view that holds that man cannot be certain but must act in the face of uncertainty to create situational truth entails three ethical guidelines: toleration, will, and responsibility. (Scott 16). “Had she not imagined herself consulting his good, even more than her own, she could hardly have given him up. The belief of being prudent, and self-denying principally for his advantage, was her chief consolation, under the misery of parting ….”

     The book begins eight years later when Anne and Wentworth are thrown together again by circumstances and begin to uncover the truth about their damaged and wounded feelings. “…how eloquent, at least, were her wishes on the side of early warm attachment, and a cheerful confidence in the futurity, against that over-anxious caution which seems to insult exertion and distrust Providence!-- She had been forced into prudence in her youth, she learned romance as she grew older –the natural sequel of an unnatural beginning.”

     “If one cannot be certain, however, then one must either withdraw from the conflicts of life or find some way to act in the face of these conflicts. (Scott 16). Anna and Wentworth both withdrew and then eight years later found ways to act again in the face of this conflict. Former persuasions were combatted and defeated.  “In human affairs, then, rhetoric, perceived in the frame herein discussed is a way of knowing; it is epistemic. (Scott 17). Anne and Captain Wentworth came to analyze and know the truth of their feelings and no longer allowed the beliefs of others to interfere with the knowledge of what was right and certain for them. 

The Importance of Avoiding Solipsism

I remember once in an undergraduate poetry workshop my professor called one of my poems solipsistic. To be specific about my plight, I stubbornly refused to add one minor detail to clarify something for my reader because I felt it was unnecessary and would detract from the point of the poem itself. At the time, I was quite frustrated about the remark... but I soon came to realize that I was not entirely sure what he meant by his comment. Out of irritation, I never did follow up with my professor to find out why he thought my poem was solipsistic or why it even mattered. 

This week’s readings from Barry Brummet and Richard Cherwitz/James Hikins deal with the problem of solipsism and methods to avoid it. They deal with reality and what we as humans make of it, how we construct it, and rhetoric’s role. For Brummet and Cherwitz/Hikins, solipsism is problematic because it is completely subjective view of reality. Basically, it is the idea that only your mind surely exists. The external world, to include objects and other minds, do not exist; rather, they are an extension of your own mind, representations of your own reality, and exist dependently on your own meanings. In other words, the solipsist deals with pink elephants.

If you have ever seen Disney’s Dumbo, you have seen the bizarre intoxication segment entitled “Pink Elephants on Parade.” Dumbo and Timothy Mouse share a hallucination of pink elephants (and “technicolor pachyderms”) performing amazing yet impossible stunts. Later as they were sleeping off their hangovers in a tree, a group of crows laugh at Timothy’s muttering of pink elephants. I offer Dumbo’s pink elephants as a means of thinking about Brummet’s pink elephants intersubjective process and Cherwitz/Hikins’ perspectivism as well as determine why avoiding solipsism is important to the rhetor (and poet!).  

Brummet’s intersubjective process is a participatory promotion of reality constructed by an exchange of meaning among humans, i.e., meaning-makers. Context determines meaning; meaning is based on agreement; agreement establishes certainty; and certainty measures truth. Brummet suggests “Intersubjectivity holds that the discovery of reality and the testing of it is never independent of people but takes place through people. Yet this reality is found through communication between people” (30). The solipsist does not fit into this model of meaning-making because he does not participate in the process of exchange to construct reality. Rather, the source of meaning for the solipsist is himself. Had Timothy Mouse been a solipsist, he would not have asked Dumbo if he is also experiencing the sight of pink elephants because Dumbo’s mind does not exist outside of Timothy’s mind’s projection of it. Asking would involve verification of truth, an inquiry of agreement, to determine “the extent to which the meanings of experience (that is to say, reality) of that individual are shared by significant others” (34). Brummet’s intersubjectivity counters solipsism because it forces meaning-makers to exchange meanings in a process to realize reality and discover truth.

Cherwitz/Hikins do not agree with Brummet about the value of intersubjectivity in understanding reality, but they do agree with him that solipsism is unproductive and should be avoided. However, they criticize intersubjectivity as being inherently solipsistic because of its construction of reality:

“And if humans have the capacity to create reality through meaning, who is to say that this activity is not done purely subjectively, the notion of ‘other minds’ being an elaborate conceptual illusion . . . ? Moreover, who is to say there is not just one mind, the mind of the thinker, everyone else merely appearing to have an intellect?” (Cherwitz and Hikins, 254)

They essentially suggest intersubjectivity, or rather subjectivity in general, is solipsism. The Cherwitz/Hikins solution for avoiding a subjective sense of reality is perspectivism. This theory also considers others’ meanings, or perspectives, like intersubjectivity, but it does so in order to identify an “impasse” in perspective arguments, not an agreement upon meanings (C and H, 265). It allows one to consider different perspectives on the same issue. Disagreement becomes the vehicle to truth. Again, the solipsist does not fit into Cherwitz/Hikins’ perspectivist model. Just as with intersubjectivity, the solipsist cannot come to terms with the existence of a mind, or perspective in this case, outside of their own. Again, Timothy Mouse ask Dumbo if he sees the pink elephants as well, but he does so with an inclination towards an intersubjective agreement rather than a perspectivist disagreement. 

So, why should a rhetor avoid solipsism? And why was my poem solipsistic? To the former, I suggest solipsism does not have a place in rhetorical applications because it distrusts externals and ultimately communication, the means of dis/agreeing on meanings and reality. I still cannot answer the latter, but perhaps because I cannot find accord with my professor’s meaning nor can I move from our disagreement, I am at least a little guilty of egocentrism. Anyway, without some sort of external integration with society, i.e. rhetoric, neither Brummet’s nor Cherwitz/Hikins’ theories are relevant as methods of understanding the how’s and why’s of reality. As Brummet suggests: “madness is by definition an inability to share conventional meanings” (31).

Brummet, Barry. “Some Implications of ‘Process’ or ‘Intersubjectivity’: Postmodern Rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 9 (1976): 21-51.

Cherwitz, Richard and James Hilkins. “Rhetorical Perspectivism.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 69 (1983): 249-266. 

The Machines Cannot Rise, or, Why HAL 9000 is an Asshole

HAL 9000, the primary antagonist of 2001: A Space Odyssey,  demonstrates the qualities of epistemology in rhetoric, primarily the postulates of relationality and consciousness.

As a sentient machine, HAL 9000 is capable of voice recognition, conversation, lip-reading, reasoning,  and monitoring the various controls and systems that comprise the spacecraft Discovery One. "He" (the machine has the voice of a male) can also engage in game such as chess with the ship's crew.  HAL has no discernible physicality save for a red camera eye that appears throughout Discovery One.

While HAL can extrapolate empirical data from the systems he monitors and the world around him, he can make no distinction to the relational components that comprise this world. This objectivism creates substantial problems for the crew of Discovery One. As such, HAL cannot distinguish why the lives of the crew are important, why Dave needs to open the pod door, and why he himself must be shut down in order to preserve the life of the crew. Because HAL has no ability to apply any symbolic meaning to these facts, he becomes an indiscriminate killer. HAL's  Brummett's argument concerning mechanics supports this claim: Objects are not observed entirely in themselves and apart but as part of some background or context (Postmodern Rhetoric, 26). Because HAL is observing the crew members in themselves, and not as living, sentient beings in the context of life, he cannot assign any other meaning to them other than a problem that must be corrected.

While it can be argued that HAL does in fact have consciousness, the definition put forth by Cherwitz and Hikins refutes this:

Conciousness is a natural event which occurs when and only when an entity comes to stand in a particular relationship to other entities within a context of particulars. Consciousness is itself a character of a specific kind and is always part of a corresponding asymmetrical relation also of a specific kind (Quarterly Journal of Speech, August 1983).

Because HAL does not have the ability to to perceive the particulars of the relationships between the crew and the spacecraft or himself, it can be argued he is not a conscious being. HAL can only perceive of concepts from his point of view. This inability to realize the mentality of others in essence makes HAL a solipsist.

HAL can and does engage in the dialectic, but as it is part of his programming and does not originate from any relational foundation of awareness, it lacks any real perspective and no real knowledge is imparted.

Only when HAL is being shut down does he show any signs of having a conscious. However, as he is shutting down, we are left with the realization that these pleas may be just a part of the operating system, or at best, a malfunction. The only real knowledge HAL contains is his date of origin, his creator, and the song "Daisy Bell".

Plato and Robert Scott and the plot of Star Wars

            I was really interested in the way that Robert Scott defines truth: “Man must consider truth not as something fixed and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which he finds himself and with which he must cope” (17). This seems to challenge how we’ve been viewing truth through Plato. He tells us, through the guise of Socrates, that there is an ultimate truth that we have to reach and only philosophers can get us to that truth. Now we have Scott telling us that truth can change during any given moment. This new definition of truth reminded me of Star Wars.

            In the original Star Wars trilogy (New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi) Luke Skywalker is taught to believe that Darth Vader is evil. Over the course of the films, Vader upholds this idea of evil, even after we find out that he is Luke’s father. Even though Luke attempts to try and free the good inside his father, he still understands that Vader is evil. By the end of the series (spoiler alert if you haven’t seen them by now) Vader sacrifices himself to save Luke, and father and son are reunited for a brief moment before Vader dies. Does all of that change the fact that he was evil for the entire series? No, but his goodness is the new truth. His moment of selflessness suddenly changed him from a villain into a more sympathetic character (just don’t watch the new Star Wars movies so you can keep thinking that), so the truth surrounding his character has changed. It doesn’t mean that the old view of him wasn’t right, but just that it no longer applies to who he has become.

            If we apply Plato's view of truth, Vader either finally reaches an ultimate truth at the end of the series when he finds himself again, or he never does because he doesn't seem to know what it means to understand his soul. Plato doesn't offer much room for growth; there is one truth, and you have to find it and stick with it, or you fall even further from perfection. 

            I like Scott’s version of truth because it allows for a lot more freedom in find what is true. With Plato, it’s difficult to ever reach a point of truth because we’re so concerned with finding what the ultimate truth is instead of what our personal truth is for the moment we’re in. I think this kind of truth is more freeing but as humans we seem to complicate this idea. We have a hard time believing that truth can change, and it even seems like a wishy washy concept because then anyone can say that they’re different and we have to accept that when our past experience may not allow us to fully hold onto that pronouncement. On paper, conditional truth is a great idea and it shows growth of people; most people don’t stay the same their entire lives. However, in reality, we sometimes have issues with changing truth. Even with all of the issues that could arise, I respect Scott’s idea of truth and think it’s much better suited for our society than Plato’s. 

Changing Truths in Silko's "Ceremony"

The first two readings for this week’s class focus on man’s attempt at gaining truth. For millennia, man has tried to understand a fixed, universal truth that is objective to his existence. Robert L. Scott and Barry Brummett argue that there is no such truth.

In “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic,” Scott claims, “The assumption that has spanned the centuries from that dialogue in Athens to the one in Washington, D.C., is that men can possess truth” (10). The author goes on to disprove that assumption because no one has found one universal truth that spans from past to present to future; events are constantly in flux, and their truths always change. Scott has found that “truth is not prior and immutable but is contingent” (13). This idea can be applied in the moral sense. Scott gives the example of a man conflicted between his country and family. He has a duty to both, yet the two require different obligations from him. If he is committed to his country, he might feel that he must serve to protect it, taking a lower-paying job in the army and risking his life. However, if he commits himself to his family, then he should get a high-paying job that allows him to provide for his family while also spending time with them. He has a choice, and he must take action. In this instance, there is no right path he must take, no one truth by which he must abide. He must choose which direction he shall take and be responsible for the consequences. Similarly, a rhetor must decide which truths to argue and persuade audiences toward while taking on the consequences of his speech. He is held accountable for his decisions, so he will not abuse his power to find truth. As Scott says, “Man must consider truth not as something fixed and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which he finds himself and with which he must cope” (17). Human action is not fixed because truths are not fixed.

Brummett’s “Some Implications of ‘Process’ or ‘Intersubjectivity: Postmodern Rhetoric” builds off of Scott’s ideas. Brummett analyzes Newtonian mechanics and explains that its principles of reality as objective and reality as mechanical and causal have infiltrated our views on rhetoric when it is wrong to do so. The author tells readers that “mechanics in a ‘Modern Age’ based its epistemological hopes on the concept of a truth which was objective, absolute, and empirically verifiable as the reality to which it bore reference” (22). However, Brummett states that truth can never have these qualities by showing that the scientific thought that searches for this kind of truth only looks at similar parts of things rather than their whole entities, which can ignore the big picture and only focus on truths for which scientists are looking, and tries to sever the connection between observer and the observed. If there were no observer, nothing can be observed. Therefore, the latter goal cannot happen.

Brummett uses Polanyi’s ideas when he states that “knowledge can never be purely focal or restricted but must include some subsidiary awareness of the context of a thing. Yet a thing has an infinite context” (44). So, everything is connected. Brummett then goes on to state, “The scholar must study people with a subsidiary awareness of their contexts, and this means not only holism but also a study of the person as an individual rather than merely reducing him/her to his/her parts” (44). One of the goals of intersubjectivity is to understand the truths of each context for each individual.

These articles connect to Leslie Marmon Silko’s novel, Ceremony. In the novel, half-white, half-Laguna Tayo returns to his reservation after serving in World War II. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. His soul and body are sick, and he is forced to go to the hospital and use Western medicine. The doctors try to treat only parts of Tayo; they do not understand that his whole self must be treated and healed. They only believe in one universal truth: science and medicine can heal. However, this is not the case for Tayo. After meeting a powerful medicine man, Tayo understands that he must go through a long spiritual journey connecting to his Native American roots to heal. He needs a holistic approach to healing so that he can save himself and his people. He learns about contingent truths, truths that have changed over the years. The Laguna people do not know how to help the men returning from war because they have never participated in such grueling modern warfare before. With these new truths that Tayo learns, he can help his people and the veterans understand themselves and begin the healing process. Using his new knowledge, he convinces the elders that the changing times call for different truths, and they must take action to save their livelihoods. 

The Uncertain People

Robert L. Scott's article, "On Viewing Rhetoric As Epistemic" makes one thing abundantly clear, people are uncertain. His final paragraph appears to claim that rhetoric is a result of this uncertainty and is a very strong necessity. There is no stronger example of this need for rhetoric as a presidential election.

Whether it's Frost's path that is less traveled by, every character in a horror movies' regretted, "I'll be right back" or it's the undecideds of any Presidential election, if all people were certain these dilemmas wouldn't occur.

As Scott points out,

"The point of view that holds that man cannot be certain but must act in the face of uncertainty to create situational truth entails three ethical guidelines: toleration, will, and responsibility... If one can be certain, then one needs no commands or urgings (either from oneself or from others) to act. Failure to act can only be a sign of a momentary misunderstanding or of a flawed intellect." (Scott 16)

An example of acting in a state of uncertainty in order to create a situational truth within an election campaign is the video, "Absolutely Uncertain."



In an attempt to determine a truth, whether President Obama is in fact supportive of Israel and if his re-election will benefit Israel, the above video examines the history of Israel's political and social turmoil as well as the President's involvement with the country. Irina, the 23-year-old politically liberal, Jewish, and resident of New York featured in the video, recognizes that she must act while in a state of uncertainty. As all humans, she will always be uncertain. The video itself, "Absolutely Uncertain," is a result and an example of how people struggle with their need to act while being in a state of uncertainty. The rhetorical devices utilized throughout the video are examples of how rhetoric is useful in guiding one another and ourselves to create situational truths.

Can we handle the truth?

Can we handle the truth? This is the question I come away with after this week’s readings. All of the scholars touched on how rhetoric is used in the process of knowing and what it means to be certain of that knowledge. In “On Viewing Rhetoric As Epistemic,” Scott presents the following idea: “If some men can possess truth, and others understand truth, then what need the former do but present truth to the latter” (10)?

The “truth” that Scott is describing is that of knowledge that is fixed and does not change. It is this truth (often with a capital T) that philosophers like Plato believed could be found through the soul. But Scott does not readily agree with that notion. He claims that “man who desires certainty understands that he cannot be certain” (14). With a lack of certainty, man is free to discover what is true for himself and be persuaded by others to accept other truths. Rhetoric leads to knowing and then acting on that knowledge. Scott summarizes truth in this way:

“Man must consider truth not as something fixed and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which he finds himself and with which he must cope” (17). In this sense, knowing becomes a process that we must work out. We must strive to figure out the truth within ourselves and with those around us.

In figuring out truth, Brummett tells us “we must participate in making reality” (28). The striving is rhetoric, and we must do our part to make meaning (31). Rhetoric is “a channel for truth,” and we use language to make use of this channel (37). So, handling the truth, or what we think of as truth is an active process. The rhetor is then responsible for leaving the audience with a choice to accept that truth. And as Cherwitz and Hikins put forth, we all have different perspectives to add to the mix of discovering truth. They note the following:

“Recall that the perspectivist posits a world of relationships, wherein every entity, conscious or inanimate, stands in relationship to one another” (263). A different perspective does not necessarily mean contradictory ideas. This idea may not be completely satisfying, but it does offer insight into how the discovery of truth can be approached. Our truth comes from the relationships we form with other people and things. So, is that it?    

In the last article, Brummett states “that objects come into existence for humans through the same rhetorical process by which they are known” (428). The consensus theory suggests that people are persuaded by more than just objects. We differ in opinion about values and ideas (429). Because of this, Brummett suggests that we must be humble and responsible for the truth we aim to find. We rely on the rhetorical process to work out what is true or what could be true. So again, I ask the question: Can we handle the truth?

In this clip from A Few Good Men (starting about 1:40), Col. Jessup (Nicholson) famously declares to Lt. Kaffee (Cruise): “You can’t handle the truth!” Col. Jessup passionately declares that men like Kaffee do not know what it is like to fight for freedom and save lives. According to Jessup, Kaffee cannot deal with the reality of making tough decisions (such as the decision of ordering a code red on Santiago). Jessup talks about his responsibility to give orders that are meant to “save lives.” These two men have different perspectives, and thus see the situation in a different light. Kaffee sees it as a breach of marine code and Jessup sees it as doing his duty to provide freedom. Either way, the rhetorical implications suggest that people seek truth based off of their experiences and relationships to others. We weigh our options and allow ourselves to be persuaded by what is said or done around us. We must learn how to handle the truth (or what we think of as truth), and that is why we need rhetoric.

The Contradictory Truths of Ron Swanson

Barry Brummett, in his essay “Some Implications of ‘Process’ or ‘Intersubjectivity’: Postmodern Rhetoric,” brings up the idea of contradictory truths. According to Brummett, “Conflicting truths arise when two or more validating contexts have opposed meanings” (35). In other words, it is possible for a person to believe in two contradicting ideas at the same time, and both ideas can be considered to be true.

An example of contradictory truths that can be found in recent popular culture exists on the television show Parks and Recreation. One of the main characters, Ron Swanson, is a vocal libertarian, someone who supports the minimization of government, who also happens to work for the local government. In fact, he’s the chief of the Parks and Recreation department.

So how can Swanson be a staunch libertarian who doesn’t believe government should even exist, yet still take pleasure in his job as a government employee? As Brummett states, “This conflict is possible because the meanings assigned to either pattern are generated by different validating contexts” (35). In this case, while Swanson believes that he benefits from small government, he also believes that helping out his fellow citizens is in the best interests of the greater good. Although it can’t be seen in the clip I provided, in past episodes he has filled in potholes and given money to a friend to go to college, along with various other good deeds. This matches Brummett’s example of contradictory truths where people are “torn between the desire to further the common welfare and the desire to protect self-interests” (35).

Swanson’s contradictory truths are, according to Brummett, brought about by different motivating factors: “Motivations for one context or another are in a rhetorical opposition that presents the individual with a choice” (35). Like with Swanson, people every day are confronted with different motivations to make choices through rhetorical devices that, though in opposition to each other, are both considered to be truths. 

Welcome to the Real World

                The readings for today dealt with rhetoric, knowledge, and epistemology. I believe the first two readings were largely similar and led to a world view that there is no objective reality and that “truth” is created through rhetoric. These articles made me think of the Matrix because in the beginning, Neo believes in one “reality” but soon learns about the real “reality.” This movie helped me understand how truth and reality are constantly being created.

                Barry Brummett’s article is broken into four sections. He first tries to explain the mechanistic or objective point of view which tried to move one “closer and closer to the perception of objective reality.” (25) Brummett discards this point of view because he believes that one can never observe reality without a preconceived bias. He states that “observation is participation” and that “objects are not observed entirely in themselves and apart but as part of some background or context.” (26) Since no one can ever view the world objectively, the only reality anyone will ever know is what they experience and observe. And different people will observe the world in different ways and therefore can have different versions of reality.

                Brummett called this idea intersubjective reality. Since reality is what we observe and experience, “we must participate in making reality.” (28) It is through experience that people create meaning and therefore their reality. In the Matrix, Neo begins the movie believing that his world is reality. He participates, observes, and experiences it. However, something in his own experience makes him believe that there is something more. He actively seeks out (read participate) Morpheus. When they meet, he takes the pill and it changes his reality. If he had never sought out Morpheus or taken the pill, he would have chosen to participate in his constructed reality. Instead he chooses to participate and changes/remakes his reality.

                Brummett continues his article by stating that the meanings we have about our world are created through communication. Rhetoric creates meaning. Neo knows the matrix as reality because it’s all he’s ever known. He cannot perceive that he is really asleep and therefore has no idea. Morpheus converses with Neo and through the use of rhetoric tells him about the real real world. It is through the use of rhetoric that Neo’s conception of reality changes. His whole context changes which shapes his meanings for everything: his past memories and his current world.

                Brummett also stresses the point that the more shared a meaning is, the more true it appears. He states that “the point here is that wherever meanings are shared they are shared only because discourse has the power to induce people to participate in that shared reality.” (31) This idea of truth is heightened if one’s significant others also believe in it. The matrix seems so real because everyone in it believed in its constructed reality. Agents patrol the matrix in order to keep the current discourse supporting their reality. However, discourse “may be used to change the reality.” (31) Throughout the movie Morpheus converses with Neo and tries to convince him of the fakeness of the matrix and his own status as the “one.” It is through Neo’s own observations and these conversations that he begins to accept the new reality as the truth. His acceptance may also be heightened by his developing relationship with Trinity. Since she believes in the reality and his status, he becomes more apt to believe in it as well as he falls in love with her. Morpheus in the Matrix uses rhetoric to change Neo’s realty. In Brummett’s words, he is a “creative individual” who causes “radical changes in an ever-changing reality.” (32)

Rhetoric and Reality in Coraline

The readings this week all seem to touch on the idea of reality and its relation to rhetoric. This idea of reality that comes into play when trying to understand rhetoric stems from viewing rhetoric as epistemic. It seems the shift into the postmodern views of rhetoric are all grounded in epistemology, that is, knowledge and understanding. How can we come to know knowledge if we do not have a basis for it? It would seem obvious that it would be situated in reality. However, reality is rarely easily defined. Because of this, I think that readings divided themselves into various camps of Epistemic Rhetoric. These camps, once understood, provide an interesting framework for understanding realities in the movie Coraline. Coraline is a girl who enters an otherworld located within her new home. She uses this parallel other world as an escape from her otherwise dull life. You can read a full synopsis here.

First, we have Robert L. Scott who not only makes a case for epistemic rhetoric as a valid means to understanding rhetoric, he also seems to suggest that knowledge and truth are socially constructed. It is a product of linguistic and social interaction, which means that there is no fixed truth. This shifts away from the idea that using rhetoric, two parties could come to a fixed and final truth. "What these statements do suggest is that truth is not prior and immutable but is contingent," (Scott 13). In Coraline, we see the main character who enters this parallel university that seems to have existed prior to her arrival. She becomes so attached to her ideal reality that this world begins to appear as the real reality, while her original world is just some sort of punishment. The truth of the parallel world isn't fixed. At first she believes that her Other Mother and Other Father want nothing, but to love and dote upon her. However, when she refuses to trade in her eyes for buttons, it becomes apparent the world isn't what it appears. In other words, the truth of Coraline's parallel world changes and she finds she must quickly adjust to the new situation.

Another view on how postmodern rhetoric as epistemic can be found in Barry Brummett's piece. The structure of it is almost scientific and it would make sense why his view matches that of what we find in the hard sciences. He puts forth that rhetoric as intersubjective. Reality is shared and can be changed because the discovery of reality and the testing of it is never independent of people but takes place through people. With humans always involved, there is never really an objective reality or truth. Coraline escapes the parallel world certain that the reality there exists separately from her real world. What she quickly finds when she returns is that her parents are gone and her home long abandoned because of her absence. The Other Mother kidnapped her real parents and she is left to find them. Coraline's parallel reality is changed because of her presence. She falsely assumed that is existed prior to her visiting, only to find that it was created based off her subconscious. When she realizes this, it becomes easier for her to make choices that will lead to the rescue of her parents. "Truth which is rhetorically made encourages choice and awareness of alternative realities," (Brummett 40).

Finally, I will touch on Cherwitz and Hikins who try the bridge the gap between intersubjectivity and the position that views objects of knowledge as socially constructed. They offer up 3 postulates: The Independence of Reality, Relationality, and Consciousness. The first one is particularly interesting because it discusses the belief that reality exists independent of our consciousness of it (Cherwitz and Hikins 251). This is important to take into account because it shapes how we use rhetoric. One of the key things I learned when I first began to understand how to use rhetoric was the importance of knowing your audience. They weren't people made up solely for the purpose of reading documents created by me. "Rhetoric's role is no to create realities about such concepts; it is rather to discover them and articulate relationships between or among them through the process of argumentative discourse." (256). Similarly, Coraline discovers that the Other Mother existed long before she moved into the house. Knowing this information allows her to come up with a new way of winning back her parents. She must play by the Other Mother's rules because the reality that she thought existed only for her, was in fact, independent of her wishes and desires.

While it seems there are some clear divisions among the postmodern crowd on how epistemic rhetoric should work, it is important to note the strengths and weaknesses of each view. They provide their own perspective for viewing rhetoric and perhaps using more than one could help create a more holistic approach to rhetoric.