Context and Dolly Parton

A recurring theme of this week’s reading was context and how it shapes understanding. Scott examines Toulmin’s context of time;

“substantial arguments involve some sort of type shift, that is, the conclusion contains an element not present in the premises, e.g. “cause” or “other minds.” The type shift Toulmin concentrates on, and one which in my opinion is crucial, is the shift in time. In substantial arguments a shift in time always occurs. If a shift in time does not occur, then one is simply reporting what is present, not arguing. That one is able to report, that is, share his perceptions with others, may be called into question if the analytic ideal is taken as the criterion for knowing.”

It was interesting that Scott acknowledged an argument similar to that discussed by Plato and many of our previous readings. The “moment” plays a central theme in Plato’s Gorgias and Phaedrus. Moment is also important to Neitchse in his discussion of the pre-prepared speech in contrast with communication during a spontaneous moment, “it seems to go without saying that the field of equivocality covered by the word communication permits itself to be reduced massively by the limits of what is called a context…”

The importance of context seems to be present in many of the arguments throughout the history of rhetoric as we have seen thus far. What is interesting is that the more recent rhetoricians focus on the importance of Gorgias stating that there is no absolute truth and that it is entirely dependent upon individual experiences. Unlike the earlier rhetoricians, rhetoric is given a much more clear place in discourse by Scott: “In human affairs, then, rhetoric perceived in the frame herein discussed, is a way of knowing; it is epistemic. Brummett further explored the role of rhetoric in its relation to knowledge. According to Brummett and Mechanical epistemology, the ‘goal of knowledge is to “remove those barriers between knower and known, or in other words, to arrive at the truth.” And then through intersubjective truth he determines “truth for the individual, is the extent to which the meanings of experience (that is to say, reality) of that individual; are shared by significant others.” It is interesting that the later rhetoricians are again acknowledging the importance of the individual and the context of the argument, although much less ambiguously than Plato. An interesting point that Brummet brings up in the idea of ‘degrees of truth’ which didn’t seem to be explored as deeply by the earlier philosophers. While Aristotle and Plato explored different morality, they seemed to the truth was a fixed, preordained concept. ‘Platonic rhetoric assumes that an absolute truth exists and that the task is to find this truth and employ rheotirc in its service to “treat the soul.”

Context is further explored by Cherwitz and Hikins as they look at perspective and the role it plays on reality. What is made apparent in the more modern authors is the concept that truth is not fixed and is different per context. This seems to be an exploration into the myth of speech vs. debate and the importance of both. But as it would seem, rhetoric is most important for debate in the moment of situations. A good example of this is in the film Straight Talk by Dolly Parton (1992). Parton plays a woman who is excellent at giving advice and so is offered a position at a radio station. People believe she has a doctorate which gives her the authority to give advice to the radio listeners, however, she does not actually hold such a degree. The movie revolves around her hiding the fact that she is not a doctor. In a portion of the movie she is put on a talk show where she has been promised the host will only ask questions she has been warned of. Instead the talk show host begins to ask questions beyond the scope of the predetermined questions. She proves her abilities through the debate that ensues, something she might not have been able to accomplish had the host asked the cookie-cutter questions. In relation to the reading, rhetoric as a method of debate shows a greater capacity to deal with individual interactions, “those entities and the various relationship in which they stand to one another which in any way affect or condition some other individual, specifiable entity.” (Cherwitz and Hikins). If she had only used her prepared speech she would not have succeeded in proving her capabilities.