Over the Hills and Far Away

First off, sorry for missing class this morning: a combination of a long day yesterday, a pseudo-emergency call at 1:15am this morning, and an alarm clock malfunction worked against me. That said, it’s good to still have a way to talk to you all. So:

Mr. Francis Bacon is who I am interested in talking a bit about. His theories in psychology that divide the mind into two separate spheres have a delightfully interesting influence on rhetoric. The two spheres, which emphasize productive and receptive operations individually, give a new and important facet of rhetoric, with special attention to the types of appeals, how they work, and new ways to use them to persuade an audience.

What I am interested in looking at is how these two spheres work, and what their idea does to change rhetoric for both the student and the teacher. I don’t want to get too in depth in theory, because sometimes that can be stifling to unadulterated conversation (which is the point of all of this—this blog and some of the ideas behind rhetoric itself, I mean—isn’t it?). Basically, we’ve got a part of the mind that is a receptor—a receiver that brings in data, however presented. Whatever being received is perceived through a lens (preference, desire, likes and dislikes, etc) and then processed by the mind. The other sphere is the producer, which is also affected by the same lens. What we get, then, is two spheres of the mind that are unique to the person and that influence the success of appeals to that particular individual. The two spheres work together, and in so supposedly represent all of the workings that occur in response to exterior stimulus.

When it comes to rhetoric, then, we can use this psychology to explore how appeals work, which is why it’s important at all. Use of appeals to persuade can then be, as a process, further explored by a rhetor so that s/he will be able to use his audience to his own advantage. This is a mix of old and new, classic and enlightenment. Think of it as if Aristotle got himself one of those psychologist’s couches for his oratory.

Okay, so, what does that even mean? Well, my first question is a typical one: does this still apply today? Do we think along these lines, using two spheres of interior thought to influence our use of appeals when creating an argument? Since both spheres can be used by the writer/orator/rhetor to improve his argument, is this kind of thinking still plausible, and does it have a place in the classroom?

Not working for you? Then how about this: The enlightenment saw a lot of smooshing together of psychology and rhetoric. Do you think this is the beginning of that combination, or is it just the first time people are really talking about it? Does the combination make sense? When you write an academic argument, do you think about the psychology of your audience when you write? Should you if you don’t?

What about our students? When teaching rhetoric, do we appeal to their own psychology to teach, and then show them how to appeal to psychology in their own writing?

Finally, since this is really interesting to me, do you see any danger (giggle) in a rhetoric that also plays with the psychology of the reader?