Critical Reflection

ENGL 4320: Senior Seminar

Critical Reflective Essay

Through my studies at Georgia State University, I have come to the conclusion that rhetoric is the intersection between persuasive theories and communicative tools, as well as the art of understanding one’s audience. The basis of rhetoric is a skepticism of how those around us present themselves and their ideas. Much more than the simple act of persuasion or speech-writing, rhetoric takes on an analytical lens through critical thinking – a skill which lends itself to rhetorical analyses, academic researched-based writing, and literature evaluation. The courses that had the most influence over my understanding are Visual Rhetoric, Exposition, and Rhetoric. Under the guidance and instruction of Dr. Hocks in Visual Rhetoric and Exposition, I was able to step back and notice the role that rhetoric plays in our society, in our actions, and in our words.

Critical thinking plays a vital role in my interaction with rhetoric as a vocation. The goal of rhetoric, after all, is to dig into and recognize others’ methods and messages. The canonical fathers of rhetoric still hold status in a widening world of discourse: Aristotle’s kairos, logos, ethos, and pathos, for example, work together to build a successful interaction between rhetor, work, and audience. Arguably the most vital of these, ethos is the audience’s interpretation of a rhetorician’s character, reliability, and intentions. Good rhetoricians can manipulate their images and wield ethos as a tool – in a sense predict and therefore control how others will perceive them. As taught by Aristotle, the relationship between a rhetorician and her audience begins before the rhetorician speaks, and in order to maintain that relationship, she must cultivate an image of good character, good sense, and goodwill. Part of this ethos is introduced by Kairos. Kairos encourages the deliberation of timing and lends a sense of propriety to one’s ethos. The other two modes of persuasion, logos and pathos, also contribute their benefits to maintaining the rhetorician-audience relationship because one must achieve a proper balance between them in order to make oneself seem balanced in character, too. I learned quickly that this balance, however, is relative to the rhetorical situation. Academic, researched papers require an appropriate distance from emotional investment; personal narratives or op-eds allow more freedom with pathos. To incite an emotional reaction from one’s audience risks losing control of their perception of the message. The four act as a unit to present the framework for rhetoric.

Aristotle’s method of rhetorical composition also provides a framework for understanding others’ work. Through a consideration of kairos, logos, ethos, and pathos, rhetoricians can gain insight into the “whys” of all sorts of compositions. In Persuasion: History, Theory, and Practice, George Pullman characterizes a “rhetor” as someone with intellectual impulses who reads “against the grain” (318). Simply put, rhetoric is the convergence of analysis, audience, and argumentation. I have included one such analysis in my portfolio in the form of my stylistic analysis midterm for English 3090 (Exposition). The assignment was to pull an essay from a prior course and use rhetorical tools to annotate my methods and critique my strategy. I focused on the modes of persuasion as my route of examination. The paper I had written was a researched essay for my Education 2110 class on clinical burnout within students of colligate music programs. Therefore, when I reread it, there was an obvious evocation of emotion through heavy language, informality of tone, and varying syntax. The circumstances of the subject matter, as well as my personal involvement in the Georgia State University music program, put me at risk of overwhelming my reader with emotion; however, the statistical and scholarly investigation of clinical burnout helped achieve a balance. I did not lose the overall persuasion because of my strong inclusion of logical appeals. In addition to the stylistic analysis, Dr. Hocks had us annotate each of the appeals within the original essay. The process of seeking out what was once an unconscious choice reminded me to make every step intentional.

Prior to my enrollment in the Rhetoric and Composition concentration, my voice and style were both measurably inflexible. I wrote only how my work would sound best to me. Now that I have studied different aspects of persuasion and dialectic, I have come to understand how much of my ethos is tied up in how my audiences perceive my words. Therefore, while my voice remains relatively stagnant and singular to my work, I adjust my style to suit the ears of my target audiences. In this manor, I establish a stronger ethos with others.

While they might be some of the simpler rhetorical concepts, the modes of persuasion led me to constant skepticism. Thinking critically of my own work bolstered my rhetorical catalogue and encouraged me to seek out more ways to analyze others’ work. Even now, I look at the assignment and see the progress I made between 2018 and 2020. My work within the concentration displays that of a growing rhetorician, of a student of a widening world of persuasive media forms. During my time in English 3135 (Visual Rhetoric), Dr. Hocks gave me the tools to recognize the various termininstic screens, unconscious biases, and influences that impact media presentations. One theory that reflects the critical lens of media interpretation is rhetorical looking. As prescribed by Bridgmen, Fleckenstein, and Gage, rhetorical looking is the methodical process of understanding the messages that lie just beneath the surface of social media platforms, visual marketing ploys, and seemingly unbiased, informational websites. I wrote a visual rhetorical analysis on Georgia State University’s transit websites, the existing student dialogue on GSU transit, and the app Passio GO!

How Georgia State handled the discussion of transit issues reflects a neglect of the commuter population, and by using rhetorical looking, I was able to pinpoint their apathy towards the situation within Passio GO!, which was exposed by a narrow field of information and an even narrower opportunity for outsider critique. Each step of rhetorical looking highlights the ideologies behind Georgia State University’s digital negligence. Their apathy, however, has allowed students to take over the conversation with their frustration, which has taken the form of memes on Facebook. The modern theory of rhetorical looking considers digital marginalization a form of violence, and as Dr. Hocks instructed, students can wield reclaim power through disruption. Students’ memes act as disruption of the conversation. Instead of thinking of memes as simplistic outlets of comedy, my perspective shifted to include all forms of media in my catalogue of rhetorical composition.

Now, these methods of analysis are valuable when it comes to visual presentations and online interfaces, but the foundation of modernized concepts of media presentation rooted in the ideas of our rhetorical predecessors, whom I encountered at length in English 3050 (Introduction to Rhetoric) with Dr. Gammill. His instruction draws from the teachings of rhetorical giants like Aristotle, as well as the more modern rhetoricians, like Kenneth Burke. James Herrick writes extensively on Burke’s contribution to a in The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction, wherein he explains what Burke means by symbolic action: “rhetoric makes human unity possible, that language use is symbolic action, and that rhetoric is symbolic inducement.” Under Dr. Gammill’s instruction, I focused on Burke’s impact on the current conversation surrounding written and spoken rhetoric. Here, symbolic action is the collection of the intangible: our words, our experiences, and our formal knowledge – each of which construct what Burke calls our termininstic screens. Such screens can prevent authentic connection.

In English 3050, Dr. Gammill assigned a rhetorical analysis of our choosing, as long as the subject matter was an instance of personal persuasion. I wrote on the time I convinced my parents to adopt a puppy, and I explained my methods through Burke’s theory of terminstic screens and identification. If terminstic screens are the origin of separation, identification is the means by which rhetoricians connect with their audiences. Argumentation, whether it be cross-cultural or cross-generational, must be considerate of others’ terministic screens, and learning the process of identification helped me find footing in communicating my ideas with others. Additionally, learning to recognize my own terministic screens has exposed my unconscious biases and taught me to expand my viewpoints. During a time of great social and political separation, recognizing how I can bridge communicative gaps to contrasting audiences has set me up for better success outside of college.

As I transition into the work force, sorting through rhetorical theories and previous assignments illuminates how much I have grown as a writer and critical thinker. The concentration’s coursework has challenged me and expanded my perception of what rhetoric is and is not. Persuasion, influence, and writing are not one-sided; they are each an exchange of ideas, the connection of writer and audience. The job market for English majors might be changing, but the skills taught by professors like Dr. Hocks and Dr. Gammill extend far beyond the field of rhetoric. Each of the artifacts I include in my portfolio stand as an example of how rhetorical skills can be applied in the fields of editing, business writing, and critical academic writing.