At first, I really didn't see a flaw in Jarratt's definition of the sophist (and overall pedagogy). However, there is a problem with the notion of the sophist as "composer" and his/her audience as "co-creator." Jarratt says that the sophist's audience is "fully aware of the craft, its potentially volatile effects, and its ultimate importance, both in defining knowledge for the group and leading them toward wise action" (60).
On premise, I wholeheartedly concur with Jarratt; for me, audience seemed to be an undervalued participant in Plato's definition of rhetoric. Plato views the sophistic audience as victims of rhetoric; rhetoric is something done to the audience. The criticism might be directed to the sophists themselves and their "art," but it doesn't speak well of the audience either. It discredits its ability to discern deception from deliberation.
The sophists - through Jarratt's lens - respect the audience and purposefully include it in the rhetorical process. Although today's audience members may have the capacity to be co-creators in the rhetorical process, I'm not convinced they have the desire to be co-creators. In all honesty, I'm not convinced that every audience member has the capacity to be a co-creator, let alone the desire. This flaw undermines the democratic fabric of our society. A reluctant audience threatens "the continual renogotiation of nomoi through rhetoric" (53).
However, this "flaw" in Jarratt's definition is really a consequence of chronic historical misrepresentation of rhetoric. This is what happens when history is recounted only through the marginalizer's lens.
This is an interesting paradox that I hadn't before realized in the rhetorical Platonic discount of rhetoric (metaparadox?) The insinuation that the audience was not savvy enough for the duplicitous Sophists is an interesting problemetization of the black-and-white world Plato was trying to formulate. In the modern world, the audience (classroom for most of us) expects to be fed "Truth" without participating actively in the process, or even questioning it at times. How often do we respect the audience enough to truly try and bring them into the conversation? And how often do they just stare at us and blink when we do?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that the modern audience expects to be fed "Truth"; at least, I think most audiences would claim that that wasn't the case, and might be offended if this was suggested. However, I think the modern audience has been trained to expect to be fed the "Truth." In this way we continue to prove Plato right. Whose fault is this, and how do we change the relationship between rhetor and audience? Is it enough to put the burden on the rhetor? Personally, I don't think it is.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are issues with Jarret's definition if applied broadly to an entire modern audience. However, I do think it is a good way to approach the teaching of writing. In a classroom, you can work with students from a perspective that teachers and students create knowlege together by pulling information from the constant streams of knowlege flowing in and around the classroom. There will always be "reluctant co-creaters," but their reluctance doesn't actually matter because creating knowlege is a byproduct of livng in any society. The problem is their reluctance may cause them to stand in the stream they are used to and perhaps deny that other streams exist. It is not that they are not creating knowledge in this way. It's just that most of us in this class would lend little weight to knowledge created by such limited means.
ReplyDelete