Multimodal Writing
“Beyond Persuasion” a text by Sonja K. Foss and Cindy L. Griffin. An analyses of the concepts of invitational rhetoric. Reading Beyond persuasion has given me a better insight on invitational rhetoric and I find it very intriguing. Though to me this style or approach of communication has been in existence for quite a while but basically on the masses level not in the formal or academic circles. People use it on daily basis, so I will presume that the feminists are proposing or aiming for it to proliferate into the academic circles by giving it a better structure.
Invitational rhetoric espouses communication based on understanding perspectives and thinking through each other’s point of view with no aim to persuade but rather communicate on neutral and non-hierarchical grounds. The relationship between the rhetor or speaker and the audience is an equal one that allows for the rhetor to meet the audience at whatever level they might be on and learn about the complexities of issues from each other’s perspective. It is an alternative way of communicating as in contrast with theories that posit persuasion as the goal of communication like the traditional rhetoric with its main purpose of communication being to effect change.
Memes of both traditional and invitational rhetorics
Another thing I deduced based on my reading is that invitational rhetoric denounces the use of force or persuasion to alter perspectives. Rather it says; This is my point of view, show me yours and lets discuss through, I will think through your point of view with the aim of understanding you better and enlightening myself if necessary, you may also do same. If in the process of discussion change is attained, fine if not that is also fine because it posit dialogue as ethically superior, so with the mere beginning of dialogue its purpose is partially attained.
People want to have the flexibility of making decisions without been forced, so for me this style of communication is legitimate, you communicate about an issue without only looking at its merits and demerits but rather you deal with the issue on a broader spectrum and analyse complexities that comes with it. Through these complexities, other angles of ideas and options are generated which gives justification to the topic that is being explored.
These are some of the basic principles of traditional and invitational rhetorics.
The invitational rhetoric style of communication of course comes with its strengths and weaknesses, for instance how do you get a point of views across without being overly conversational. It can be quite difficult to put your claim across or even for the audience to better understand your standpoint on the issue. I found this YouTube video that I think rightly represents the theories of invitational rhetoric. This movie shows a board room where conversations about the state of affairs of a nation takes place , in their conversations they all had different views and opinions about Cuba launching an air strike on America. I think the grounds and levels of discussions were quite interesting. Enjoy the video and let’s continue the discussion after.
In the video the board members did not argue or use a confrontational approach but rather, they all presented their opinions in a conversational way. Others took in the views of their opponents and gave new perspectives and assumptions based on their point of view.
They also presented their information in a multimodal form with substantial amount of facts to back their claim, they showed images of their opponents’ nuclear weapons and the pace at which the worker over there go about their duties. They also showed map of US soils that might be in the targeted range in case of an airstrike. The multiple modes of presentation within this video helps to better understand the issues been discussed.
The piece is structured in a way that a specific point of entry is irrelevant, if you didn’t watch the full video and probably just start watching when it’s nearing the end you can still grasp the meanings of what they are trying to say or do because it’s presented in a non-linear way. They break down their language to meet the needs of those they assume might not be able to digest some vocabulary usage for instance breaking down the conversation that a blockage is tantamount to an act of war. This shows an example of how a rhetor will meet his or her audience at whatever level they might on and have enlightening conversations without barriers.
In the video the man mentioned that “don’t make the aggressor more aggressive” meaning that they have to find a way to have common grounds without necessarily using force. This is totally in line with the invitational rhetoric notion of nonviolence act. In the end of the conversations one group proposed quarantine measures while the other proposed airstrike measures, however no unanimous decisions were made but preparation were made to favour both scenarios. This video in my opinion is a perfect example of how invitational rhetoric works.
No comments:
Post a Comment