Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Where are we going in this handbasket?
In the article “Rhetorics Fast and Slow”, by Lester Faigley, I just kind of felt like saying, “get over it”. “Fast has overwhelmed slow” and “speed brings risks” Faigley says on page 7 when discussing what he calls fast (internet, cell phone) and slow (dialog, books) rhetorics. He condemns fast rhetorics as a “manifestation of a culture that suffers from attention deficit disorder” (pg. 9) and cites courses of study one of the remaining places where slow rhetoric can still be learned and practiced. Personally, I’d like to let Faigley know that like it or not, rhetoric is moving the way of our culture and society in general. Either schools can adapt to the changes and include some fast rhetoric, or students will find it increasingly difficult to relate to their schoolwork. Know that I am not saying “aol instant messager” or text messages should replace talking in person or that wikipedia should take the role of text books. However, technologies should be incorporated into what students learn. I agree with the discussion we had in class about teaching students why wikipedia is not an acceptable source for college papers. Yet, teaching reasons why wikipedia is not to be used and what constitutes a credible source would do hundreds of times more good than producing a letter condemning any student who uses wikipedia; which is exactly what gets under my skin about “Rhetorics Fast and Slow”. The language surrounding fast and slow rhetorics lifts slow rhetoric to godliness (it helped to end slavery, is “the means for which dreams to be articulated”) while fast rhetoric becomes risky, “going faster and faster leads to more accidents”, and is compared to disease, famine, and natural disaster of past times. Really? If fast rhetoric should be put into the “disease, famine, and natural disaster” category of things to worry about I think the whole world is going to crash and burn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I like your comment about how Faigley raises slow rhetoric up to godliness. Especially given that it's a term that he defined himself in that paper, it seems a little ridiculous to make such lofty claims about its worth. I think it would be quite difficult to prove empirically the good of slow rhetoric over fast rhetoric.
Where you say that AIM or texting shouldn't replace talking in person, I agree. But do you think there is a way these could be useful in a scholarly setting?
In response to Randi:
I do think that there are educational opportunities for AIM. When children first are learning to read, teachers often incorporate “library day/time” and encourage parents to read to their children anything that may peak interest: sports magazines, newspapers, books. The idea is that exposing children to reading that interests them will increase the time spent reading and that through exposure, they will become more literate. The same concept is used to increase writing ability. Students are often asked to keep journals and write about anything. If computer literacy and typing are to be considered part of new literature or English curriculum, AIM could be used in much the same sense.
Post a Comment