A new tool for every task

I like Keith Grant-Davie in equal measure for his dedication to detail and his sheer readability. Coming out of Rhetoric and Composition at this fine institution last year, I was convinced that commentators on rhetoric adhered to some invisible guideline that their writing should either be derisive of the subject or nigh-indecipherable in function. Grant-Davie, refreshingly, seems to belong to a school of thought that encourages both thoughtful and approachable commentary.

You go, Keith Grant-Davie. Four for you, Keith Grant-Davie.

How Keith Grant-Davie Laid Waste to My Inner Descartes

From the perspective of student who wants readings that take less time that dinner needs in the oven, I wish that all we read were the Grant-Davies of rhetoric. From the perspective of a student who wants to build and improve a knowledge base about rhetoric and rhetorical encounters, reading Fish before Grant-Davie (to say nothing of Geisler) makes perfect sense.

If Fish uses his article (and I feel he does) to address the potential problems with rhetoric and the Socratic Method by exaggerating and polarizing both, Grant-Davie brings us back to the world of practical application and examines why rhetoric can be seen as a Power of Evil ™ and how it can be harnessed and used to better understand basic human interaction.

For example:

My time spent as a (secret-alter-ego) TA was one blessedly short-lived semester, wherein I assisted in teaching a section of the MSU Honors College seminar. Early in the semester, we read Descartes ("I think, there for I am") as a class and discuss the ramifications of his theory. In my experience, as a student and a TA, there is always, always, one student who becomes so enamored with the idea of "questioning everything," that discussion for the rest of the semester always comes back to the very existence of the physical world and everything grinds to a standstill. The best remedy, for the sake of class discussion, is to come to an early agreement that some things (such as the existence of sentient life on Earth) are to be accepted as "fact" so that conversation may roll onward.

Fish reminds me, in a distant way, of Descartes, posing necessary questions about the nature of rhetoric and of its opponents, questioning the very tenants of the idea. Grant-Davie, then, proposes the breakdown by which we, as scholars of rhetoric, can agree on some simple terms and continue building and learning. This way, once we have immersed ourselves in the actuality of rhetoric, we can come back to Fish and re-asses his questions. But for the moment, we can safely cross over the handy bridge of Grant-Davie's writing and learn about the function of rhetoric. While mindful of Fish and his theory, we need not be overrun by him.

All this is to say that Grant-Davie takes something as massive and confusing as rhetoric and breaks it down into a basic method of analysis. For me as a student and a rhetor, this both allows me to study the uses of rhetoric as an art and begin to amass an internal definition of rhetoric that I can carry with me into other schools of thought and use to compare against their definitions and theories. 

But…What?

What, as luck would have it, is exactly the word that makes all of the difference for me between Fish and Grant-Davie.

What is the discourse about? Why is it needed? What should it accomplish?

As someone who had been forced encouraged to study rhetoric for a handful of semesters, coming across these lines made all the difference in the week’s reading. I had always personally considered rhetoric to be a study of human communication, much of which is so ordinary as to be almost accidental. But to deliberately decide if a situation requires rhetoric? That implies a level of attention far greater that a simple conversation. These questions and their implications elevated my internal definition of rhetoric from everyday conversation to the study of communication. This questions introduces the stage at which morality and judgment enter rhetorical debate, in choosing whether or not to even enter an argument (see: YouTube comments section) and it demands a level of considerate thought be given to a project.  

In Conclusion

In my personal rhetorical studies, I need Grant-Davie as much as, or possible more than I need Fish. Up until now, my narrow focus has been on the morality of rhetoric and my attempts to build a staunch defense of it have suffered considerably from their basis in theory rather than practice. What Grant-Davie demands, not only with his questions of exigence, but his exploration of the rhetorical process and rhetorical situations as a whole, is the suspension of my reliance on theory until my understanding of practice is at least underway. And that, if nothing else, is the perfect, unsettling, useful way to kick off a new semester.