When I started reading Mishra and Wolf,
I definitely went into it thinking of homo rhetorica and homo
seriosa, from Fish at the
beginning of the semester. Documenting with computers and science can
only mean completely objective, rational appeals, right? Well,
apparently we still can't create something without subjecting it
through the experience of a human – in other words, we can't create
a realistic but fictional alien because we are not aliens so we don't
know how to express what they would be like or how they would think
outside of our human state (Human Aliens - here's an interesting link that talks more about this issue with examples from tv).
Thus,
mapping out scientific research with computers as well as even typing
this out on the screen is all extremely rhetorical! Because we have
crafted the very means for which it will be displayed – and since
humans (as some theorists believe) cannot escape rhetoric, then our
machines and our devices never will either.
Same
goes for the image. Who would have thought that designating colors
for specific functions for, say, an illustration of the human body
and how it works would be rhetorical? The ideas of perception are
fundamental for this, and made me question: do we actually even see
things for what they are, or do we see them rhetorically? Do we see
only their function, or can we see them completely objectively as
mere reflections of light? After a little rereading of this
paragraph: we could even question the terms “see things for what
they are” because perhaps their definition and their perception to
us is only function. Everything immediately becomes an object of
rhetoric.
We can
also think of perception and the idea of misconception that Mishra
poses in the sense of literacy. A student must be somewhat “literate”
in the reading of illustrations in order to see what is emphasized,
what is downplayed, or even what may be missing or added from the
picture.
But
misconception goes farther than that – even to the little details
of color and size – because we are emotionally inclined to react in
a specific way to certain stimulants, like how juries will see
pictures in black and white rather than in color because the color of
red flesh or blood can influence them greatly (Mishra or Wolf). By
making the thing look different than what it actually is – by
removing the hue from it – the jury then is able to perceive the
picture in a different manner, “more objective,” because we have
ultimately downplayed the color/emotion and have allowed the audience
to see not reality but an acceptable version of it. But that's the
thing that Wolf is trying to express – the image is NOT reality -
it is a mere representation that we have manipulated in order to
simply and express a certain argument, or to create a sense that
there is no argument or bias there.
So at
the end of it, scientists have no way to be completely objective, so
there is no homo seriosa,
but only homo rhetorica.
But – perhaps there is a reason behind trying to eliminate the idea
of rhetoric, such as is the case for robotics and 3D imaging. While it is very
possible to create a robot that moves, responds, and looks just like
a human, when we actually perceive that robot, we become literally
freaked out by it – but if we can still distinguish that it is not
human, and we can have an understanding to how it works, then we
accept it, and actually grow to like it more because it is not
“human.” This hypothesis has been called "the uncanny valley."
And now that I've included a scientific illustration we've come full circle. Does the uncanny valley look like a mustache to you? |
By deliberately marking our illustrations and our
research as biased (reviewing the limitations and the variables to research), then viewers have more reason to
understand it and not be afraid or wary of it claiming to be
perfectly objective.
I was also extremely interested in the idea of reality in terms of pictures, but I am fascinated by your idea of "everything becoming an object of rhetoric." I feel as though if every image, or anything that crosses through the senses is an object of rhetoric, what stops it from being rhetoric itself? Rather than having social constructions, perhaps we are made up of rhetoric. It is harder to think of an abstract such as rhetoric as all encompassing in that way, and I feel as though Fish's binary men would have a problem, both being made up of rhetoric, but often the realities in which we live in are made up of words. Many critical theorists have examined the nature of linguistics as making up society, yet in a digital rhetoric class we start to notice how images, and other senses make up society as well. This goes back to our first class where we defined what writing was, is it linguistically comprised? Or is it now made up of "all the objects of everything?" And does that then beg the question: what isn't writing?
ReplyDeleteWow, this was cool to read. I concur that rhetoric seeps into everything; and isn't that a little bit scary? However, on the other hand it's interesting to be arriving at that conclusion because suddenly our field of study seems so much more worthwhile. I mean, I frequently entertain doubts about being an "English Major" but when you learn about the nature and prevalence of rhetoric that gives some strong ground to choosing to devote time to learning about rhetorical theory. So thank you for the edification.
ReplyDeleteAlso yes, it does look like a mustache.
There's a certain poetry in the idea that "removing the hue from things" as you so nicely put it can make them seem more objective. But that was the sticking point for me (or one of them) with these articles, and something Kayt addressed really admirably in her blog post: what is objectivity and what are the ways that we, as human, sabotage the objective. I felt awfully tongue in cheek talking about Horatio Cane in my blog post this week, but even shows like NCIS or CSI obscure the objective (although they seem to accomplish that by super-saturating, rather than removing the hue).
ReplyDelete