Discourse, as a term, is defined with great difficulty. Our readings for class today clearly demonstrate that despite there being some “locus” or “kernel” of an idea within “discourse,” the term is open to different interpretations. It can be purely about the modes in which we “abstract” reality into communication, defined by exigencies. Or it is composed of the choices rhetors and audiences make with each other, creating particular discursive spaces that can be (broadly) mapped and categorized (public discourse, private discourse, etc.).
It is important to study discourse because in every definition, there is some agreement that a discourse is/has structure. Particular rules - whether static or changing - generate/guide/influence the choices made in communicative situations. This makes discourse inherently political - acts of communication within loosely defined spaces influence outcomes and decisions. Rhetoric is the study of communication, loosely, in the way that it influences and shapes actions in the practical world. As such, rhetoric and discourse cannot be separated - we are constantly participated in multiple discourses in a daily basis, and this is inherently also rhetorical. In the classroom, we engage in academic discourse. If we engage in journal writing, we engage private modes of discourse. These are rhetorical moves, and understanding our discursive positions and situations only adds to the body of knowledge defined as rhetoric.
Plus, it seems important to study because many rhetoricians have written influential articles about it. ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment