What
rhetoric do you remember being employed during and in the aftermath of 9/11?
Perhaps make connections to rhetors we've been reading.
At the heart of classical rhetoric is the notion of truth. Is truth transcendent? Is it rational and objective? Is it knowable? Is it socially constructed? Plato felt that there was an objective and
absolute truth but that truth was unknowable.
The Sophists took more fluid approach to the notion of truth. Plato feared the Sophists
would/could use their artful rhetorical skills to manipulate audiences and
convince them of untrue or unknowable ideas.
While we
have more modern rhetorical theories from which to draw, classical rhetoric has
much to offer in contemplating the rhetorical messages disseminated in the wake
of 9/11, particularly as they relate to the notion of truth. Certainly something “absolute” and “knowable”
occurred as evidenced by the 2,996 lives lost, fallen World Trade Center
towers, destroyed planes, damage to the Pentagon, and other indisputable
effects of the events.
However, the rhetoric that followed called into question every
facet of how we interpret those “truths.”
For example, 9/11 “truthers,” led by Alex Jones from his InfoWars blog (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/where_did_911_conspiracies_come_from.html) believe that the US government orchestrated the attacks. Using sophisticated rhetorical strategies
that appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos, “truthers” have promulgated theories
that question the collapse of WTC 7 (http://www.infowars.com/new-911-footage-reveals-wtc-7-explosions/ or http://www.ae911truth.org/).
Using eye witness accounts, experts, and comparisons to similar-appearing
building demolitions, the "truthers" assert that the building was in fact imploded
by pre-planted explosives instead of collapsing as a result of the damage
caused by the planes’ impacts. While
these theories have been debunked, they still hold sway with a relatively large
portion of the American population (One poll indicates that one in three
Americans think it was an “inside job” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/9-11-conspiracy-theories-wont-stop/.)
Is this the rhetoric that Plato feared? An absolute truth that exists, but may not be
fully knowable, and is certainly difficult to communicate, which therefore
provides fertile ground for speakers’ to use their rhetorical skill to manipulate
the audience to believing their particular version of “truth?”
Whether one believes that 9/11 is the product of a US government
conspiracy to justify an Iraq invasion or the result of a long-term Al Qaeda operation
as part of their declared war on the US, both the event and the rhetorical
messages describing it have had a potent aftermath.
I have changed the link on our class site to your actual blog URL, thanks.
ReplyDeleteNice point--at the heart of classical rhetoric is searching for truth, and if truth exists. Rhetoricians touch upon this point throughout history, too, but in different ways. Is truth possible through language, for instance. Mostly, though, there is an acceptance that truth is relative, and that all is situation. I get sick reading about "truthers." It makes me think about people who deny the holocaust existed, on a much greater scale. Yes, Plato feared this sort of false rhetoric, of rhetoric for personal gain rather than focusing on the truth. Nice connection, although unfortunate realization.
Casey, you choose a great collection of rhetoric to explore. I occasionally look at Alex Jones web site and am always amazed at the lengths the site goes to. They seem to find conspiracy in every event. I think this is the manifestation of Plato's nightmares. They focus on events where it is almost impossible to say precisely what happened. They even use that very difficulty as evidence of the conspiracy.
ReplyDelete