4.0920 Responses: On War and Rhetoric (3/57)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Tue, 22 Jan 91 17:42:07 EST
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0920. Tuesday, 22 Jan 1991.
(1) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 11:16:12 GMT (33 lines)
From: DEL2@phoenix.cambridge.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [4.0910 On the Discussion of War ]
(2) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 08:03:46 EST (12 lines)
From: Germaine Warkentin <WARKENT@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Rhetoric
(3) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 00:54:32 EST (12 lines)
From: Bernard van't Hul <USERGDME@UMICHUB.BITNET>
Subject: Lakoff's Essay
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 11:16:12 GMT
From: DEL2@phoenix.cambridge.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [4.0910 On the Discussion of War ]
I fully echo Skip Knox' sentiments: contributions on the war are
to be welcomed if they are scholarly and HUMANIST-ic. I take it
that in his last para he was referring to the Lakoff article.
Whatever we may make of that, the saddest thing is that it was
attacked, not for being poor scholarship and by scholarly arguments;
but for being politically biased and by smears. To label it as
"puerile", or to attack it for not being an essay on the wider
historical issues (and in a contribution containing some interesting
metaphors, forsooth!) suggests at the least an inability to
look dispassionately at issues. Sad.
One further factor in the *linguistic* debate, related to the question
of metaphor, seems to be that of naming things. Call someone a
beast, and you remove from yourself the obligation to regard him as
fully human. Ditto "village illiterate" or "thug". A friend commented
to me recently how different the treatment of Catholics by Cromwell had
been on the mainland and in Ireland. Why the difference? The Irish
were "savages". Perhaps the temptation (as old as Adam and as dangerous
as the snake) to control things by attaching labels touches not only
the media men and Government propagandists. Relabelling the
package is surely no substitute for clear counter-arguments at
a comparable level. Caveant Humanistes!
Despite my first para, I appreciated Bob Werman's reports. But
if it's not too much work, could such things not be concatenated
and put on the LISTSERV, so that those who don't like these
dscussions neen't be bothered?
Regards, Douglas de Lacey.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------21----
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 08:03:46 EST
From: Germaine Warkentin <WARKENT@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Rhetoric
Skip Knox says he dislikes "rhetoric". I know what he means, of course,
but must grumble a bit about the misuse of this term. It's a bit like
saying you "dislike" the Wars of the Roses or the sonnet or Euclidean
geometry. Rhetoric is a discipline of study, not a pejorative term.
Though it has to be admitted that within the discipline itself there has
been a long history either of disclaiming rhetoric or attacking it.
Both of which are fully rhetorical strategies, as was Skip's statement.
(Sorry, Skip). Germaine.
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------22----
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 00:54:32 EST
From: Bernard van't Hul <USERGDME@UMICHUB.BITNET>
Subject: Lakoff's Essay
Because I cannot imagine myself into the minds of those for whom such a
conference as *Humanist* is a wrong or even dubious medium for such an
essay as Lakoff's, I have nothing in particular to say to their
misgivings or allegations. One does hope to read further thinking from
the Kessler who does at least refer to the essay -- although indirectly
thus far. Having vented patent contempt for Lakoff's person (along with
poignant envy of both his relative youth and his academic affiliation),
Ms. or Mr. Kessler should now feel free to address the essay itself.