This week in Rhetoric we read chapters three and four of The Central Park Five, discussed vocabulary from Words Like Loaded Pistols, and read chapters three and four of Introduction to Documentary. Chapters three and four of The Central Park Five expanded on the details of the criminal case, including an instructor profile of the victim, a highlighting of racial terminology used by media during the case such as the terms wolfpack and wildin’, information about the forensic evidence gathered at the crime scene, attorney representation/ legal processing, and sentencing. Also included were photographs of the crime scene, newspaper front pages, and key people involved with the case. These photographs were significant as they were the first images provided in the book. From Words like Loaded Pistols, we reviewed keywords under the categories figures of address, argumentation, and logical fallacies. This week’s reading from Bill Nicholas’s Introduction to Documentary covered creating a unique “voice” in the documentary and the elements of documentary that make it persuasive and entertaining.
The introduction of forensic evidence in this week’s reading of The Central Park Five highlighted an area of rhetoric that has been drawing my interest, the distinction between rhetorical and inartistic logic. My understanding of the primary difference between rhetorical and artistic data is that of human interpretation. Rhetorical knowledge focuses more on communicating truth that exists but not yet scientifically certain, while inartistic logic is scientifically certain data, or universal absolutes. For example, the laws of mathematics are considered an inartistic truth while the sociological and psychological observations are rhetorical. The reason this separation of logic is relevant to The Central Park Five, lies in the conclusion that I would suggest is drawn from inartistic data, and that being that inartistic data has a higher probability of being true than rhetorical data. While this conclusion may be true, it potentially leads to people holding true conclusions from inartistic information that is drawn from the inartistic truth rather than being the truth of the inartistic information itself. A good of this in The Central Park Five when reinstating the death penalty is brought into question. The assumption that is made, which juxtaposes American Legal practice, is that the accused are guilty. Conclusions are then made in extension to that false assumption, that the guilty deserve death. It’s an example of if A=B and B=C, then A=C, when the reality is that A does not equal B.
In the future classes of rhetoric, I hope to gain more insight on strategy used in documentary and how methods affect information. Entertainment is essential when creating a documentary as to inform the uninformed properly, their attention must be drawn. However, as feared by Aristotle, certain rhetorical practices can manipulate rather than inform, especially when the audience lacks necessary critical thinking skills. As I engage in rhetoric in and out of the classroom I hope to not only personally utilize rhetorical skills in an ethical way, but garner skills to evaluate the rhetorical influence of those around me.
Nate's Blog 