My Journey at Georgia State University
As an undergraduate at Georgia State University, I found an interest the major of English. After a conversation with my adviser, I decided I wanted to strengthen my composition abilities and my ability to persuade my audiences. The English major, concentration of Rhetoric and Composition, allowed me complete both of these tasks. In attending several rhetoric courses and completing various assignments, I encountered tasks that challenged my ability to reason and helped me become the writer I am today. These critiques helped me improve in broadening my rhetorical viewpoints and also adapting to different audiences. Rhetoric and Composition opened my eyes to an entirely new way of thinking. Throughout my critical reflective essay, I aim to highlight the theories and assignments that have heightened my ability to use rhetoric various situations.
My definition of rhetoric is manipulating context to further explain its original message, or persuade others to believe in an idea. There are several assignments that have attributed to my definition of rhetoric.
One of my most inspiring readings in this concentration came from a class I have recently taken called “Visual Rhetoric”. The article I read is by a theorist named Foss, who goes into deep detail about how we analyze the rhetoric in images. Foss’s viewpoints help the reader understand how images have multiple perspectives based on the perception of the viewer. Foss supports this theory by including views from other theorists such as John H. Patton. Patton suggests, “A redefinition to rhetoric to include nonlinguistic symbols represented a kind of rhetorical dislocation and a break from clear connections with a central theoretical core”. Patton suggests that separating images and a central meaning confuses audiences that have no prior knowledge the content. Understanding that rhetoric is used as a major persuasive tool to help an audience, literary or artistic piece in a way that supports the author’s theoretical goals is key to persuading an audience. However, as rhetoricians, there comes a time when we must establish rules to rhetoric. Many beliefs are based on social and cultural contexts surrounding situations. In order for an outside audience to understand, Patton argues there must be a basis of understanding. This does not limit our understanding but it gives theorists studying the same content equal grounds for understanding. Foss’s perspective helped me to strengthen my future articles. In developing my own rhetorical content, I added this idea of centrality to make my writing in rhetoric more effective. In order to do that, I started to analyze prompts in order to form my own opinion. After developing a unique opinion, I establish it in the paper with my thesis statement. This gives my audience a unique idea to focus on.
After focusing on one idea, start to add supporting details from other theorists to make one universal idea. In addition to a main idea, I have to use Dissoi Logoi(Devil’s Advocate)in my own work. Having one original idea helps the focus of my paper. However, I started to add different literary perspectives to add others ideas. Foss’s theory helped me to understand that not only focusing on one central idea is helpful in developing a paper, but adding contrasting ideas to these points helps further the central idea. Those who believe in an idea outside of the central idea give way to beneficial research. Without varying perspectives, theorists would never grow in their respected fields because they are always right. Our ideas grow and thrive through focus and intellectual debate. The main principle I learned from this experience is that rhetoric does take the focus of an idea to make a compelling case, but a case with no contrast has no room for growth.
Dissoi Logoi is defined as criticizing your own work in order to develop your initial idea into a stronger one. This process required me to think critically about the essentials needed to make my argument valid in all spectrums. In the sector of intellectual debate, rhetoricians have to think outside of the box. They must think critically about the steps they choose in providing a thorough explanation of their theories. My definition of critical thinking is having the ability to discern the validity and value of information to determine its concurrence or opposition to an argument. Thinking critically requires comprehension and an understanding of a certain text. After understanding, you must apply the theories and ideas in the text to your own writing. From there, you use this application to rhetorically analyze the world around us and understand why we think the way we do. This process of thinking critically enhances the writing process by applying validity and value to our arguments.
For example, once I had to do a project for English 3110, Technical Writing. This project was heavily influenced by “Gap Minder”, a site that promotes visual clarity of how we can end poverty in the world around us. This site provides trends such as “Human Development Index” or “Sanitation” in different parts of the world that affect impoverished areas. In completing this assignment, I had to think critically when searching for the anomalies in the graphs comparing the two categories: HDI and Sanitation. On the graph in Gap minder, the Congo’s Human Development Index decreased from 1990 to 2000. Sanitation was adequate but there were was another source for the decline in HDI. The reason for this decline was the Rwandan genocide that depleted the Congo’s population and their human development index from 1990 until 2000.
Every formula has its loopholes. When doing research, we must think critically and account for anomalies that may affect our calculations. Questioning disruptions in data is very important in rhetorical analysis. Without my additional research on the project, there would have been a plethora of missed ideas. Many theories originate from rhetoricians who wanted to know more about the situation and how it was affected by its social and cultural contexts. It is necessary to think critically about ideas that don’t fit with the common pattern of our research. If not, we miss out on valuable opportunities to develop ideas that strengthen past and present research.
Thinking critically and focusing on central ideas helped my writing grow exponentially. In addition to these factors, I added another valuable tool to advance my growth in advanced rhetoric and composition. In the fall semester of 2017, I encountered Dr. Holmes’ Senior Seminar class where we had the pleasure of completing the Rhetorical Revision Project. The goal of the project was to provide a revision that went beyond the “lexical level” (vocabulary and language). I chose to revise a piece from my business class where I was instructed to submit a resume and cover letter for a job position. The original resume was bland so I changed the proximity, color, and fonts of the document. This change helped the employer separate my credentials and easily understand my previous experience. It also helped the employer realize my attention to detail in having equal margins and font sizing. This shows a sense of consistency that can be applied to other jobs in the workplace.
In completing the Rhetorical Revision Project, I learned that rhetoric goes beyond words and beyond images. Being effective in rhetoric can be contributed to detail and consistency. Every rhetorician writes to get their point across to an audience. We want our readers to take our work as serious as we do. In order for that to happen, we must pay attention to the small details that may deter the reader from the main ideas. Also, we must be willing to revise our own work. When I first completed the business project, I looked at for grammar and proper linguistics. The Rhetorical Revision Project taught me to look beyond the words. Clarity in our rhetorical pieces depends on the amount of work we put into revising the details for consistency and fluency. In order for rhetoric to be effective, it must be clear to the reader.
Throughout my collegiate career, I learned to take advantage of all of my resources. From the Rhetorical Revision Project to the Gap Minder assignment, the main idea I learned is that rhetoric is never a two way street. We must think critically in order to fully explain and develop our ideas into ones that can be used in present and future generations. Rhetoric is a continuous process that only stops when we stop critiquing ourselves for clarity. In conclusion, I learned that ideas are never wrong, but they can be underdeveloped. Through perseverance and diligence, my rhetorical analysis has and will become stronger in all of my writing. This degree in Advanced Rhetoric and Composition will be very significant in my future endeavors to explain perspectives to the world.