Quote: "Invitational rhetoric is an invitation to understanding as a means to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination. Invitational rhetoric constitutes an invitation to the audience to enter the rhetor's world and to see it as the rhetor does."
Question: How is this shown by the orator without seeming as though they are trying to persuade their audience and present a dominant claim? Is invitational rhetoric necessitating a sense of passiveness within language?
I think this goes into the entire thought of "invitational rhetoric" as opposed to traditional rhetoric, where it is more open and understanding of their audience. Instead of explicitly telling the reader what to think and how to approach "knowledge and language" as a whole, it's inviting the audience to interpret language through their own experience and is more inclusiveness (and collaborative) in that sense.
ReplyDelete