Quote:"Words manipulated at will. As you can see, "difference" is essentially "division" n the understanding of many. It is no more than a tool of self-defense and conquest."
Question: Who have we studied that would agree/disagree with this quote, that words manipulate?
Hey Trish! I believe that Anzaldúa's notion that words can be manipulated at will resonates with most of the rhetorical theorists that we've studied. Most every rhetorical theorists believes that humans can manipulate and choose their own words. The beginning of the quote isn't pointing to the manipulation of people, but the manipulation of words. However, the second part of the quote that positions words as a tool of "self-defense and conquest" and states that language may create division in understanding sounds partially like Plato and partially like Locke. I would say Plato because of his postulation that using rhetoric for conquest is negative, and Locke because he emphasizes the different connotations and denotations that are held of words which impedes on understanding. Hope this helps!
ReplyDeleteGorgias and the Sophists would agree that words manipulate. The whole sophist ideology is based off rhetoric being used to persuade or manipulate the audience. That said Aristotle and many of the other theorists believed that rhetoric is meant to be used to persuade or manipulate as well.
ReplyDeleteI cant help to agree with these statements, from what we read about these theorists, most would say that rhetoric is indeed the art of persuasion, we learn to how to speak better and articulate better in preparation for learning how to get your message across. Aristotles 3 main pillars of speech, logos, pathos and ethos train the speaker to be able to manipulate their outtake on what is being said in order to retain and believe.
ReplyDelete