Robert Shenk

The Ancient Rhetorical Suasoria Versus the Modern Technical Case

In the past few years, several authors have suggested that we reflect on traditional conceptions of rhetoric to see what they can tell us about our own concerns. For instance, the authors whose articles appear in James J. Murphys 1982 MLA anthology, The Rhetorical Tradition and Modem Writing, would agree that a study of our rhetorical tradition can teach us a good deal about the problems of the present, and they make many comparisons between ancient and modern to illustrate what they mean. Comparing rhetorical pedagogies is another promising area of study, although such comparison may at first seem to involve incongruities. Proposing, as this essay does, that there is a fundamental likeness between the modern technical writing case study and the impersonation exercises of classical rhetoric-in which the student plays Zeus excoriating the Sun-God for lending his chariot to Phaethon, or some of Caesars troops arguing whether to commit suicide or not-would initially seem imprudent. On first glance, these two teaching methods seem pretty far apart. However, a detailed comparison of the modern case study with the impersonation and with another ancient exercise called suasoria not only is possible but can point out striking similarities. More important, such a comparison can validate the educational value of the case study, point up its grounding in rhetorical principles, and suggest some broader uses the modern methodology might serve. But before I proceed to a comparison, let me briefly describe each method. A modern case, to use a summary of a case from one of the best modern texts, goes something like this:

Ethos at Sea

A study of writing in the United States Navy indicates the wide usefulness of the rhetorical concept of ethos. Although almost never formally taught, the concept is continually being rediscovered and applied within a wide variety of naval contexts, from naval personnel evaluations to ship- repair reports. But ethos is still too seldom consciously present or habitually applied in the naval profession. And, as the Tailhook episode has recently demonstrated, a lack of such understanding can sometimes have adverse effects on the credibility of the Navy as a whole.

Gender Bias in Naval Fitness Reports? A Case Study on Gender and Rhetorical Credibility.

This article is a case study of a small controversy involving a 1983 government research report on gender biases in naval officer fitness reports. The research at issue indicated that male commanding officers customarily wrote differently in naval fitness reports about women than in fitness reports they wrote about men, and the researchers concluded that the commanding officers needed to change their writing habits. But the objectivity of the researchers was soon challenged. In this survey of the controversy, the writing of several groups—male commanding officers, female naval officers, male newspaper editors, and female personnel researchers—is both illustrated and critiqued. The main focus here is rhetorical credibility in professional communications when gender is the issue at hand.

Ghost-Writing in Professional Communications

Modern professionals commonly write documents to be signed by superiors, but are seldom taught how to do this. If students are successfully to fulfill everyday organizational writing tasks, they must learn to master skills of impersonating viewpoint, style and even personality. To teach such skills, we can adapt the ancient exercise of prosopopoeia or impersonation, either by varying the personas of standard textbook exercises, or by making use of the technical writing case study, or by having students impersonate professionals who were involved in famous (or infamous) current events.