Blog post #4 - Dan

“deconstruction champions writing as a trope that more accurately

 describes how we use language and how language uses us; moreover, it

 collapses reading into this equation by arguing that writing is reading is

 writing” 

This article discusses the biases and natural reactions that we have to speakers or writers and how that effects our interpretation and reactions to their rhetoric. The effective performance of listening rhetoric consists of listening for understanding of the speaker’s logical devices, positions of commonality and differences, listening out of responsibility to grant the speaker their opportunity for expression, and full contextualization of their sentiments. Put into plain speech, the author is very conscious not to gaslight any individual and wants people to exchange rhetoric in a way that encourages full explanations and speaking to understand and to reach greater consensus rather than for victory in verbal battles. As a practitioner of listening rhetoric, the actor should not expect to have made their own argumentation nor the discourse necessarily better nor any points more valid. The practice of listening rhetoric should come as a cultural expectation of good rhetorical theory and practice, but not as a means to validate one’s own rhetoric. Practicing listening rhetoric is not a means to increase the validity or potency of one’s own rhetoric, rather a practice to grant both sides of the argument the capacity to fully present their views without undue hinderance. 

         To Burke, rhetoric is made by its seamless transitions of identification and divisions. Being same and different gives substantiality and consubstantiality to speakers’s language and articulation. What is not clear to me is in practice, is Burkean rhetoric a lens to examine outside rhetors or is there a pragmatic efficacy that Burke intended for his readers to put into practice? To the former, the practice of listening rhetoric makes for an appropriate practice to assist in interpreting identification and division in someone else’s rhetoric. It facilitates understanding and thorough discourse, however as a discursive practice, it does not help one form their own analysis nor structure an argument.