"Despite any postmodern complications, we just continue to read and write such stories, for if we relinquish our grasp on the world behind words, if we deny the know-ability of the world, we lose that aspect of the world we are committed to knowing."
In Glenns' writing she mentions multiple times that the history of rhetoric hardly contains real truth, and is skewed in various ways unknown to us. If we take this claim as fact, why then is it still so important for mankind to continue reading, studying, and creating rhetoric texts in the present/future? And why is Glenns' concept of angles so important?
Glenns's writing is concerned with a progressive protocol for presenting historical facts. As part of the theory behind her method and purpose, she intends for her audience to be aware of the limitations we currently have and will continue to deal with. As per her own statement we are not impervious to this limitation no matter how thorough we intend our analyses to be, either in theory or praxis. It then would follow that to gain a better, not a complete, understanding of history we ought to base our interpretations of historical events and circumstances from many different sources from diverse backgrounds. This is alluding to the angles that she mentions in her writing. Angles are the tangents, lenses, and biases we all have that are contingent upon how we have come to interact with the world around us.
ReplyDeleteGlenn discusses different angles to refer to different beliefs and narratives that one can have. Various cultures and people have their own beliefs and customs or "angles" as Glenn describes. It is still important to study people and how they are similar and different. It allows the human race to learn and expand. Glenn mentions rhetoric being skewed and she is referring to the fact it is so diverse; it is hard to nail exactly what it is because people define it in so many different ways.
ReplyDelete