Transdisciplinary Rhetoric| Prof. Rickert | Paper #3 | April 23, 2020
We’ve surveyed several domains in recent weeks, and this broad view is a notable advantage of transdisciplieary rhetoric. By looking to methodological features of this scholarship we can trace not only the conclusions and arguments these scholars offer, but also how their contexts and perspectives inform transdisciplinary rhetoric. Specifically, I think the emic/etic dichotomy[1] that is centrally important in ethnographic studies provides a valuable frame of reference for understanding research approaches and considering ways in which methodological work in cross-cultural studies might inform scholarly work across disciplines.
Etic approaches emphasize understanding culture and rhetoric from an external point of view. Campbell’s adoption of Kennedy’s comparative rhetoric paradigm to study “verbal practices of African civilizations dating as far back as the eight century BCE” is one of our most illustrative examples of etic scholarship(273). Here, Campbell relies anthropological and archaeological research to arrive at conclusions about these cultures as they compare, in terms of literacy, with Greek and Roman cultures. While Campbell is trying to draw cultural rhetorics into contemporary rhetorical conversation, his etic approach imposes the (il)literacy dichotomy that Kim identifies as “limiting.” It’s true than etic approaches are often limiting sometimes generalize, but they do take on the challenging work expanding the field through greater inclusion. Scott offers another account of etic scholarship by looking to the cultural practice of agriculture in ancient civilizations to develop a history the consolidation of state power, taxation, and controlled labor (including slavery). His work points to the ways in which etic scholarship can adopt the external view not only by looking to different geographies and cultures, but also different periods of time—a expanse that Eliza’s description of ethnos and peoplehood suggests opens additional ways for etic observation and theorization.
Examples of emic approaches were more numerous in our reading. Anderson’s central argument that “public discourse and political philosophy largely neglect the pervasiveness of authoritarian governance in our work and off-hours lives,” and that we should “return our attention to it,” epitomizes a strength of emic analysis (40). By taking something that is familiar and largely unquestioned (in this case, “government” or “corporation”) and representing it using a new frame we notice features that have been present all along, but that were otherwise not considered. Responding to this rhetorical move, Shelton points out that Anderson argument was akin to problematizing Platonic ideals which Rachel compared to Pat’s Teflon terms. I think both of their comparisons are well placed: they point to broad and influential terms that have large usage in our culture(s), but generally pass with little analysis, not unlike Cintron’s identification of “democracy” and it’s related terms as empty topoi. Paradoxically, it’s through these terms like this that “backfire” as described by Nyhan and Reiffler takes hold. Corrections to misinformation actually strengthen misperception (304), perhaps because people with the strongest ideological commitments are most likely to be strongly identified (in the Burkean sense) at the doxastic level (as Rachel points out). For emic scholarship, this suggests that internal view is accessible because of its immediacy, but also questionable because of its susceptibility to cognitive bias.
Some of our readings offered mixed emic/etic perspectives, which some ethnographers argue make for the most holistic and thorough kind of study. As an experienced ethnographer, Ralph Cintron engages rich etic accounts about Kosova and the Dominican Republic and emic accounts about his daily life in Chicago. From these rich and granular interview narratives (often quoting individuals), he ravels back to make broader conceptual claims about the how the terms associated with democracy float unquestioned through “managerial modernity.” In our discussion, Chris echoed Cintron’s etic perspectives of fetishized Western rhetoric in Eastern Europe to which Thomas responded by pointing to Pendergrast’s book on Slovakia. By providing this cultural opening, Cintron’s rhetoric permits related narratives of similar cultures to come forward to triangulate the deeper felt cultural phenomena of grasping for political ideals that turns out to be elusive and ultimately empty. Eubanks study of government data use for distributing social benefits in Indiana is another mixed case. Though to us (readers at school in Indiana) this feels like home, Eubanks is an academic researcher who hasn’t lived or worked in Indiana (based on her CV), so I would suggest that her study of Indiana has etic qualities.
Although I would be cautious about applying the emic/etic dichotomy to all transdisciplinary scholarship, this field lends itself to this internal/external analysis better than most. By its nature of being across, between, and beyond disciplines, transdisciplinary rhetoric moves fluidly between being at home and exploring new places. As I often return to the question of how transdisciplinary rhetoric works and how those approaches can be justified, I see potential in remembering that ethnography is both a method and methodology, and also that there’s a difference between being an ethnographer and doing ethnography. Holding our seminar in digital format over the last several weeks has been hard, but it’s also provided the opportunity for more of our words to appear together in writing. On the first day of class we ended each of our personal introductions with a trite adage for transdisciplinarity. I chose the adage “We’re all in this together,” because it underlines a sense of inclusivity. Of course, I had no way of knowing this would become a ubiquitous PR slogan for the pandemic; only this version is followed with “even when we’re apart.” This, to me, sums up better than anything I’ve encountered, the emic and the etic.
On the first day of this seminar we introduced ourselves, each of us concluding with trite adage relevant to transdisciplinarity. I chose the adage “We’re all in this together,” weeks before we’d come to be separated by pandemic and hears these words in PR campaigns, followed by “even though we’re apart.” It’s been hard, but one advantage of holding seminar digitally is that every word we’ve shared has been in writing and that’s made an opportune moment to include more of our own words in this paper than usual. We might say it’s made raveling a ethnography of our seminar a bit easier.
[1] The emic/etic distinction refers to research views of culture from within the perspective of a culture (emic) or from the outside (etic). Since I encounter these terms I’ve struggled to remember which is which so I’ve relied this mnemonic device: “Emic” includes the letter “m” like “home;” the view from the inside. “Etic” includes the letter “t” as does “outside;” the external scientific view. Hope this helps save some of the repetitive searching I’ve had to do to remember this distinction.