Since the formation and defining of rhetoric, time has always played a
crucial part in its creation. Time was used to define various types of
speeches, such as epideictic speeches and reports, and is even used in
measuring speech patterns. However, Killingsworth states that time in
rhetoric is more than just determining what speech types to use, but
also for determining what arguments to use and when.
Killingsworth mentions kairos and exigence, kairos being the use of the
right argument, and exigence being the idea that topics become urgent at
certain points in time. He says that the use of both is determined by
the audience and speaker making the mutual decision that a certain
moment is the right moment for urgency. I agree with Killingsworth's
idea. Both the speaker and the audience must determine the correct
moment for urgency, otherwise, there would be a failure in discourse. If
the moment is not right, the audience might not find information
important, or the speaker will be giving information already known to
the audience. Without that mutual decision, there is no discourse.
Killingsworth states that news media use the appeal to time to create
value in change. The audience wants to know what is new, thus presenting
"news" with its name and purpose. The news is a 24/7 cycle, with new
material being discovered and released by the seconds. Without the
appeal to time, and what is "new" there is no exchange of information
between the speaker and the audience.
From what I gathered at first reading Killingworth's portion on news and
time, my first thought was that "without time, there is no news". I
believe that in a way that is true. Information is released constantly,
but without an appeal to time, there is no way to determine the old news
from the new news on a wide scale. If there is no appeal to time, there
is no constant need to know what has changed.
Time is a vital component to the rhetorical situation and I agree that it is more than about defining style, and instead should be considered more of a tool in determining the “when” of an argument. It is an idea that is layered and requires a lot of unpacking to truly define all of the elements that time can encompass. But I agree that the relationship between speaker and audience is one of the most important of these factors. In order for an argument to be its most successful and rhetorically effective, what the speaker is saying and what the audience understands must be mutually dependent on the kairos surrounding the argument. I think kairos can be considered an exigence of the argument, and in cases like these, kairos plays a part on when an argument should be presented in order to get the best responsive outcome. It is required for the cultivation of discourse, like you had mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI also think kairos is a theory that I think can be applied to a number of our articles, especially this week in reading Lazere’s piece. I think that Lazere would also agree with Killingsworth's concept of time in the news and how it can shape an argument. In Lazere's piece, the different sections about irony are all dependent on an appropriate use of time. An audience wouldn’t be able to understand or interpret certain references to situational irony, historical irony or verbal irony if they are not presented in ways that appeal to time. There must be a point in which the audience understands the literal meaning of these comments so that the implied or figurative connotation can be interpreted as well. It is in this interpretation that time becomes a value asset. These levels of meaning, as Lazere comments on, are what can root an argument’s success if used effectively. It helps to determine if an argument or element of rhetoric will work or function efficiently. These kinds of devices are time sensitive and must adhere to the kairos to frame the argument.
-Jenn Gaudreau