“What is rhetoric?”  This is a question with many answers and was the first question we were asked in class. To me, the answer was as simple as persuasion. That’s it, one word. What I did not realize was that this class was going to be the opportunity to explore the question further. I asked myself questions like, how did rhetoric come to be, how has it evolved, and what are the theories regarding it? The most fascinating answer to this question came from the time of the ancient Greece between the Sophists and Plato. Both agreed rhetoric existed, but they disagreed on several of the key components of rhetoric itself and who should be able to practice it.  

The first and most significant question to me was who should be able to practice rhetoric. Not only as this question interesting in general but it is something that is directly involved with the abilities I have today. This was one of the main things that the two key groups I am focusing on, the Sophists and Plato (Philosophers) were divided on.   

The sophists were a group of nomadic teachers who traveled to new cultures with the intention of teaching those who could pay about rhetoric and how to practice it effectively. The philosophers, in works such as Gorgias, initially denied that rhetoric was even in art. Later in Phaedrus they agreed it was an art but only when practiced by Philosophers. What men such as Plato feared was that the sophists were giving the public much more than the ability to be eloquent. They feared that by giving them this new-found skill people would be able to persuade others for selfish reasons.  

The philosophers main concern was that people would be using this new found “power” in a negative way. They believed that they would do this by preaching beliefs that they held in order to fulfill their own agendas. The danger comes when they do this without educating themselves properly. This belief stemmed heavily from their belief in the “Big T” truth and the “Little t” truth.  “Big T” truth refers to the ultimate divine truth of the gods. This was the support to the Philosophers used when debating whether the skill of rhetoric should become public. They believed that because they were philosophers they were the only ones who possessed this special connection, thus making them the only ones who had the knowledge to actually speak publicly.  

“Little t” truth refers to a universal and relative truth that is ever changing. The sophists did not believe in one entity having the power of “every seeing knowledge” because of their relationships with various cultures. Because they had seen so many different cultures interact they had seen many different beliefs actually, play out.  Now that it has been made clear what these divisions wear, I am going to focus on the significance they played in where we are today.  

Imagine a world where the only people who were taught rhetorical techniques (or even know what rhetoric was) were our religious leaders and our own modern-day equivalents of philosophers. I.e. politicians. That would put “common” people, such as myself and those currently sitting around me, at a great disadvantage in our influence that we have in our lives and the world around us.  This is what would have happened had  

Next Paragraph: Ways we went about learning, understanding and practicing this knowledge  

“What is rhetoric?” is a question with many answers and the first question we were asked in class. To me the answer was as simple as persuasion. That’s it, one word. What I did not realize was that this was the opportunity to explore the question further. I asked myself questions like, how did rhetoric come to be, how has it evolved, and what are the theories regarding it? The most fascinating answer to this question came from the time of the ancient Greece between the sophists and Plato. Both agreed rhetoric was a thing, but they differed on several key components.  

The first and most significant question to me was who should be able to practice rhetoric. Not only as this question interesting in general but it is something that is directly involved with the abilities I have today. This was one of the main things that the two key groups I am focusing on, the Sophists and Plato (Philosophers) were divided on.  

The sophists were a group of nomadic teachers who traveled to new cultures with the intention of teaching those who could pay about rhetoric and how to practice it effectively. The philosophers, in works such as Gorgias, initially denied that rhetoric was even in art. Later in Phaedrus they agreed it was an art but only when practiced by Philosophers. What men such as Plato feared was that the sophists were giving the public much more than the ability to be eloquent. They feared that by giving them this new-found skill people would be able to persuade others for selfish reasons. 

The philosophers were worried that people would be using this power in a negative way and preach uneducated beliefs to fulfill their own agendas.  This belief stemmed heavily from their belief in the “Big T” truth and the “Little t” truth.  “Big T” truth refers to the ultimate divine truth of the gods. This was the support to the Philosophers used when debating whether the skill of rhetoric should become public. They believed that because they were philosophers they were the only ones who possessed this special connection, thus making them the only ones who had the knowledge to actually speak publicly. 

“Little t” truth refers to a universal and relative truth that is ever changing. The sophists did not believe in one entity having the power of “every seeing knowledge” because of their relationships with various cultures. Because they had seen so many different cultures interact they had seen many different beliefs actually, play out.  Now that it has been made clear what these divisions wear, I am going to focus on the significance they played in where we are today. 

Next paragraph: Why I feel it affects me 

Next Paragraph: Ways we went about learning, understanding and practicing this knowledge 

Every night as a young child my parents would send me up to bed at 8:30 where I would eagerly await the sound of their footsteps approaching my room. Once they were finally upstairs I was allowed to pick out two books for them to read to me that night. For as long as I can remember this was a routine that took place every night. As children we are eager for story time for the sole reason that we are able to hear entertaining stories involving beautiful princesses, scary robots, or silly talking animals. You may be wondering what significance my childhood story holds to our current assignment.  The answer is this. What appeared to me to just be “just story time,” 16 years ago was in fact much, much more. With this realization I have begun to appreciate the work that children’s story author put forth. I have also realized the significance these stories play in the development of young children.  

What I believed was just story time was actually the beginning of an 18-year long process of instilling my parent’s (and society’s) morals and values into me. This was done in the hopes of making me a beneficial member of society. This process begins when we are infants, with things such as Baby Einstein, and leads well into our scholastic years. In this essay I will be analyzing two stories and their moral lessons. Furthermore, I will evaluate how the technique of the stories have been adapted to appeal to the audiences of various generations and whether or not I believe that this change is something that should be considered a “good” thing. I believe that parents should take what many would dub as the “old school” approach and use the older version of stories for reasons I will discuss below.  

One of the two books I consistently chose as a child was The Hare and The Tortoise, an Aesop Fable. This story is believed to have been written by Aesop, a Greek story teller, between the years of 620 and 564 BC. The Hare and the Tortoise is a short story about a race that takes place between a Hare and a Tortoise, two obviously opposite creatures when it comes to their natural abilities. Turtles are notorious for being extremely slow whereas hares are known for their speed and quick agility. The Hare was a cocky creature who constantly boasted about his speed and ability to beat all creatures in speed focused competition. The Hare, having  beaten all of his previous competitors began asking if anyone was brave enough to challenge him. The Tortoise, seeing an opportunity to teach the Hare a lesson, humbly accepted his challenge. “That is a good joke,” said the Hare; “I could dance round you all the way.”
(Aesop) The Hare, being so sure of his victory takes a nap and meanders around until he realizes that the Tortoise near the finish line. Unable to catch up with the Tortoise the Hare learns a lesson in both humility and patience.  (Aesop) 

It was not until I was older that I realized the true meaning of this story. This same story that millions of other children over hundreds of years have also heard and taught them the same life lesson. This is something that connects not only all citizens of our country, but is a shared moral belief across the world. While the message has not changed the method of delivering it to the children has. In Diane Sekers “The Market Child and Branded Fiction: A Synergism of Children’s Literature” she discusses how our Market has changed the way children relate and interpret stories, thus forcing publication houses to adapt the way they market and design their books.  “Publishers and marketers also want children to be consumers as well as readers. ” (Sekers) 

For instance, when The Hare and The Tortoise was originally created it was nothing but some lines of text that children would use to fuel their imaginations. Each Tortoise and each Hare was a different color or size or even shape within the young child’s mind. They did not have dolls, cartoons, or comic book versions of the story that painted the picture for them.(Sekers)  Every story is interpreted however it is “Branded.” (Sekers) This supports my claim that while the moral of stories has stayed the same, our method of rhetoric has evolved, and some would say not necessarily for the best. One small example of the evolution had been seen in the second story I will be analyzing. 

The second story I have chosen is titled, I’ll wait, Mr. Panda. This story is about a panda and a few of his friends including a llama, a alpaca, some rabbits, and finally the penguin.(Antony) The Panda was baking a surprise when each individual animal came up and asked the Panda what he was making. Each time the Panda answered “Wait and see it’s a surprise.” To what the animals would rudely reply that they will not wait and march away.(Antony)  It was not until the end when the Penguin was kind and patient with the Panda that he was rewarded with friendship and a giant doughnut. (Antony) While the moral of these stories is the same, the execution was not. The first story was a mere nine lines with no images. It left much to the imagination and the child’s interpretation. These were the kind of stories that as Seker said “children dressed up as the characters and acted how they imagined the characters would.” I’ll wait, Mr. Panda leaves nothing to the imagination. Each page consists of approximately four to seven words and large pictures that cover both pages.  The image that the market wants to portray in the dominant aspect of the entire book. Not to mention that there are various I’ll wait, Mr. Panda toys and classroom crafts. 

Children’s books have always been and will continue to be a driving force in the education of children. They offer not only the benefit of learning and developing language, but in this case, they offer life lessons on how to interact with other people in order to be successful in life. I find it comforting that the morals of the stories have remained the same despite the modernization and elimination of the use of children’s imaginations. In some ways I believe that the market’s agenda could be perceived as a good thing. All of these various forces help captivate the children to a new degree. What it does not help improve is our children’s desire to go outside side and play, or use their imaginations to make the story whatever they want it to be, typically creating a strong personal connection between them and the story. The focus of the publishers and authors should remain the education of the students as opposed to turning them into consumers. 

Works Cited 

Aesop. “The Hare and the Tortoise – An Aesop’s Fable.” The Hare and the Tortoise an Aesop’s Fable, www.taleswithmorals.com/aesop-fable-the-hare-and-the-tortoise.htm. 

Antony, Steve. I’ll Wait, Mr. Panda. Scholastic Press, 2016.

Sekers, Diana Carver. The Market Child and Branded Fiction: A Synergism of Children’s Literature, Consumer Culture, and New Literacies. Wiley on Behalf of the International Literacy Association, 21 Sept. 2017, 

Every night as a young child my parents would send me up to my room at 8:30 where I would eagerly await the sound of their footsteps coming up the stairs. Once they were upstairs I would get to pick out two books that they were going to read to me that night. This wasn’t a routine that I was forced to do, it was something that was incorporated into my life that I found joy in. You may be wondering what significance this story holds to our current assignment.  The answer is simple. What appeared to be “just story time,” was much more. 

Every night as I got excited to hear a story was actually the beginning of an 18-year process of instilling theirs (and society’s) moral values into me with the hope of making me a beneficial member of society. This process begins with infants and leads well into our scholastic years. In this essay I will be analyzing two stories and their moral lessons. Furthermore, I will evaluate how the *technique* of the stories have been adapted to the audiences of various generations and whether or not this is a good thing for both our generation and those proceeding us.  

One of the two books I consistently chose as a child during story time was “The Hare and The Tortoise,” an Aesop Fable. This story is believed to have been written by Aesop, who was a story teller in Greece between the years of 620 and 564 BC. The Hare and the Tortoise is a short story about a race that takes place between a Hare and a Tortoise, two seemingly opposite creatures when it comes to natural ability. Turtles are notorious for being extremely slow whereas rabbits are known for their quick ability to hop away. The Hare was a cocky creature who constantly boasted about his speed and ability to beat all creatures in every speed competition. The Tortoise humbly accepted his challenge and thus began the race. The Tortoise, being so sure of his victory takes a nap and meanders around until he realizes that the Tortoise near the finish line. Unable to catch up with the Tortoise the Hare learns a lesson in both humility and patience.  

It was not until I was older that I realized the true meaning of this story. The same story that millions of other children have also heard and taught them the same life lesson. This is a connection amongst all citizens of our nation, a shared moral belief and expectation of what behavior is acceptable. While the message has not changed the method of delivering it to the children has. In Diane Sekers “The Market Child and Branded Fiction: A Synergism of Children’s Literature” she discusses how our Market has changed the way children relate and interpret stories. 

For instance, when The Hare and The Tortoise was originally created it was nothing but some lines of text that children would use to fuel their imaginations. Each Tortoise and each Hare was a different color or size or even shape within the young child’s mind. They did not have dolls, cartoons, or comic book versions of the story that painted the picture for them.(Sekers)  Every story is interpreted however it is “Branded.” (Sekers) This supports my claim that while the moral of stories has stayed the same, our method of rhetoric has evolved, and some would say not necessarily for the best. One small example of the evolution had been seen in the second story I will be analyzing. 

The second story I have chosen is titled, I’ll wait, Mr. Panda. This story is about a panda and a few of his friends including a llama, a alpaca, some rabbits, and finally the penguin. The Panda was baking a surprise when each individual animal came up and asked the Panda what he was making. Each time the Panda answered “Wait and see it’s a surprise.” To what the animals would rudely reply that they will not wait and march away. It was not until the end when the Penguin was kind and patient with the Panda that he was rewarded with friendship and a giant doughnut. While the moral of these stories is the same, the execution was not. The first story was a mere nine lines with no images. It left much to the imagination and the child’s interpretation. These were the kind of stories that as Seker said “children dressed up as the characters and acted how they imagined the characters would.” I’ll wait, Mr. Panda leaves nothing to the imagination. Each page consists of approximately four to seven words and large pictures that cover both pages.  The image that the market wants to portray in the dominant aspect of the entire book. Not to mention that there are various I’ll wait, Mr. Panda toys and classroom crafts. 

Children’s books have always been and will continue to be a driving force in the education of children. They offer not only the benefit of learning and developing language, but in this case, they offer life lessons on how to interact with other people in order to be successful in life. I find it comforting that the morals of the stories have remained the same despite the modernization and elimination of the use of children’s imaginations. In some ways I believe that they market’s agenda could be perceived as a good thing. All of these various forces help captivate the children to a new degree. What it does not help improve is our children’s desire to go outside side and play, or use their imaginations to make the story whatever they want it to be, typically creating a strong personal connection between them and the story.  

My topic for this paper consists of two interchanging ideas that develop as children and are essential as adults. The first thing I am addressing is the importance of loyalty regardless of any and all challenging situations. The second topic I will be addressing is treating others how you would like to be treated. The reason I felt it was best to discuss both of these topics at once was that I believe that one plays a significant part in the significance of the other. If we are loyal to someone we expect the same in return, and it is important not to take one person’s kindness for granted. It should be an endless circle of the right and kind behavior.   

My audience will be children between the ages of 5 and 15 (With a potential sub audience but I would like to discuss this with Mrs. Mcdonald.) The overall occasion of this paper is a Research Informed essay where we address behaviors, beliefs, and values that a group of people have using various examples in rhetoric.  The specific occasion is to teach young children about the importance of being a good friend and citizen.  The message I am trying to get across to the audience is that loyalty and “the gold rule” are two of the most important things in the all relationships. The first source I have below is the children’s story “The Bear and the Two Friends” which is used to teach about loyalty. The second is a children’s book on friendship and how to make it successful, while the final (The Golden Rule according to the Berenstain Bears) is a short story on treating others how you want to be treated. 

Three sources  

http://www.moralstories.org/the-bear-and-the-two-friends/ 

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=OxtEBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en 

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=pf7BKyjMI40C&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en 

Regardless of what many people believe, the study of Rhetoric is not a new concept. Because of this nearly every rhetorician will give you a different definitions. While every rhetorician may have the same general concept in mind, they will explain their thoughts using different focal terms. These focuses could be on the vernacular, theories, civic focuses , or even something as simple as writing.  During our class brainstorming exercise the two terms I believe encompass rhetoric are “persuasion” and “discourse”.

The goal of every speaker and writer is to persuade their audience into believing what they are telling them. If this does not successfully take place then all of the effort put forth by the writer becomes irrelevant. The techniques and verbiage used to successfully persuade an audience has to be adapted to the specific group and goal that the rhetor is addressing.

This adaptation relies heavily on the specific discourse that the rhetor is focusing on. For example, political discourse is portrayed in nearly every propaganda ad and speech given by any candidate that we watch. The way in which the politician expresses his ideas and beliefs to us is entirely different than the way a teacher would address a classroom full of students, or a pastor would address the members of their congregation.

There are even smaller discourses within the larger ones. I once analyzed a speech given by a politician where his focuses was a group of students who supported his competitor. Shockingly his goal was not to persuade them to support his cause, but to persuade them of their worth. My point being, even within a larger discourse (political) a rhetor has to adjust their approach. This is what give rhetoric its significance and power.

Prior to “Biology of Gender” I always viewed the world as having two “genders” or what I believed to be gender. In my mind there were men and there were women. I was taught to believe that these roles were defined by the sexual genitalia the individual was born with.  Not only was I not using the term “gender” correctly, but it is a much more complicated concept than I could have ever anticipated.  Beginning with artifact 1 my entire perspective on humans identities began to change.

In artifact 1 we were asked to distinguish the difference between sex and gender. As stated above, my prior belief of gender was incorrect, gender does not refer to the biology of the individual. Gender refers to how a person psychologically identifies themselves.Our idea of gender is believed to be a social construct. This was explained to us at the very beginning of       BI-218 using a “gender bread man.” This chart gave students the oppurtunity to distinguish how they felt sexually, emotionally, and companionship wise. The significant part is, that not all the answers on the “gender break man” had to align to either specific “gender” that society has created.

What I believed to be “gender” was in fact the sex of the individual. “Sex” is the scientific term used in reference to the physically parts someone is born with. This is where the terms man and woman fits most properly, not coinciding the word gender. The focus of this artifact was to teach us and our readers that someone’s identity goes much deeper than their physical makeup. A fact that I found this extremely insightful. I furthered my research into this gender phenomena in my second artifact on the Fa’afaine of the Samoan culture.

Gender equality and rights has been a hot topic in recent United States news . Recent acts such as passing equal marriage laws has brought some peace to those who are treated like they do not fit into culture “norms.” Members of the LGBTQ community in the United states still have a ways to go in society but thankfully large strides have been made. We can see these positive strides in other areas of the world as well. In my second artifact I spoke of the Fa’afaine culture in Samoa. This concept initially confused me but in the end I found it to be fascinating and was glad that I had the opportunity to research it.

In the both the Fa’afaine culture and the Igbo culture in Nigeria (referenced from artifact #3) social roles and jobs are determined entirely by sex. In some ways this is similar to culture in the United States. This difference is , the United states has drastically evolved and has begun to allow woman to create their own paths in life. Because of the world I have been raised in these issues is not something that has crossed my mind. That is,  until I did further research on the topic itself. This  evolution of society is not something that can be seen in the two cultures mentioned above.

In Samoan culture having a daughter in the family is essential.  When there is not a daughter in the family the mother can often become overwhelmed with the “womanly ” duties. In this case the mother will typically chose a son, usually the youngest, who is designated as the daughter and given the womanly jobs. This is something that I disagreed with. Not only because the separation of roles is entirely sexist, but because it forces a young man to live the life of a woman regardless of how he associates.

This practice is no different than society forcing children to solely associate with the sex they are born as. In one of the Fa’afaine films a man recalls being tormented as a child because he was chosen by his mother to fill the role of Fa’afaine. Other young boys pulled down his pants and called him a little girl when he actually identified as a young man despite being forced to fulfill the role as a woman. It was this forced behavior that shaped the rest of his life. On the other end of this cultural practice there are young men who chose to live this life because  of the way they identify. In this sense it is a positive because the culture is already accustomed to seeing men in this position. The key conclusion that was reached during this artifact was that regardless of the role men and women decided to fulfill it has to be a personal CHOICE.

Earlier in this essay  I mentioned the Igbo tribe of Nigeria and their gender roles from Artifact 3. This culture both fascinated and impressed me. This is one of very few cultures in that area of the world which allows women to have some level of independence. When we typically think of gender defined roles we imagine women stuck in the household cooking and cleaning while men play the role of “bread winners” and take care of the majority of social interaction and finances. This is not the case in the Igbo tribe. The woman of the tribe are solely responsible for all financial  decisions and transactions. Not only does this allow woman to have some money of their own, but they learn different dialects and languages necessary to interact with people. This is a huge step in the right direction for the woman of this culture and hopefully will influence those around it. It gave me a sliver of hope for those other woman.

Lastly there is the way woman are treated in regards to menstruation. There were no positives outside of the United States that I studied or came across in class. In artifact 5 I addressed the terrible social stigmas that many third world countries associate with menstruation. In multiple villages we saw film of women being forced to live together in miniature huts while they menstruate because they men find them to be “disgusting,” or “unclean.” They even went as far as to claim that if a woman goes near the livestock during this time of the month they will all die and the village will starve. This is due to a lack of education and willingness to learn. This research made me feel exceptionally thankful for living in the society that I do.

Overall I think taking this course was a well spent month of summer school . Not just because it fulfilled a credit requirement, but because it opened by eyes up to the big picture. We live in a society where woman are slowly becoming more “equal.” We have rights that other women around the world could only dream of having. It is because of this that woman in positions similar to ours have a responsibility to try to help improve the lifestyles of other woman around the world. This is the major benefit I received from taking Biology of Gender.

My culture for this artifact are the Igbo people of Nigeria. This is a bilinear l(or bilateral) culture but not in the traditional manner.The two main areas of focus in Igbo culture are the trade/finances, and home life/home owning. This may sound fairly typical and you are most likely already assigning genders to each of those roles. However, in this culture, the women run the trade and finances while the men are the primary land owners and grounds keepers.

I found this shocking. This financial responsibility gives women a type of independence that is not seen in most other parts of the world. Not only are the women the face of organizing transactions, but they are responsible for the cultivation of the agriculture. The only part men participate in is the planting of the rice, their staple food. This female responsibility allows them to interact with people from other cultures, but most importantly it allows them to have their own personal money instead of relying on the men. This being said, the men are the primary owners of all land and homes. This does not seem to be a system that upsets the women of the Igbo tribe.

The independence demonstrated in the Igbo tribe is similar to the Mosuo Culture of China. Chinese culture is typically known for being Patrilneal (male dominant) but the Mosuo culture is considered to be a “Woman’s paradise.” Unlike main land Chinese culture, the women are in complete control of their finances and personal life. Because this culture does not believe in marriage each individual is responsible for making their own money. This is similar to the Igbo where women handle the money in the family. Unlike the Igbo however, women in Mosuo practice walking marriages. This is where a different man can come to the woman’s bed at night and it is her choice if she wants him to stay. They say this is based off of love they are just avoiding the forced dependence on one another. These are some differences and similarities between the two cultures.

Something else that I found interesting between the two genders in the Igbo culture was their separation in government. Unlike the male dominated political world in the USA, the Igbo have two entirely separate “house”. There is one “house” specifically for the men, and one for the women. Each of these two “houses” only deals with law in regards to their own sex. Within the two “houses” the members are separated into three groups. The highest of which is are the elders of the community. It is the elders who hand down punishments and decide who is guilty.  This purpose of this system is to allow both genders to be heard equally. While I believe that it would be ideal for both sexes to work together this is a step in the right direction compared to the biased male persecution of women in third world countries.