The Dao of Rhetoric

Notes

Notes INTRODUCTION 1. See Kennedy (1998) for an overview of non-Western approaches to rhetorical theory. 2. Garrett (1991) provides a useful review of Western studies of Asian rhetoric and Lu (1998) offers an excellent account of classical Chinese rhetoric. 3. Also Taoism. There are two primary systems for romanizing Chinese characters—Wade-Giles and pinyin—that result in different English spellings of Chinese names and terms. I use the pinyin system, but have not converted the terms of scholars who use Wade-Giles and/or alternate spellings. Similarly, scholars use Dao, Daoist (pinyin) and Tao, Taoist (Wade-Giles) respectively. 4. The term “postmodern” can be problematic because it defies set meanings and lacks clear boundaries. When I refer to postmodern ideas or writings (postmodernist) I refer primarily to my interpretations of Baudrillard , Lyotard, and Foucault. I also include under “postmodern” the views of Derrida and other “poststructuralists,” whose ideas are often appropriated and extended by postmodernists. When I refer to postmodern as a condition (postmodernism) I mean the sense that reality, including individuals, objects, and ideas, is without foundation, stability, or underlying order. Nothing is prior to perception and symbolization, and all meanings and symbols are perspectival and subjective. 5. Some of the various spellings in English include Laozi, Lao-zi (pinyin) and Lao Tzu, Lao Tsu, Lao Tse (Wade-Giles); Zhuangzi, Zhuang-zi (pinyin) and Chuang Tzu, Chuang Tsu, Chuang Tse (Wade-Giles); and Sun-zi (pinyin) and Sun-tzu, Sun Tzu (Wade-Giles). 151 CHAPTER 1. CULTURE, TEXT AND CONTEXT 1. Several excellent articles by rhetorical scholars on issues of text and context appear in a special issue of the Western Journal of Speech Communication , 1990, 54, 3. 2. Kong Fuzi (pinyin). In the case of “Confucius” and “Confucianism ,” I will use the Wade-Giles spellings since they are used almost exclusively in English. 3. “Religion” from a Chinese perspective, differs greatly from the use of the word in the Judeo-Christain heritage. Early scholarship did not recognize the religiosity of Daoism and Confucianism. Scholars seem more comfortable treating Confucisnism and Daoism as philosophy because neither Confucianism nor Daoism assumes a transcendent deity and their religious practices and rituals include worship of cultural heroes and dead ancestors. While these practices have been trivialized by those influenced by the Christian missionaries, who first wrote about China, Robinet (1997) argues effectively for the recasting of elements of Daoism as religious. Because the religiosity of Daoism differs from the Judeo-Christian traditions , and these issues are beyond the scope of this book, I tend to use the word “spiritual” when discussing Daoist views on concepts such as creation and immortaltiy. CHAPTER 2. LAOZI AND THE NATURAL WAY OF RHETORICS 1. In order to situate the various translations that I use and those with which the reader may be familiar, I begin each citation of the Dao De Jing, Zhuangzi, and Art of War with its chapter number. 2. Clarke (2000) offers an excellent review of Daoist scholarship, particularly its potential ethical, social, and political implications in the contemporary world. CHAPTER 4. SUNZI AND THE RHETORIC OF PARSIMONY 1. Also Art of Warfare. According to J. H. Huang (1993), “Sun-tzu is the original title of the book, and it was renamed Sunzi bingfas (bingfa means ‘the principles for using forces’) at a much later date. This is generally translated in English as ‘The Art of War,’ which actually is an emulation of the titles of books written by Machiavelli and Baron de Jomini. Sun-tzu in the pinyin system is spelled Sunzi, but Sun-tzu is the broadly accepted English rendering” (p. 25). 152
THE DAO OF RHETORIC CHAPTER 9. THE FUTURE OF THE PAST 1. The “spiral” is chosen rather than the “cycle” because cycles are repetitive while spirals are not. Daoism views life as an ongoing act of creativity and novelty generated by the movement of opposites. 2. Ames & Hall (2003) conclude that Daoism is actually acosmotic: “The Daoist understanding of ‘cosmos’ as the ‘ten thousand things’ means that, in effect, the Daoists have no concept of cosmos at all insofar as that notion entails a coherent, single-ordered world which is in any sense enclosed or defined. The Daoists are, therefore, primarily, ‘acosmotic’ thinkers” (p. 14). While the point is interesting, having “no concept” is a conception, so I maintain that Daoism has a “unique” cosmology. Notes
153 ...