If motion influences action, and action in turn has an effect on motion, by not being open to the surprising nature of things, we are attempting to do rhetoric in a vacuum (i.e., rhetoric as it happens only between human subjects) by turning a blind eye to the objects that make up the rhetorical scene. Instead, rhetoric occurs among the desks, the garbage, and the pollution of a busy city street. Each of these objects has their own rhythm by which they affect each other but also by which they affect us.
And I think I’ll cite it at the conference!
]]>I really like what you’re doing here with Lanham, Harman, and especially Bogost’s new book.
And I wonder if the notion of *receptivity* might help in answering this question of “harm.” If we couch the discussion in terms of alterity, I would argue (along with Jane Bennett) that in allowing ourselves to be “open to the surprising nature of things” we are forced to see ourselves as both human and nonhuman. Or, in Burkean terms, we find in ourselves moments of motion coupling, linking, or assembling with moments of action. So for example, the Texas heat takes its toll on my car air conditioning until one morning it breaks. Driving to a job interview, I’m now not only nervous because of the interview, but I’m also sweaty and perhaps a little overheated. If we look at this example in terms of motion/action, we begin to see that the air conditioner (motion) could very well influence my interview (action), which in turn could make my stomach even more nervous and queasy (motion), causing me to perform poorly at my interview (action).
If I had to answer the “harm” question, then, it would go something like this: If motion influences action, and action in turn has an effect on motion, by not being open to the surprising nature of things, we are attempting to do rhetoric in a vacuum (i.e., rhetoric as it happens only between human subjects) by turning a blind eye to the objects that make up the rhetorical scene. Instead, rhetoric occurs among the desks, the garbage, and the pollution of a busy city street. Each of these objects has their own rhythm by which they affect each other but also by which they affect us.
Anyway, keep it up. I can’t wait to see how you connect all of these thoughts with the BFB.
]]>I agree that the question of “harm” is an important one. In fact, the responses to my line of questioning in the working group has already elicited these questions: What’s at stake in developing an OOR? Why would we want to do this? In addition, some members of the group have openly stated their “discomfort” with a discussion of rhetoric outside the realm of the human.
And I also agree that an answer (for me, the most important answer) to this question has to do with ethics. As I say at the end of the paper, rhetoric has always attended to the motives of the other. OOR suggests that we extend that project to the non-human realm. I think Levi’s new book should help as well…especially given rhetoric’s relationship to “democracy” (vexed as it is).
]]>My main question at this point, though, gets back to the audience thing. I can see a reader–let’s say a skeptical reader–coming away from this and asking: Nice thought experiment, but why exactly would we want to go down the OOR road? Obviously, you only have so much space to present your position here, but I’m coming to believe that this question is really the one we need to push early and often. Our attempt at “doing OOR” for our RSA panel is, I think, one potential response to the question. But I still feel like we need more. In Free Culture, Lessig notes that his failure to successfully argue against copyright law before the Supreme Court stemmed from his inability to articulate “the harm” copyright commits on culture and creativity. So, I guess what I’m asking is: what’s the harm that OOR is responding to? Why go down this road in the first place, except to show that it’s possible?
Again, lots of answers to this question. One, in my view, concerns ethics: by agreeing to “address” beings as tool-beings, we agree, in a Heideggerian sense, to let the other be. In this sense, OOR, perhaps, promises one of the boldest responses to date to instrumentalism and, paradoxically, the tendency to objectify beings–humans and nonhumans alike.
Regardless of how we individually respond to the “harm question,” I think we need to be prepared at the very least to speak to that question. If nothing else, then for readers who will naturally remain skeptical of anything resembling OOR.
]]>indeed (I would say that there is no other to rhetoric, or as Isabelle Stengers might say “interest”) but how does this fit into OOO as opposed to fitting (making use of) OOO in/to this? yes, all this is speculation, we are making it up as we go, such is life no?
thanks for your hospitality