A few thoughts on Faigley.

Though I do not agree entirely with his argument, I did enjoy reading Lester L. Faigley's thoughts on rhetoric in Rhetorics Fast and Slow. Faigley takes the stand that we need to slow our lives down and seek out the places where 'slow' rhetoric should be utilized. At this point, it is important to make a distinction. Fast rhetoric refers to the latest genres of writing and communication. Examples of fast rhetoric include the internet web-pages, blogs, digital photographs, e-mails and text messages. On the other hand, slow rhetoric encompasses the more traditional forms of communication and writing.

Faigley argues that the digital age has fallen short on some of its earlier promises and that, when measured against more classical methods, technology doesn’t always come out on top. Near the opening of the article, we are made aware that for the 2000 Presidential election, Oregon chose to use paper ballots cast solely by mail. I could not believe that a state would choose to use such a low-tech method that I thought was only reserved for reality TV shows like Survivor. But after a brief bit of contemplation, I got to thinking. Perhaps Oregon knew exactly what they were doing. Perhaps using a pen to select candidates on a ballot would’ve alleviated all of the problems of counting and recounting and deciding what to do with hanging chads and dimpled chads. It took Floridians months to finally decide on a final vote count, and I find it hard to believe that it would’ve taken much longer to count the ballots one time had they been on paper and selected with ink. This brings up another interesting anomaly of our society. We have shifted toward such a fast-paced lifestyle that I would hate to think how America would react to having to wait to find out the official results of an election. One can assume that the networks wouldn’t stand for it either—they would have too much to lose. Perhaps those days of no recounts and mail-in ballots are things of fantasy.

It is pointed out in the article that history has shown that new technologies seldom stick to their original intentions. It is of little surprise that the internet has not created world peace nor has it abolished racism and prejudices in our country—all of which were envisioned during its creation. The internet has, however, allowed many people to learn about societies in a way that they never could before. Faigley states on page six of his article that “the glut of information that is readily accessible has not led to a broader global understanding but instead to increased fragmentation, confusion and exhaustion.” Really? He fails to note the instances when the internet has led to better understanding and enrichment and success. The internet has opened doors for many who have lived in closed-off societies. I’m sure it has helped many homosexual men and women who struggled to explain their feelings to see that they are not alone and are not freaks or perverts. It has given victims of rape a place to seek peer counseling when they have felt too scared or ashamed to come public with their histories. The internet is allowing disadvantages peoples in many countries to seek out a world market to sell their locally-produced goods on which their livelihood depends.

The internet gives us all a chance to seek understanding that older, slow rhetoric simply could not provide. It’s no wonder that China chooses to censor the internet. I believe they fear what may happen if their citizens become better informed of how other societies are able to live.

Faigley’s article goes on with the hopes of getting us to see the importance of slow rhetoric in modern society. I have fought to try to agree, but each time I delve deeper and deeper into one of his arguments, I find myself rooting for technology and fast rhetoric. Let’s face it, we’re at a point where technology has consumed our lives and I find it difficult to think that we will ever again separate ourselves from it. Rather, we need to embrace fast rhetoric and utilize its full potential. Faigley himself says that our human ancestors had an evolutionary advantage over other primates because they were able to communicate more and more complex subjects effectively. I believe this is true. We should take that notion along with modern genres of fast rhetoric to communicate those evermore complex issues we face.