Often, when we think of definition, Webster’s dictionary comes to mind. But dictionary definitions can't attend to the exigence of a particular time and place--terms, concepts, and meanings emerge to frame issues, according to the rhetorical situation. Definitions, in use, don’t usually function like perfect classical mathematical equations. Rather, in everyday situations, definitions have more to do with probabilities; therefore, writers tend to amplify certain aspects of definitions in circulation and turn down the volume on other uses.
As soon as you ask, "what is love?" or "what is not love?" you immediately begin to imagine a specific event that invites a re-telling, and definitional work...and then, you also begin to imagine a specific audience for your story and who could/should share your understanding of the term or concept under consideration.
Here's a basic template composing with defintions:
X is/is not Y (criteria/match or "genus/species" technique). For example, you could argue: The Amazing Mr. Slug is a performance artist, not a standup comedian.
Indeed, how to define standup comedy? In this video, we find that a "border case" (here, the performances of The Amazing Mr. Slug) creates the conditions for a structured definition of this particular genre of comedy. "Border cases" and counterarguments actually help us define our terms and categories.
Now, this particular "controversy" may not matter to us, but in our own projects, occasions will arise when these rhetorical strategies can clarify key concepts, and establish what's important and what's not at a particular and important point in a document.
getting started
Definition is one of the most useful strategies for finding/inventing fertile compositional terrain. Often, when we think of definition, Webster’s dictionary comes to mind. But dictionary definitions can't attend to the exigence of a particular time and place--terms, concepts, and meanings emerge to frame issues, according to time and place. Definitions, in use, don’t usually function like perfect classical mathematical equations. Rather, in everyday situations, definitions have more to do with probabilities; therefore, writers tend to amplify certain aspects of definitions in circulation and turn down the volume on other uses.
some background on the uses of definition in the West
Long ago, Cicero wrote that “when you have taken all the qualities of the thing you wish to define has in common with other things, you should pursue the analysis until you produce its own distinctive quality which can be transferred to no other thing” (Topics v, 28, cited in Crowley and Hawhee, 216). To illustrate this process, Cicero provided an example close to our course content. To define “inheritance,” he placed it in a class, “property.” Next, he added a vector of difference, stating that inheritance is a form of property “which comes to someone at the death of another” (vi, 29). Here, Cicero starts down a particular process of definition called “species/genus” definition: first he places the thing to be defined in a category, then he begins to list differences that distinguish the species from other members of the proposed genus. We could also call this process “defining as…,” and in this process, argumentation begins as soon as a writer sets limits on her definition by selecting a particular class, even before the procedure of selecting differences and distinctions. One group of writers may place intellectual property in a class with tangible property, and in this case, much of what we call fair use would in this case be defined as “free riding.” Of course, another series of arguments might place “free riding” in a different category, and argue that free-riding is part of creative, innovative work in markets. When competing definitions arise out of the same terrain, writers must select differences and points of distinction, but they may choose do so as a process of showing how one thing (say, free-riding) is NOT another thing (say, theft), as well. Some folks call this method “negative definition.” Furthermore, definition arguments are often more like “re-definition” arguments—re-definition processes radically displace the “it” in question into seemingly ill-suited categories, as a way of amplifying or tuning in on a specific aspect of the “it” to be defined, or leveraging a boundary-example as a means to shine a new light on an issue. For example, some readers may be unprepared to think about the Burning Man Festival in terms of gift economics, but traversing the ground between the species (the Burning Man festival) and the genus (gift economics) provides ample opportunity to turn a particular readership towards the notion.
Writing to establish such connections, we rely on definitional recipes including but not limited to enumeration (listing the most important parts that make up a whole—not all the parts, because defining something well actually requires that we leave certain contested aspects out of the “equation,” so that we can focus our readers’ attention), etymological definition (studying the history of a concept and its uses, and then selecting and amplifying the use that will make your case persuasive), and definition by way of example. Generally speaking, definition requires us to determine when greater or less ambiguity will be more persuasive in a particular case. The simple art of telling stories usually brings about opportunities for experimenting with these (and other) techniques. Narrative is a flexible genre, and definitions easily nestle into stories with compelling plots.
Venture a hypothesis, turn it into a question. Questions to ask when embarking on a new definitional process or when revising bloggy gambits and sentiments into definitional statements of purpose: what kind of thing is it? For example, is improvisation a form of compositional practice? Or is improvisation more about “dismantling” compositions? Is it a creative process that can be taught or learned? Also, to what larger class does it belong? Is improvisation a type of performance? Of writing? What are the essential elements of improvisation? That is, what are its divisions, its parts? What are the conditions that create improvisation? What does improvisation do? And, most importantly, where do I find counterarguments to the formulations I hope to shop to my readers?
In sum: definition is an argument that can 1. tune into a refined sense of audience, where audience itself is a network of differential connections as much as it is a collection of individuals 2. clarify controversy 3. create a hierarchy of criteria to guide further inquiry and gather forces of collective action. By answering "what matters?," definition arguments anticipate and prepare grounds for evaluation arguments.
blog generators
- transform narratives into definitions: look for "is" statements, both tacit and explicit.
a) select a term, find three things....
b) introduce counterargument
c) test: for novelty, for controversy (the stakes), for further definition arguments. Ask yourself "who actually cares about my argument?"
here's another example: how attempting to define "wiki" necessitates rhetorical performance in wiki
What is a wiki?
Technically speaking, wikis are web presences that anyone can alter. Open in this way, wikis facilitate linking and make it easy for users to move from browsing to writing, and back again. On this continuum, users can coordinate activities and entrain ideas on subtle levels. In other words, with wikis, we can easily share ideas and therefore learn to write together. I like to think that wikis open up textual/analytical/visual spaces to the rhythms most commonly associated with musical practice, but that's really just to simplify the very idea of such an infinitely dynamic medium. The wiki is the medium is the message!
As a way of answering "what is a wiki?" for yourself, simply find one and play around for a while. For example, try the The Audacity Wiki Home Page. Notice how, right away this wiki makes it known that it is "a completely public resource - anyone can edit any page (except this homepage) by clicking on the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom. Create links by typing, putting words inside brackets like this." This degree of ease and openness offers a lot of freedom--some of us might imagine an "infinite" freedom. Of course, the thought of so many easy-to-make and yawning windows to the infinite can be daunting, in a way.
It becomes helpful, then, if not necessary, to ask, "what can a wiki do?" What do you want to do?
Simply and slightly "troping" a definitional query (from "what is it?" to "what does it do?") in this way shifts attention towards the ceaseless movement active wikis can sustain, and readies us to participate: wiki as verb. Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, following Vladimir Vernadsky, insist on troping the noun "life" to it's gerundive and verb forms, emphasizing the ongoing change and dynamics of living systems. "The question "What is Life?" is thus a linguistic trap. To answer according to the rules of grammar, we must supply a noun, a thing. But life on Earth is more like a verb. It repairs, re-creates, and outdoes itself" (Margulis and Sagan 14). The wiki way is the same: "to wiki" is to repair, recreate, outdo, alter, etc...
print sources
Crowley, Sharon and Hawhee, Debbie. Ancient Rhetorics for Contempory Students.
Weston, Anthony. A Rulebook for Argument.
Doherty, Brian. This is Burning Man. Boston, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2004.
Lemely, Mark. “Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding.” Stanford Law School John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics: Working Paper number 291
Margulis, Lynn, and Sagan, Dorian. What is Life?
Recent Visitors:
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.