Techne’: “In classical rhetoric, techne’ occupies a middle space between theoretical knowledge
Posted on Pixabay by LoggaWiggler
[in the head – truths]. . . and practical knowledge [in the hand – doing] . . . . Techne’ is productive knowledge, concerned with a higher order of action that is guided by reason, and results in a product outside of itself” (34).” “In other words, in classical rhetoric techne’ is a ‘making,’ a productive oscillation between knowledge in the head and knowledge in the hand” (35). “[T]he techne’ of rhetoric has belief or persuasion as its end, and its audience as its judge” (35). “Janet Atwill (1998) describes this deployment of techne’ as ‘knowing how’ and ‘knowing when’ (p. 59)” (35). “Techne’ is artistic knowledge, formed in a relational oscillation between thinking and doing that becomes more intuitive with experience” (111). “The knowledge of techne’ is contingent, created in the moment of making, and as such is a heuristic process of discovery” (36). It is “process, not product; contingent, not definitive; heuristic, not algorithmic” (37). Techne‘ must be heuristic, situated, strategically mobile, and ethical (16). See also the section devoted to this concept on pages 37-39.
Wonder: “An attitude toward the world and our experience of it that both predisposes us to be amazed and prepares us to desire to learn more about the source of our amazement” (40). Wonder must be more than just a passing fancy, lest we lose interest. Wonder also must be linked to something we are already familiar with, lest the object of our wonder become confusing causing us to turn away. “Today, wonder as a visual techne’ of inquiry allows us to use . . . technological tools to construct wonder as both perplexity (‘I wonder . . .?’) and wide-eyed delight (‘Wonderful!’)” (45).
Wunderkammer: A chamber of marvels or curiosity cabinet; it could be a cabinet, a closet, or an entire room; they were the precursors to modern museums (118-122). Wunderkammers can also be “worlds about worlds” (162). Because the various items within a wunderkammer can be organized in multiple groupings, different layers of meaning (associations) can be found using this tool. The concept of a wunderkammer becomes a metaphor for the sense of inquiry Delagrange hopes to instill within her students as they research.
Arrangement: “Arrangement as a mobile, embodied canon both describes/calls forth/brings into being specific kinds of bodies (of knowledge, of argument, of practice, of work), and also points back to the fact that these material bodies are created in the first place by a particular kind of body, sitting at a keyboard, standing in front of a class, etc.” (58). Delagrange complains that “we are using arrangement as a simple, and sometimes simplistic, organizing strategy” instead of “taking advantage of its potential as a rich, multivariate techne’ of invention and representation” (107). She wants us to use arrangement as a tool to encourage discovery and a sense of wonder.
Feminism: Because it focuses on the “interconnectedness of body and message” (88), Delagrange situates her argument within this concept. She wants us to stop desiring “discourse that values the impersonal, the linear, and the unadorned” and instead choose discourse that is “personal, . . . ambiguous, and . . . idiosyncratic” (89). Her feminist perspective allows her to view harmful dichotomies within the rhetoric classroom:
- Male female
- Mind body
- Text image (94)
And
- Organizational inventional
- Abstract material (107)
And
- Logos pathos (155).
Forming her argument for the inclusion of multimedia in rhetoric, Delagrange effectively links a male-dominated mentality to the current transparent style of a properly MLA- or APA-formatted essay.
Vision: To counter the “paternalistic rejection or denigration of the importance of everyday images, motivated in part by fear of their power, [we must have] a different sort of persistence of vision, one that reconnects vision with individual embodiment, and embodiment with our technologies. In place of a ‘devouring vision’ from above/afar that claims to see and speak for all, Haraway (1991) argues for the particularity of all vision to promote the ‘loving care that people might take to learn how to see faithfully from another’s point of view, even when the other is our own machine’ (p. 190)” (51). Delagrange defines vision as “an embodied capacity with which we make sense of the world” (177). She also claims, “Vision is an engine of wonder; it is a tool of techne‘; it is the discovery of resemblance and affinity in associative arrangements; it is an intervention in the tyranny of abstract thought” (177).
The chosen connecting term for this book is New Media.
- New Media: “An initial distinction may be drawn between digital communication media and older analogue technologies” (Gane and Beer 6). The following ideas discussed in their book New Media (2008) are requirements in order for Delagrange’s proposal to work:
- Tony Feldman argues that “[digital] media make information increasingly manipulable, networkable, dense, compressible and impartial” (Gane and Beer 6)
- Digital media can also “be interfaced with one another, and can be connected through networks that span vast geographical spaces with relative ease” (Gane and Beer 7)
- “Interactivity . . . is often invoked as a benchmark for differentiating ‘new’ digital media from ‘older’ analogue forms” (Gane and Beer 86).
- “New Media is a 21st Century catchall term used to define all that is related to the internet and the interplay between technology, images and sound.” (New Media Institute) These concepts are essential for Delagrange’s push for “moving seeing and writing from one medium to another” (20).
Skip to:
Main Project Page
Summary
Importance to & Engagement with Scholarly Field
In the Production Process
Engaging New Media & Lingua Fracta