Comparative rhetoricians are heavily involved in textual interpretation, and the quality of the interpretation largely depends on how self-reflexive the interpreter is. However, within the disciplines of textual studies there is little specific guidance on how to improve self-reflexivity. This essay is intended to ameliorate this situation by drawing on and synthesizing the relevant literatures from such areas as cultural anthropology, qualitative research, and critical theory. I begin by outlining the disputes over the concept of self-reflexivity. I then move to the different spheres that have been proposed for self-reflexivity; these spheres range from accidents of individual psychology to historical circumstances to webs of power and privilege. Next I describe the most useful techniques for refining self-reflexivity, mapping out their theoretical and practical complexities. Throughout the essay I pull from my work on traditional Chinese rhetoric for cautionary examples. I conclude with some words of warning and of encouragement.

Research Article| November 01 1998 Short Reviews George Kennedy,Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Crosscultural Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).Andrea A. Lunsford ed.. Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women in the Rhetorical Tradition (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995).Takis Poulakos,Speaking for the Polis: Isocrates' Rhetorical Education (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1997), xii +128 pp.David Roochnik,Of Art and Wisdom: Plato's Understanding of Techne (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996) xii + 300 pp.Peter Auksi,Christian Plain Style: The Evolution of a Spiritual Ideal (Monfreal:McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995).Carole Levin and Patricia R. Sullivan eds. Political Rhetoric, Power, and Renaissance Women, (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1995) xiv + 293 pp.Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle,Loyola's Acts: The Rhetoric of the Self(Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1997) xv+274pp.L. L. Gaillet ed., Scottish Rhetoric and Its Influences (Mahwah, N.J.: Hermagoras Press, 1998) xviii + 238pp.Thomas W. Benson,Rhetoric and Political Culture in Nineteenth- Century America (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1997) 200 pp. Mary Garrett, Mary Garrett School of Communication, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Shirley Sharon-Zisser, Shirley Sharon-Zisser Dept of English, Tel Aviv Univeristy, Ramat Aviv 69 978, Israel Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar C. Jan Swearingen, C. Jan Swearingen Dept of English, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Edward Schiappa, Edward Schiappa Dept of Communication, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Jameela Lares, Jameela Lares Dept of English, University of Southem Mississippi, Southem Station Box 5037, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Victor Skretkowicz, Victor Skretkowicz Dept of English, University of Dundee, Dundee DDl 4HN, Scotland Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Don Paul Abbott, Don Paul Abbott Dept of English, University of Califomia, Davis, Califomia 95616, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Paul Bator, Paul Bator Dept of English, Stanford University, Stanford, Califomia 94305, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Thomas Miller Thomas Miller Dept of English, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1998) 16 (4): 431–454. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1998.16.4.431 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Mary Garrett, Shirley Sharon-Zisser, C. Jan Swearingen, Edward Schiappa, Jameela Lares, Victor Skretkowicz, Don Paul Abbott, Paul Bator, Thomas Miller; Short Reviews. Rhetorica 1 November 1998; 16 (4): 431–454. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1998.16.4.431 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1998, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1998 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Short Reviews George Kennedy, Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Crosscultural Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). Comparative rhetoric, the study of rhetoric across different cultural traditions, is a potentially rich, extremely challenging, and thus, largely untouched area of study. Anyone reviewing George Kennedy's book on this subject must begin by commending him for his scholarly dedication and, even more, his courage, in venturing into such a demanding subject. As he describes it in his prologue, comparative rhetoric involves using comparison to identify the universals and the particulars in various rhetorical traditions, and then formulating "a General Theory of Rhetoric that will apply in all societies", with concepts and terms applicable across cultures. Kennedy construes the object of this inquiry equally broadly, defining rhetoric as "a form of energy that drives and is imparted to communication". But Kennedy's comparative rhetoric very quickly becomes something much less ambitious. Kennedy gives pride of place to the terminology and theories of Western rhetoric, not just as a heuristically convenient starting point, but also as the limit of his inquiry. From Kennedy's perspective, the project is one of "test[ingj the applicability of Western rhetorical concepts outside the West" (p. 5). Specifically, to what extent can the rhetorical terminology of the Greco-Roman tradition describe the practices of other traditions? Kennedy makes two highly questionable methodological choices as he pursues this question. First, he rules out serious consideration of rhetorical terms and systems developed by other cultures, even as a categorization of their own practices, on the grounds that they are "unfamiliar" and their use would be "confusing" to the reader. Second, he refuses to explore the 431 432 RHETORICA possibility that Greco-Roman terms or concepts might be rooted in particular presuppositions that are not widely shared across cultures. With these two moves Kennedy has erased the most obvious sources of checks on, correction of, and resistance to his readings of these cultures. The "testing" of Greco-Roman rhetoric is reduced to a simple identification of similarities and differences; as Kennedy puts it, "I see no objection to the use of Western terminology to describe parts of a non-Westem discourse where these are clearly present" (p. 236). This is comparison with no methodological safeguards, and thus no struggle against such ever-present dangers of cross-cultural work as unreflective projection, forced comparison, and unexamined ethnocentrism. Caveat lector. The reader might be surprised to find that the first half of this book, titled "Rhetoric in Societies without Writing", begins with communication in animal societies. This reflects Kennedy's desire to ground rhetoric, not merely in human nature, but in nature itself; "[tjhe existence of elements of invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery in animal communication suggest that they are all natural parts of rhetoric" (p. 220). Kennedy then turns to speculation about the origins of human language, as a bridge to his discussion of rhetorical practices and terms in various non­ literate societies. The organizational principle here is developmental, for Kennedy believes that Australian aboriginal culture may allow us to see more clearly our (rhetorical) closeness to the animals, and also preserves the early stages of human rhetorical development. The objections to this kind of developmental theorizing have been voiced so often elsewhere that I see no need to reiterate them here. The second half of the book, titled "Rhetoric in Early Literate Cultures", starts with the Ancient Near East, moves to Classical China, then to India, and ends where it all began, with Classical Greece and Rome. In each chapter Kennedy introduces the culture's rhetorical practices, concepts, and theorizings, analyzes some representative examples of oratory or literary composition, and provides references and a bibliography. It is in these introductions to other literatures and the accompanying reference lists that I see one of the greatest values of Kennedy's book. These individual chapters will doubtless be Reviews 433 the starting points for quite some time for those interested in other rhetorical traditions. Although Kennedy validates these traditions by placing them under the aegis of Greco-Roman rhetoric, this still constitutes a step forward in our study of world rhetorics, and we can be grateful to him for taking this...