Kennedy – A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric

Based on animal observations and research, Kennedy offers his eight theses which present rhetoric as being prior to (or a “necessary condition for”) just about everything—speech, writing, intentionality, etc.  Not being well informed on animal communication, I was quite impressed with the evidence he showed for rhetoric’s presence long before the evolution of humans. I also like Kennedy’s writing style; he makes some far-reaching claims, but is careful not to extend those claims beyond that for which he has evidence.  Aside from general praise for Kennedy, there was one section which particularly caught my eye.

On page 7 Kennedy presents his second thesis, stating that “The receiver’s interpretation of a communication is prior to the speaker’s intent in determining the meaning.” With “prior” being somewhat ambiguous, Kennedy further elaborates, noting that “what the receiver is already conditioned to do on receipt of a certain message—the receiver’s knowledge of the rhetorical code—determines what the receiver does when the message arrives (emphasis added) (7-8).  In this sense, the interpretation of the message by the audience is the “more primitive and a more basic criterion in meaning” (8).  And Kennedy offers evidence of this view, noting that some male birds’ mating calls function to inform other males that the territory is occupied, and simultaneously function to inform females of the male’s readiness to mate (8).

This excited my interest because it seems to contradict our society’s notion of speech’s meaning. Indeed, Kennedy admits that “In human society, rhetoric is, however, usually given some direction and form by varying degrees of intentionality on the part of a speaker.” (8). Still, he goes on to present in his next thesis that “rhetoric is prior to intentionality or to any belief on the part of a speaker…” (9). So Kennedy seems to place a lot more weight on audience reception than on authorial intent.  This reminded me of a discussion we had in class last week, where Davis noted that (paraphrasing) regardless of a rhetor’s intent, they are still responsible for the effects of their words, for the actions that people take based on their communication.  Several of us tried to get Davis to rephrase this, and express it as a causal relationship, rather than one of “responsibility.” I, for instance, noted that our legal system doesn’t generally hold people accountable for consequences they didn’t intend.  Upon reflection, that’s not completely true. We hold people accountable for negligence.  Also, when people take actions that have consequences they didn’t anticipate, but that a “reasonable person” should have anticipated, they’re still culpable.  So you can be legally responsible for a lot of things that aren’t part of your intent.  This reflection helped me to appreciate where Kennedy and Davis were coming from.  Once your words leave your mouth or pen (or you press “send” on that email) your intent seems to lose relevance. Sure, intent guided your construction of the argument. But once the rhetorical speech is spoken, the meaning seems to be primarily defined by its reception.

I take from this that rhetors(and people in general) must be incredibly careful and sensitive to the way their words will impact listeners now and in the future.  However, this seems to be a daunting task, when we can never know for certain what the future will bring.