Hi! Below is a rough draft of a panel proposal for RSA 2016. Donnie J. Sackey and I are looking for a few more people to join the panel–if there is enough interest, and we get 6+ people, then we can submit a special format proposal for more of a roundtable approach, like an Ignite style panel presentation . To channel some Latour, the central theme is exploring rhetorics more interested in (constructive) action than (critical) thought. If you are interested, then please send me a brief note with a description (100 words or so) on what you would like to present. You can reach me on Twitter, Facebook, or via email (marcsantos at usf dot edu).
This panel is skeptical of the idea that changing how someone thinks will change how someone acts. Our shared skepticism toward epistemic approaches to change is fueled by a number of theoretical perspectives, including Bruno Latour’s investment in constructivism and his skepticism toward the efficacy of critique, Ian Bogost’s articulation of procedural rhetoric, neosophistic approaches to pragmatism, and Peter Sloterdjik’s notion of “kynicism” as a direct response to the rising and debilitating cynicism plaguing late 20th and early 21st century society. We propose that rhetoricians interested in fostering change should look more at material (Fit Bit), viral (Ice Bucket Challenge), and procedural (Super Better) means for instigating action (parentheticals subject to change). We can take from Diogenes and the ancient cynics a skepticism toward Idealism without endorsing public masturbation, defecation, and general lewdness. Rather, we can see in their commitment to action the first suggestion of a method: one that begins with increased attention to performance, procedure, and doing.
Sloterdjik’s response to the problem of cynicism and apathy was to argue for a notion of “kynicism,” a method of overstatement and critical engagement that punctures ideological fantasy. We want to provide Sloterdjik’s term a more pragmatic (and, if you prefer, sophistic) inflection. We will describe this commitment to action via the term “kinecism,” both a play on Sloterdjik’s explication/reconsideration of classical Cynicism and a nod to the notion of kinetic energy. Unlike Sloterdjik, we will not endorse a direct matter of critical engagement that seeks to unmask the pervasive cynicism underwriting much of popular culture. Rather, we will take from the cynics their staunch opposition to Idealism; we are skeptical of the idea that a change in thought will necessarily lead to a change in action. And we will not let the Perfect be the enemy of change, experiment, the preliminary, etc.
This panel investigates rhetorical engagements and/or rhetorical pedagogies that do not focus on the epistemic as much as on the material, the constructive, the procedural. The presentations are kinetic to the extent that they are invested in motion, with a firm belief that a change in action precipitates a change in thought or orientation, thus inverting the traditional belief that a change in thought must precede a change in action.
Speaker One will provide a further explication of kinecism, exploring how Latour, Bogost, Jane McGonigal and others contribute to a pragmatic rearticulation of Sloterdjik’s concept of “kyncism.” The presentation will conclude by looking at the Ice Bucket challenge as an example of viral, kinetic rhetoric.
