Adaptive Rhetoric by Parrish Alex C.;

Author:Parrish, Alex C.;
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 1546807
Publisher: Routledge

II.2. Camouflage

If camouflage in nature is a special form of mimicry, than camouflage in rhetorical theory must also perform one or more special functions. At its heart, camouflage is a borrowing of appearance, that act of seeming about which young Hamlet railed. This seeming, I would argue, can be either physical (if I don a pair of thick-rimmed glasses with a fake comb mustache attached, I will seem like Groucho Marx) or symbolic (if I speak in the third person, I will seem like Bob Dole). You see, just as one can borrow an appearance, one can borrow an ethos.

Yet biologists might not appreciate this once again metaphorical application of the idea of camouflage. John Maynard Smith and David Harper claim that camouflage is not a signal because there is no evolved response (since it is not detected).104 This is a technical distinction that may or may not concern rhetoricians, who are equally interested in the analysis of signals and their reception. Indeed, rhetoricians might take my distinction a step further and say that even if there is no receiver, let alone one that notices the signal, the act of signaling—actively or passively—is worthy of study if it persuades by providing or omitting information. Borrowed ethos is one example of what I will call ‘active camouflage,’ which should be understood as a behavioral metaphor for the biological ability to physically adapt to one’s milieu. But let us be clear: the fact that camouflage is not noticed is precisely the point. It is more than a mere signal; it is a signal jammer. It conceals by using the sensory organs of others against them, by making them see what they expect to see rather than what is truly there.

Camouflage is a form of mimicry that allows us to blend in or assume a false identity (be it merely a piece of tree bark, or a whole new person). I call this ‘borrowed ethos’ because image and ethos are intertwined. We see this among humans especially when taken out of a monocultural context. Communications scholar James Neuliep argues that one of the basic tenets of intercultural communication is that nonverbal code systems, more than spoken words, convey information to others.105 This applies to learned cultural traits and technologies as well. If we think about the way writing works, the point becomes obvious: “In the development of literacy, as in life experiences, image precedes language.”106 Indeed, “natural and cultural systems help shape each other and are radically consequential for each other.”107 If we think about this in neo-Saussurean terms, we could say that reality is split into two images: the true and the apparent. The apparent, while a false signifier, is able to shape the true because people believe that that is what it is. So there is a constant and recursive struggle between image and reality, and while one is true and the other only seems true, both have the power to become real (within the limits of physics, of course—I can name a speeding bus a petunia, but if it hits me it’s still going to hurt like a bus).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.