This question actually contains three different questions, each building sequentially toward the final question. The first is a simple yes/no question, prefaced by the inclusion of Vickers in Gaonkar’s essay; the second a rather general question that almost requires a “yes” response to the first before proceeding; the final question asks for a synthesis and evaluation of Gaonkar’s assessment and North’s own theories.

These questions evince the writer’s own belief—that rhetoric does indeed have a core/Canon in the way they are structured. The kind of thinking that is provoked by this question, as I have alluded to in the previous paragraph, could be described in terms of Bloom’s Taxonomy: synthesis and evaluation. The questions assume quite a bit of prior knowledge: we must understand not only who Vickers is and the context in which Gaonkar includes him, but how his statement (which seemingly contradicts Gaonkar’s position) is incorporated into Gaonkar’s argument; we must also know exactly how North describes the relationship between hermeneutical inquiry and a canon—does this inquiry have a built-in canon, or is it merely a means of choosing or establishing a canon from which to work? If what North describes more closely resembles the latter question, then rhetoric does not have a canon as Gaonkar describes it. If it the former, then there are a number of permutations to explore.

It seems to me that the question functions an affirmation of the writer’s theory that Rhetoric does have its own canon, but can simultaneously act as a sort of “meta-discourse,” which is applied to other canons. Because of the references included in the question, and an assumed argument inherent in the structure of the questions, we can gather that the writer is a rhetorician who is writing to other rhetoricians or those who have a stake in the debate alluded to in the Gaonkar and Vickers references.

1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?