When we talk about rhetoric we often talk around rhetoric. We go through the motions of crafting an argument and positioning ourselves in relation to others’ stances. We say a lot about what was said. But as I’ve often told my students, most of the rhetoric we encounter in our daily lives derives from unwritten sources—from places without words. The most basic grammar of argument involves the use of spatial rhetorics.
The use of spatial rhetorics can be traced back to the Greeks method of speech memorization. In preparing to give a speech, the orator would go to the location and identify landmarks—a pillar, a tree or statue or something of the like. Each section of the speech was then tied to a landmark and the orator only had to look from one landmark to the next to deliver the address.
In the digital world, the idea of space has become muddied. Accessibility seems to be less of an issue with technologies like wikis, Google Earth, and live-stream video. In using these technologies it seems we have removed ourselves entirely from dependency on physical space.
Have we really strayed that far from our rhetorical predecessors? I’m inclined to say no, if for no other reason than my own dependency on space as a tool for making meaning. Consider what I’ve written so far: I use prepositions (around, through, at) to give abstract concepts (such as rhetoric) a location; I use synonyms for the spatial when I use the terms stance or position; I use directional metaphor to show degrees of variation (removed ourselves, strayed that far).
The truth is we are intrinsically linked to location. Just as certain socio-economic and cultural geographic regions influence spoken dialects, physical spaces provide a grammar of their own. In the most mysterious of fashions, before we choose to speak, the environment has already shaped what is to come. And once the voice resounds, it takes on the shape of the environment on both a figurative and a literal level.
