3. How ‘rhetorical’ were the chambers of rhetoric? What groups were free to use this performance venue as a medium for social critique and self-expression? Were these organizations capable of true subversion of dominant contemporary values and institutions?
The Chambers of Rhetoric were quite rhetorical. Not only did the Chamber s of Rhetoric serve a form of entertainment for the audience, they also provided a forum to discuss the moral, philosophical and social issues that were dominating their times. Each Chamber of Rhetoric would perform their play. Many of the Chambers of Rhetoric were quite anticlerical and often spoke out against the hierarchical and dominating position of the church. Or, there was some type of reformation propaganda within their play. In fact, the readings argued that what united most of the Chambers of Rhetoric were their anticlerical sentiments. However, they could not be too anticlerical because they were funded by the Church and State.
Most members of the Chambers of Rhetoric were merchants, professionals, higher members of the artisan class and some guild members. Thus, many of the Chambers of Rhetoric performances paralleled the views of the middle-class urban Dutch society. The goal of the Chamber of Rhetoric was to create a literate society and encourage creativity. As they were the ones who also wrote the plays and performances, these members heavily shaped the public opinion during this time as many of the performances were held in large public arenas easily available to a large audience.
Yes, it seems that the Chambers of Rhetoric were somewhat able to subvert the dominant contemporary values and institutions. This is mainly due to the fact that the Chambers of Rhetoric performed to large public audiences made up of a variety of low, middle, and upper class individuals. Thus, it is presumable to say that their message was easily disseminated to the other classes. However, their messages were usually highly metaphorical and perhaps people could not understand the anticlerical statements intertwined within their performance. Maybe it was more like a half-true subversion.
Boal & Enacting Social Change
13 years ago
This was an interesting essay that looked at both sides of the argument. It seems to me that a paradox exists, as the Chambers of Rhetoric accepted funds from the church and simultaneously spoke out against the dominant hierarchy. My assumption is that they utilized obscure methods to get their point across to the masses. Consequently, the lower classes may not have understood the meaning behind the messages, because of the literacy and education issues that existed. Thus, the chamber's messages may not have been as easily disseminated to the bourgeoisie. In today's we society, we continue to see television shows and movies that reify the same types of messages that Chamber's of Rhetoric supported. For example, the movie Avatar metaphorically criticized the United States foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteYou argue that the Chambers were in fact quite rhetorical, but based on the goal of rhetoric, to have others take action or to persuade others into a course of action, did the Chambers acheive that goal? It seems that your interpreation of the Chambers is no different than a salon, a place where men gather to discuss musings on politics, art, etc., And also if the Chambers were subjected to the church and state, do you feel this in some way undermined what they could possible want to persuade?
ReplyDeleteYou need to support your assertions with specific examples. I think the problem with the essay is that you're trying to make a statement about ALL Chambers of Rhetoric. Different Chambers had differing ties to Church and State at different points in the history of each organization and employed varying rhetorical strategies.
ReplyDelete