Gates and Classical Rhetoric

To me, I'm not entirely sure that rhetoric is changed with the inclusion of a new population, but it is certainly expanded as Gates thoroughly identifies the rhetorical practices of signifyin'. While it can complicate our understanding of rhetoric, Gates' excerpt from Richard Lanham makes a compelling case for signifyin' being a re-tooling of at least Renaissance rhetoric. As David has noted, the “trope of tropes” may reduce rhetoric to style and style alone, but I agree that there is more to it than that. Gates' highlighting of “improvisation” and “ad-lib quickness” could be interpreted as off-the-cuff invention (1572). Furthermore, while Lanham's “memory schemes” could relate more to memory, style, and delivery, these schemes are “readily at hand;” could we see these as being starting points for invention like the topoi (1571)? Or might we see the standard topic of “your mama” as a source of invention? While this might be a stretch for invention, there is no doubt that the canons of memory and delivery are at play in the excerpt from Lanham. The only canon not considered thus far is that of arrangement. While it is not mentioned in the passage I'm basing this paragraph on, arrangement is a crucial part of signifyin'; as Gates notes throughout the piece, rhyming is a part of signifyin', and rhyming depends on an arrangement of lines for the desired effect. So, in this regard, we can see all five canons being at play within the rhetorical practices of signifyin'.

Another aspect of signifyin' similar to classical rhetoric is the fact that it is very much based in an occasion and tied to ethos; we see that signifyin' is intrinsically tied to winning and persuading – “the aim is scoring” (1572). It is the “continual verbal play” in winning and persuading that allows youths to gain a certain amount of credibility in the street. By practicing and honing their craft, youths can become rhetoricians in their own right, being a “trained” signifier. Now, all of this is not to say that signifyin' aligns perfectly or fits perfectly within classical rhetoric, but comparisons can be made to see how signifyin' is an expansion of the tradition, not a tectonic shift. The most notable difference between the two is that classical rhetoric was concerned with the public sphere in regards to policy making and judicial affairs; on the other hand, signifyin' is more concerned with the vernacular and the everyday – it isn't learned in a classical gymnasium, but through everyday experience. It is a localized sort of rhetorical theory, with applications beyond, just how Aristotle was “intended” (used loosely, of course) for white guys in Athens.