Eloquence

Fake it 'til You Make it: Artifice versus the Artificial

In most discussions of rhetoric, at some point the concept of sincerity is brought into question. When one is being so careful in carving out words, it is difficult to feel that they spring from a place of truth; it is as if not being solely "of this moment" detracts from the truth or purity of their metaphoric nectar. There is indeed a complex interplay between authenticity, sincerity, and truth in the moment on the one hand, and manipulation, insincerity, and calculation on the other.

Does thinking through your thoughts, crafting them by employing what could be conceived of as a set of artificial tools, in fact dilute the intentions of the speaker, in that he or she would then be speaking in such a way as to elicit a particular response, feeling, or understanding, as opposed to just speaking from the heart, as they say. In response to this question, in our seminar Professor Joseph Roach articulated a distinction that I found both remarkable and illuminating – the distinction between artifice and the artificial. He stated that although use of these techniques is indeed artifice, it is not in fact artificial. Looking at some definitions of the two terms (courtesy of Merriam-Webster), I understand this as the idea that what is artifice, in the sense of a clever or artful skill or stratagem, is not in this case artificial, in the sense of being unnatural or insincere. Put another way, one can indeed be quite sincere while consciously employing techniques that enhance perception of self; sometimes the use of tips and tricks can help access and present the truth better than freeform expression. Consider the unplanned stuttered utterance as opposed to the well-thought out statement on a topic to help get a feel for the potential here.

This idea is meaningful to this unit, since it revolves around helping our young language learners convince or persuade listeners and readers of a fluency that they are still in fact developing; this could be considered a way of presenting a less-than-honest picture of their language development. However, by working on those elements, students are actually improving their fluency! It is less trickery and more a way to draw out of students what is already there, giving them tools to employ as they close the gaps that exist on their paths of emerging fluency.

Also of note is the potential contradiction between the spontaneous communication we are looking for our students to enjoy and the stress on practice, planning, and premeditation inherent in this approach. Of course though, we know that without a strong foundation of learning and practice, it is impossible to communicate in a new language spontaneously and meaningfully aside from simple replies and responses that will frustrate and bore our middle school grade kids.

One definition of artificial is something that is lacking in natural or spontaneous quality. It is quite enchanting to me how applying these techniques can actually become a way for speakers to get at their truth more clearly, to uncover and uncloud their thoughts in order to reveal or convey their truer self. In this way, use of this framework leads to communication that is far more natural than just letting one's thoughts roam and meander without direction, purpose, and pathway. Some of our devices are intended to convey a feeling of spontaneity; I think it can be said that for the audience, what

matters is the experience of spontaneity as they receive the message, rather than receiving an unclear and disjointed collection of thoughts that are in fact spontaneous.

The approach in this unit will support the idea of helping students present themselves either as they are or as they wish to be, and in that will serve as a vehicle for transporting them to that dream language destination we call fluency.