Overall Blog: Week 6: Invention

Invention is one of the five canons that has long been contested and continues to be discussed for its naure and purpose within rhetoric. Lauer focuses on these sometimes contentious debates over a vast amount of time. As she notes, invention often functions as the beginning of the rhetorical process. The canon assists in understanding the rhetorical choices one makes, identifying the direction of various ideas, and can helps elucidate the rhetorical situation for the rhetor. Lauer explains "These purposes entail different epistemologies and inve ntional strategies.
T hey also imply somewhar differenr conceprions of rhe composing
process and of its originating acts. For example, if invention's purpose
is to locate arguments to support a thesis, the composing process
would likely begin with an existing thesis. If invention's purpose is
to reach new insights. the process would li kely begin with questions" (p.3).

Hawhee further discusess the debate about invention. She explains that two schools of thought exist on the purpose of invention as an element of the rhetorical process. "The distinction between these two perspectives hinges on issues of cxtcriority and interiority: the discovery model presents a subject that looks outside itself to "find" arguments, and the creative model assumes that thc subjcct need only look inside itself for things to say" (p. 16). She continues the conversation by introducing the issue of subjectivity in regards to invention. Postmodern studies, for example, contest commonly held perceptions of the rhetor as an independent entity protected from the influences of anything outside the realm of the self. Throughout the chapter, Hawhee continues to explore alternative perspectives of subjectivity and discourse in an attempt to understand the disparate viewpoints on the issue of invention.

Wark presents an interesting picture of invention. In this piece, he approaches the concept of invention as a possession of the human mind, wrought with possibilities and potentialities, but vulnerable to the privileged perspective of the society's dominant. As humans, we are all hackers. Hackers of ideas and information, creators of consciousness and reality. Yet, the fruits of our hacking labors can be challenged, minimalized, or forced into oblivion if the privileged group desires it to be so. Thus, from this perspective, the existence of the ability to invent within the human conscious is not guaranteed but is instead at the mercy of the masses.

Finally, Lyon discusses the issue of rhetorical scholars, particularly those studying postmodernity, as problematic to the continued existence of Aristotle's five canons such as invention. She argues, "Rhetoric becomes a strategic
approach to reading texts, not a praxis or poesis" (p. 36). She further posits that by focusing on the interpretation of texts instead of the production of rhetoric, rhetoric becomes diminished in terms of its relationship with invention and is defined by a scholar's ability to interpret a text instead of a study about the invention of the rhetorical action.

Overall, what can be gleaned from these readings is the idea that there are a multitude of perspectives about the meaning of invention, invention's purpose and function within rhetorical studies, and the implications for these perspectives on rhetorical scholarship.