Rebecca Brown
Engl 4320, Senior Seminar
February 12, 2008
Ancient Rhetorical Devices in a Short Article
In analyzing Scheff’s article on thick description analysis, it is easy to find even a short
academic article can contain a significant amount of rhetorical theory and method. At only two
pages, the length of this article seems as though it might not yield as much rhetorical theory as
other, much larger papers have. But upon analysis, this short article actually utilizes two very
ancient and common rhetorical practices. Sheff argues that having recorded data along with
thickly described accounts can yield results to appease people who question thick description’s
validity in the work of anthropological research. He uses commonplace and then degree from
Aristotle’s topical system as his methods of persuading opposing sides to agree to his side of the
argument.
To validate his argument and purpose, Scheff first begins by finding commonplace
between the different opposing sides on thick description. He acknowledges the two main
reasons for why scholars look down upon thick description; interpretation is skewed because it is
more of the writer’s point of view, and there is no evidence to corroborate the thickly described
ethnographies. By creating only two encompassing reasons why thick description is objected,
Scheff creates a basis for which he can speak to all of the opposition at the same time.
In rhetoric, the term and use of commonplace refers to what is circulating within a topic
(Crowley 96). In Scheff’s article, it is the issue of how valid thick description is for
anthropological ethnographies. By including both scientific and interpretive analysis, Scheff is
able to include just about anyone who had been objecting to thick description at the time of his
article. He concludes that the only way to appeal to both scientific and interpretive arguments is
to provide recorded documentation to go along with the thick description.
It must be noted that this idea of commonplace is a broad generalization of what modern
rhetoricians do (Crowley 98). However, the generalizations are the first step in finding more
specific rhetorical devices later in the argument. Commonplace becomes a gateway to finding
additional rhetorical methods. In understanding the general commonplace, it is easy to see that
Scheff is more specifically using degree from Aristotle’s topical system to convince his readers
that his solution is a correct solution. Instead of taking a polar side to this argument, Scheff
lessens the degree to which thick description is used and interpreted. He states that in order to
fully include recorded documentation and the thick description, it could only be used for certain
events in the observation (Scheff 408) and not the entirety of the study.
The main example given in this article is that of an interview with a psychiatrist to a
patient. Scheff has claimed that there are only two examples of having recorded data and
observer’s interpretation. He utilizes what he has learned with thick description as well as
observe the recording numerous times to understand the subject’s perspective during the time of
the interview. By showing his own methodology in action, Scheff is giving others a guide on
how to use recordings with thick description in order for people to fully understand both the
subject and the observer’s point of view. He establishes his commonground in this case, by
showing that his method of observation and data collection is better than what Geertz had
practiced. The importance of thick description is therefore diminished, since it does not become
the primary “living text” that Geertz had envisioned. Now it is accompanied by an actual
recorded account for others to observe and reinterpret the original observation.
While it is noble of Scheff to want to find a middleground for thick description to work,
this suggestion of having a recorded copy of the incident for further evidence weakens his
argument for thick description. Sheff (409) directly states that the benefit behind having the
recorded session is that it can be replayed as many times as necessary to make the proper
interpretation. He has decreased the degree of why thick description is written; it is not a
firsthand description of an experience, but is now a carefully crafted interpretation of recorded
material. The original idea behind thick description was to have a “living text” (Scheff 408), not
a transcribed text of a recording. It seems as though Scheff had good intentions, but failed to
recognize that his change in degree of use changed the process completely.
In a final attempt to cease argument over thick description, he reinforces the idea that
theory and practice together create this new and improved way of writing thick description
(Scheff 409). The theory being the interpretation and the practice being the recorded material
creates a sense of closure to the argument as Scheff brings the paper back to the commonplace of
interpretation and scientific practice from the beginning of his article. While his proposed
solution may not have completely solved the issue, his methods at least helped to better define
the sides of the argument and created a different, more mediating perspective on thick
description. By using ancient rhetorical devices, Scheff was able to create a short and precise
argument on the way thick description should be implemented.
Works Cited
Scheff, Thomas J. “Towards Resolving the Controversy over “Thick Description”.” Current
Anthropology 27.4 (1986): 408-09.
Crowley, Sharon and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. New York:
Pearson Longman, 2004.