Rhetorical Theory Annotation 2

Miller, Carolyn R. "Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science." A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy. Eds. Witte, Stephen P., Neil Nakadate and Roger D. Cherry. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. Print.

Miller discusses the relationship between science and kairos and how scientific discourse can be analyzed using this classical rhetoric concept. The author describes the concept kairos as having temporal and spatial components. The temporal aspect is described by a specific moment in time when a speech is given or discourse is written. This moment in time is characterized by a specific cultural context, audience, opportunity, and constraints that place demands on the rhetor and thereby mold his product so that he may succeed in his endeavor of persuasion. In turn, the rhetor can take advantage of and choose a particular moment and context, or the right time, to present an argument, thus increasing his likelihood for success in creating solutions for problems at hand and to enhance persuasion.

Kairos also has a spatial component, described as an opening or opportunity. Specific contexts are imperfect or incomplete and therefore require action. The rhetor is able to identify or create these openings in a situation, convince the audience of the existence of the opportunity, and insert his argument or “conception of what needs to be done” (Miller 313). Therefore, the rhetor is in a constant struggle and must successfully negotiate his motives between the restrictions placed and opportunities presented by a specific context at a given point in time.

Miller mentions Kuhn’s paradigm shifts and description of rhetoric of science and relates this to kairos by discussing how gaps in knowledge exist and research uses both timing and opportunity (temporal and spatial kairos) to progress. Scientific concepts develop by researchers continually finding solutions for new spaces. Ideas are then perpetuated by persuasive researchers that can effectively argue his or her stance. This process leads to our conceptualization of scientific truth. Miller also discusses how readers should consider context and timing when analyzing scientific discourse.

Miller raises an interesting point regarding the use of kairos in examining scientific discourse. This may prove useful is looking at grant writing, as this form of discourse is highly rhetorical, contextually driven, and temporal.