Back |
sample courses |
student life |
parents lounge |
faculty |
local affiliates |
more info |
home
REGISTRATION | REFER | Just How Bad is the Public School Battle Zone? Click Here For Free Report! | PEERS | BOOKSTORE
Contact: 1-866-617-2035
REGISTRATION | REFER | Just How Bad is the Public School Battle Zone? Click Here For Free Report! | PEERS | BOOKSTORE
Contact: 1-866-617-2035
 |
Chapter One: Introduction |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Chapter One: Origin of Rhetoric and the Definition
What, exactly, is the study of rhetoric? This question has been asked ever since the term was coined. The literal meaning of the word in English is the art of speaking or writing effectively. "Rhetoric" comes from the Greek word for "speech" or "spoken." This definition and origin of the word are only one side of the story. Rhetoric has not always been considered a respectable academic discipline. Plato was critical of the idea that rhetoric should be called an art, while Aristotle argued in On Rhetoric that it was indeed an art. Plato's perspective on rhetoric has not been uncommon throughout the ages, namely, that rhetoric is no art at all but merely practiced flattery. The "fantastical banquet" of words is "mere cookery in words"; words that are plain and to the point are all we really need. Plato puts forth this position in the dialogue Gorgias, where rhetoric is called "the art of persuasion." Through the character of Socrates he tears this definition apart by showing that bare persuasion cannot be an art in the proper sense of the word. Plato's argument, through Socrates, goes something like this: He compares rhetoric to those things traditionally considered art, such as medicine, politics, and warfare, and reveals that rhetoric, unlike them, has no specific subject or any basic data to serve as the foundation for those who practice it. The subject of medicine is healing, which is accomplished by knowledge of illnesses and medicines. The subject of warfare is victory, which is accomplished by knowledge of troops and tactics. But with rhetoric, there are endless difficulties discovering a subject, especially since both the doctor and the general must use persuasion--which is supposed to be the realm of rhetoric--and since the ability to persuade can be considered a knack, not a skill based on knowledge. Based on the fact that rhetoric (as the art of persuasion) cannot meet the definition of an art (a discipline with a specific subject and basic data), Socrates concludes it is no art. He goes on at length to explain that rhetoric is merely a form of flattery, and more comparable to cookery than to medicine. He heaps shame on rhetoric by employing, ironically, a number of rhetorical means. The gist of his argument is that when we compare rhetoric to other "arts," it doesn't fit the description; hence we shouldn't even call it an art. In answer to this criticism, Aristotle in On Rhetoric defines rhetoric so that he can explain its place as a counterpart to dialectic (logic). He says that rhetoric is like dialectic in that its subject is all things. While the subject of dialectic is logical thought and the subject of rhetoric is effective communication, they differ from many of the lesser arts, such as medicine and warfare, since the subjects of health and victory are comparatively narrow. The definition of rhetoric settled on, then, must take into account this universal nature of its referent. Aristotle proposes that we call rhetoric "the art of finding the possible means of persuasion in reference to any given situation." This definition may seem somewhat clumsy at first, but as you begin to experience the everyday nature of rhetoric you will have a greater appreciation for Aristotle's insight. Aristotle strikes the balance by using a definition that acknowledges the goal--persuasion--but grounds its use in the "given situations." Rhetoric, like logic, has all things as its subject--every "given situation" is the subject for either discipline. This definition also goes a long way toward answering the age-old question about rhetoric: "What makes rhetoric more than a base appeal to the emotions?" Many have answered like Plato--"not much"; but those who delve a little further come to appreciate the important role of the human will in communications. Every message from human to human is laden with the will (emotions or desires) of the speaker, and comes to a hearer who is full of his own emotions and predispositions. This fact makes the study of how words are made persuasive both legitimate and necessary. Although some philosophers dream wistfully of pure rational discourse, in reality it is a comical pretense (and sometimes shows up in literature as such--for instance, in C.S. Lewis' Mr. MacPhee from That Hideous Strength). Every person who is opposed to rhetoric nevertheless participates in his very own rhetoric. More than likely he will attempt to persuade you that rhetoric is no legitimate art. He won't just coolly let the "truth" of his position win out in the end. No, he wants you to believe as he does; and if or when you do, he expects you to want the "truth" to be believed just as he did. Desires and predispositions are part of the world as much as reason is, argues Aristotle's definition. One of the ways in which Aristotle showed the legitimacy and necessity of rhetoric was by setting forth three divisions of oratory that demonstrated its role in public life. These categories illustrated that there was a system to the "situation" of rhetoric. They are the Deliberative (or Political), Forensic (or Judicial), and Epideictic (which includes many different kinds of rhetoric). These three have a more or less future, past, and present order to them. Deliberative oratory is concerned with the future and with persuading someone to take a certain course of action. Probably with the Athenian democracy in mind, Aristotle identifies the use of rhetoric before the legislative assembly as Deliberative. The Roman Republic also afforded a use for this type of oratory. Today we still have this use in our legislative assemblies all the way from the town council to the U.S. Senate. And, in the sense that advertising seeks to persuade people to take an action in the future for their future benefit, it is also a kind of deliberative rhetoric. Forensic oratory deals with events that happened in the past--whether a certain man or institution did or did not do something and what we ought to do consequently. The proper sphere of Forensic oratory is generally considered to be the judicial court. Although there are other disciplines (history, for example) that fit the specific criteria given above in some ways, Forensic causes are almost always courtroom situations. Epideictic oratory is the broadest category, and you need to remember two main branches. First, Epideictic oratory deals with the present by commending someone or something to the audience as worthy of praise or blame. (This was the understanding of Epideictic oratory in the classical world.) Second, today we call upon Epideictic rhetoric to accomplish any ideologically driven persuasion--put another way, any persuasion that persuades primarily to belief, although that belief may result in action as a secondary effect. These are the general categories of oratory. The Deliberative cause is concerned mainly with the wisdom or practical implications of a certain course of action. In Forensic oratory, you must show how the law speaks to the situation at hand, either in letter or in spirit. Finally, in Epideictic oratory you must convince the audience of the positive or negative value of a certain person, place, thing, or idea. None of these categories is completely exclusive. You will have some Forensic-like sections in your Deliberative speech as you try to determine the judicial precedent for a certain law and how it relates to the course of action being considered. You will also seek to persuade the audience that the course of action is ethically good or bad, which are Epideictic concerns. So you see that the categories do overlap, but usually one type of oratory will define your situation better than the others.
In the classical world, and especially in the Athenian democracy, the power to persuade was a necessity for any public citizen. Aristotle's arguments were potent because he showed that one of the proper ends of rhetoric was to apply the means of persuasion to Deliberative and Forensic situations. This was not only acceptable but interesting to citizens of the ancient world, who could be required to defend themselves in court without the assistance of a lawyer. The citizen of a democracy or a republic also had to vote for a candidate, distinguishing the smooth talker from the honest man--a perennial problem in politics. It was easy for Aristotle's audience to understand that there was a legitimate use for a systematic study of the means of persuasion. The comparison to logic was a stroke of genius that freed those who valued rhetoric from objections like Plato's. Rhetoric was an art, to be studied right alongside Logic. Finally, there are always those aforementioned smooth talkers, who give rhetoric a bad name. Such were the sophists, or philosophical relativists, who were certain that persuasive power is a might that makes right. They viewed rhetoric as a legitimate means for gaining whatever they liked. The sophists were not so much mistaken in their understanding of rhetoric as in their application of ethics. They correctly recognized rhetorical ability as power. Aristotle also recognized that rhetoric is power and, as such, can corrupt, and he warned his readers that rhetoric must be used ethically or it will become sophistry. While it is used for good it is an art, but it becomes base sophistry when corrupted. He argued that the corruption of rhetoric is a man-based problem, that rhetoric cannot be evil in itself. As Christians we agree with this conclusion. Godless ethics always attempts to locate sin in things rather than in man's nature. We need to realize that rhetoric is powerful and must be learned in conjunction with the grace of God, which alone can keep its power from being a tool of corruption. Summary: From the beginning, rhetoric has encountered influential advocates and detractors. While Plato questioned its legitimacy, Aristotle defended rhetoric by comparing it to dialectic and calling it dialectic's sister art. Among those in favor of it are those who use it ethically (rhetoricians) for good and truth, and those who use it dishonestly (sophists) for gain. Three main divisions of oratory set forth by Aristotle--Deliberative, Forensic, and Epideictic--illustrated the concrete and inescapable nature of rhetoric and reinforced the correlation of rhetoric and dialectic.
Do you have a good handle on this material? If you think you're ready, proceed to the quiz below. Once you have answered all questions to the best of your ability, choose "Score Your Answers". |
