With the previous posts as way of an introduction, how do I define rhetoric?  I have to say that my definition of rhetoric is something of a work in progress, a definition that has changed over time.  When I started my graduate education I think my vision of rhetoric was relatively Aristotelian, seeing rhetoric as motivated and evaluated based upon a measure of effect and effectiveness.  Later, I began to see rhetoric more in transactional terms, centered between a “speaker” and an “auditor.”  As my study of rhetoric deepened, my view of what rhetoric is and what sorts of artifacts I view as rhetorical continued to evolve.  At the risk of seeming a bit flip, I grew to understand rhetoric in terms along the lines of Justice Potter Stewart’s oft-quoted characterization of pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964): I know it when I see it.

I have settled, for the moment anyway, on a view that melds practice and theory, performance and criticism, word and visual symbol.  I would define rhetoric as:

A civic art interested in the study of words and symbols used to make meaning.

Perhaps that definition does well enough on its own, but as with most matters of definition a range of conditions and characteristics might be used to further explain my perspective.

1. Rhetoric is produced. Messages are created or constructed, although not strictly bound by intentionality, and the motive of the speaker/producer is important to making meaning.
2. While the producer of the message—the rhetor if you will—is important to the meaning of rhetoric, the listener, receiver, auditor, audience (or whatever term you might prefer or be situationally appropriate) is perhaps more important in providing the rhetoric with meaning.
3. The above combine to demonstrate that in rhetoric meaning is negotiated between rhetor/speaker/producer and listener/audience.  Discourse communities negotiate the meaning of rhetorical acts.
4. Rhetoric is generally in the domain of persuasion, although not exclusively so.
5. In its most common form, rhetoric is discursive, but it is not necessarily so.  Symbols, particularly visual images, are within the domain of rhetoric.
6. The study of rhetoric entails both rhetorical practice and theory; That is, it includes both training in the production of rhetoric, such as speech making, and it involves analysis, interpretation, and criticism of rhetoric produced by others.
7. Rhetoric is situational and contingent. That is to say that rhetoric is invited in contexts in order to address and respond to problems that are of a contingent nature.
8. There is a content to rhetoric, though it is not of the sort of substance we typically recognize. Rhetoric’s content is located in an implicit ethical or moral component to its study, teaching, and use.  Further, this content is based in reason, attached to rigorous standards of evaluation.
9. Rhetoric is inextricably linked to power.  There is a power inherent in rhetoric while rhetoric also acts upon and creates power.
10. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, rhetoric is a civic art that is produced and studied for the good of society.  Rhetoric, and training in it, is crucial for effective public deliberation and democracy.       

Certainly there are other equally legitimate, if not superior, ways to see or define rhetoric. And, ultimately, I would contend that the inability to offer a single formal definition of rhetoric speaks to the richness of the term and its content, and is something that ought to be valued rather than criticized.  How do you define rhetoric?

Posted by Todd McDorman at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In the previous entry I offered some of the reasons behind the change to the “Rhetoric Department” designation.  Many of those reasons implicitly suggest a meaning for rhetoric, while not go so far as to offer a true definition.

That rhetoric has meaning is suggested by the identification of a discipline of that name possessing deep historic ties, and commonly described as rhetorical studies in the present.  Likewise, that rhetoric is part of the classic trivium denotes a deeply held understanding of the term.  And yet, what does rhetoric mean?

This seemingly simple question, is also surprisingly complex, as demonstrated by a range of possible definitions for the term.  On one level we can simply say that rhetoric, as a discipline, trades in the use and study of words, be that in a written or oral form.  That is accurate, rather like I imagine it is accurate to say that mathematics is about numbers and history is about the past.  That is to say, while it is an accurate description in a manner of speaking, such a definition fails to suitably capture the nuances of the term as a disciplinary identification or as a course of study. 

Defining rhetoric is made more complex by the connotations the term has. Nearly from its inception rhetoric often has been equated with persuasion, an effort to influence one’s opinion or view (this is, for instance, the starting point of Wikipedia’s definition, which I am reluctant to admit is a reasonable if not flawless discussion of the term). This definition, likely traceable to Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric as “the faculty of discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever," is defensible.  However, it also raises concerns about the potential for the unscrupulous, deceitful manipulation of others.

Such concerns over rhetoric, along with its use as a pejorative term for certain kinds of talk—empty rhetoric, mere rhetoric—all denoting eloquence without substance, lead to negative conclusions regarding “rhetoric.” Think, for instance, about the last time you heard rhetoric appealed to. What was the context?  I’ll guess it had to do with one politician insulting another, accusing his or her opponent of offering rhetoric instead of real solutions or something of the sort.  In fact, if you do a search of the word “rhetoric” on a website like the New York Times, you will find that rhetoric is rarely invoked in terms of the art of discourse, or even in terms of persuasive appeals, but almost exclusively used to denote style without substance, empty promises, or content free claims.  That complicates offering a meaning of rhetoric that has popular traction, and it is a problem for defining rhetoric.

Cartoon by Mike Konopacki, 2001

Posted by Todd McDorman at 08:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The start of the 2007-08 academic year marks the third for the rechristened Rhetoric Department.  Although the Wabash College Speech Department had a long and distinguished history, and a legacy that we are proud of and continue to both honor and extend, Speech was no longer an accurate or useful descriptor for the work of the faculty and students of the department.

The change was a decade in the making, starting with a1995 directive by then President Andy Ford that the Speech Department “strengthen and develop a modern rhetorically-based curriculum.” In turn, the department introduced a series of new courses that emphasized rhetorical studies, and, in the process, made the name “Speech” inappropriate.  Finally, we asked a set of scholars, who visited the department to conduct an outside review, about the merits of changing the name to Rhetoric. Their report endorsed the change, saying it “would reflect the substance of the revised major; would be consistent with its evolution from performance and technique to critical thinking and rhetorical inquiry; and resonates with the history of rhetoric as part of the trivium of the liberal arts.”

Thus, at root, the change was undertaken for the simple sake of accuracy. “Rhetoric” more accurately reflects the content of courses in the department.  Likewise, rhetoric serves as the discipline or academic field of the department’s faculty.

More than this, however, Rhetoric reflects an intellectual heritage and content that Speech simply could not capture.  When we were identified as the Speech Department, and our students were Speech majors, the most common connotation held by those we encountered involved the assumption that the professors must be professional speechwriters and performers, concerned exclusively with speechmaking, and the students received an education the concentrated on how to make a good speech. (Others assumed that the major offered instruction in speech therapy or speech pathology)  To be sure, these are important skills and the department continues to be dedicated to the improvement of self-presentation, but this perspective did not begin to capture our work or that of our students.

Instead, rhetoric provides a historical connection to the liberal arts and thus is a natural fit for the Wabash curriculum. In important respects, the change in name was a reaffirmation of the rhetorical tradition that generations of Wabash men experienced during their time at Wabash, a tradition dating back to at least W. Norwood Brigance, and further developed by Vic Powell and Joe O’Rourke.  Likewise, the name rhetoric places greater emphasis on the intellectual content of the field and the academic sophistication and rigor of the courses. And, pragmatically, our majors see rhetoric as a better representation of their course work and training and see it as advantageous to potential employers.

In the coming days, and perhaps weeks, we will do more to consider the meaning of this change and, in particular, address the more complicated question of “What is Rhetoric?”

Posted by Todd McDorman at 04:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Welcome to the new blog for the Wabash College Rhetoric Department.  The purpose of this blog is to keep you up-to-date with events associated with the Rhetoric Department, including the work of the department’s faculty and students.  Over the course of the coming year we plan to:

• Address the sticky question of “what is rhetoric.”
• Offer updates on faculty and student research projects.
• Give insight into our courses and, when possible, share student reaction and work.
• Provide news on department sponsored events like Parliamentary Union, Moot Court, and the Baldwin Oratorical Contest, often from the perspective of Wabash students.
• Check in on some of our alumni.
• Provide off-the-cuff rhetorical criticism of current events and topics that strike us as noteworthy.

We hope that our postings will be conversational yet thought-provoking, friendly yet with critical purpose.  The postings will be short and we hope that they appear on a regular basis.  If you have feedback or something to share, please send your reactions to Todd McDorman at mcdormat@wabash.edu.

The Wabash College Rhetoric Department:

Jennifer Abbott

Todd McDorman

David Timmerman

Posted by Todd McDorman at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)