Jim Amidon — I’ve often written about how much goes on at Wabash — in a single day or week — and I’ve often written about the unique opportunities our students have during their four years on campus.

Last week I hitched a ride with some students, and it both lifted my spirits and reinforced my feelings about the remarkable liberal arts education we provide.

On Monday, students in David Timmerman’s rhetoric course brought their studies of debating to life. As part of a class assignment to bolster what they had studied, four of them simulated a Lincoln-Douglas debate.

I wasn’t there for the debate, but I gather that the students struggled a bit, essentially having to stick with a plan, whereas earlier in the term they had been allowed to give extemporaneous arguments. The idea, though, was for the students to gain a better understanding of the series of seven debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas that would change the course of American history.

The debates were held in the late summer and early fall of 1858 and took place all throughout the state of Illinois as Lincoln and Douglas fought for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Douglas, though dogged and run down by the final debate in October, would go on to win the Senate seat. Lincoln would win a bigger prize — national prominence — and would go on to win the presidential election years later.

Fast forward from the students’ debates on Monday to their next class period on Wednesday. Instead of continuing with more Lincoln-Douglas-style debates, Professor Timmerman welcomed to his class Dr. Ronald White, an esteemed Lincoln historian who has written two honored books on Lincoln and soon will release A. Lincoln: A Biography (Random House, January, 2009).

Professor Timmerman graciously allowed me to sit in on the class.

White, who is a research fellow at the Huntington Library in California and is on the faculty at UCLA, talked at length about what those Lincoln-Douglas debates were really like, giving the students a necessary historical grounding for their understanding of the subject.

Professor White gave the Wabash students a glimpse of life on the campaign trail in 1858. He noted that there were no microphones at the debates, which were often held on the town square on elevated platforms, around which thousands of people would gather. If you wanted to hear the debate, you had to get there early — a couple of hours early — to save your spot. Otherwise, as thousands of citizens descended, you’d not be able to hear the candidates speak.

Lincoln, White explained, learned to project his voice so ably that as many as 7,000 people could hear him. White also taught the students that Lincoln would always concede certain points to Douglas, then over time turn those same points against Douglas — a graceful way of illustrating the flaws in Douglas’s views without berating his opponent.

(Makes me think our current political candidates could learn something from a talk with Professor White.)

The debates were long — really long. One speaker would open with a one-hour monologue, after which the other candidate would speak for 90 minutes. There was then time for a 30-minute rebuttal from the opening speaker. And during the whole debate, the audience would crowd the stage, often interrupting the candidates with questions.

(Again, a far cry from today’s tightly scripted, carefully rehearsed televised debates.)

“Lincoln had this amazing sense of humor,” White explained, “self deprecating humor, and he had a knack for using Douglas’s own words against him.”

Lincoln’s stove pipe hat? Well, he kept copies of Douglas’s speeches up there, and he would often pull them out to quote precisely what his opponent had said in earlier speeches.

So picture this: A class of about 16 Wabash students studying the finer points of debate — just 48 hours removed from their first attempts at a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate — having a preeminent Lincoln scholar give them the inside scoop on what made Abraham Lincoln one of the finest debaters in our country’s history. And this discussion with Professor White occurred just 48 hours before the McCain-Obama debate last Friday night.

I can’t think of a better teaching and learning moment for those rhetoric students, who will now listen to McCain and Obama differently — and more carefully — over the final 40 days of the most important election of the their lifetime.

Just another week at Wabash.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 08:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

            In Classical times, liberal education was separated into seven different categories. Among these seven disciplines were the respected fields of Grammar, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music and Astronomy. But the seventh and final Liberal Art seems to have fallen out of practice as a reputable and important part of the liberal education. Rhetoric, perhaps by its very nature, has the potential to exact great good or great evil on the world. A powerful and persuasive orator can influence people and lead effectively, or s/he can corrupt beliefs and endanger their followers. That said, it is no wonder that so many people have raised an eyebrow when I have said I am a Rhetoric major. Invariably, I end up answering questions about what ‘Rhetoric’ is, what I will do with a degree in Rhetoric, and/or why I would want to study Rhetoric. Over the past 4 years, I have given several different answers to this question, but I suppose this short essay is my attempt to give one final, honest answer.

            For whatever reason, I usually begin defining Rhetoric by explaining what it is not. It is not a discipline that trains its students to mislead, to deceive, to twist, or to spin the truth. It is not a discipline that focuses for four years on presentation skills and ‘pretty talking’. In short, it is not salesmanship. To be fair, there have been countless speakers throughout history who have used the power of persuasion to achieve questionable, immoral, or even evil ends. But they were not using Rhetoric.

            The ancient Roman rhetorician Quintilian would agree with me on this point. To him, a speaker was not truly a rhetorician unless he was a, “good man speaking well”. Throughout his writings on the subject, Quintilian repeatedly insisted that the rhetorician must possess a high moral character. While Aristotle felt Quintilian’s definition was inadequate (insofar as it failed to account for those who would use Rhetoric to undesirable ends), Quintilian would simply have placed those speakers in a different class.

            Another (and more well-known) classical thinker held a similar opinion to Quintilian. Marcus Tullius Cicero agreed that any good orator, to be a rhetorician, must behave and speak in a morally sound manner. He should not aim to deceive, nor should he mislead, either intentionally by twisting the truth, or unintentionally by speaking on subjects he did not fully understand.

One might summarize the views of Quintilian and Cicero thusly: “The rhetorician should speak, at all times, as a gentleman and as a responsible citizen”. I use this wording intentionally, because I am defining rhetoric here only as it is taught at Wabash College. The disciplines of Communications, Public Speaking, Persuasion, and countless others are taught at universities throughout the world. But just as the Gentleman’s Rule sets Wabash apart from other institutions, the Rhetoric I have studied these past few years has been something different—something better—than what students learn at other schools. I do not mean to suggest that students elsewhere necessarily learn to be deceitful, but I know for a fact that Wabash men learn Rhetoric as it should be taught—as a powerful tool, to be exercised responsibly, that helps us to understand the words and symbols that influence us on a daily basis, and to grow as gentlemen and responsible citizens ourselves.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 03:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Note: Last year we asked our senior majors to reflect on the meaning of Rhetoric. We asked this year’s seniors to do the same thing. Over the next few days we will post some of their responses.

            Rhetoric can be seen as “the vast backdrop of our lives,” considering that it is bound to no specific set of institutions, but it is also a distinct and separate field of study. Thus, from my perspective, the true meaning of rhetoric lies somewhere in between Fleming’s descriptions of “Big Rhetoric” and “Little Rhetoric.”  In his essay “Rhetoric as a Course of Study,” David Fleming (1998) has defined rhetoric as “the study of speaking and writing well, a historically prominent and remarkably consistent program of instruction involving both theory and practice and aimed at the moral and intellectual development of the student” (p. 172).  This definition describes rhetoric as a study quite well and the long-term goal of that study, Fleming (1998) continues, “is the development of a certain kind of person: engaged, articulate, resourceful, sympathetic, civil—a person trained in, conditioned by, and devoted to what was once called eloquence” (pp. 172-73).  In other words, the underlying goal of rhetorical study is to build character, and moreover, to become a “good citizen.”

            Rhetoric is a tool, an acquirable virtue that can be taught, learned, and mastered through extensive study and practice.  As a practice, rhetoric involves using symbols, usually language, to accomplish more specific, immediate or short-term goals, whether it is to inform, persuade, or simply communicate ideas.  There is one aspect of rhetoric which Fleming’s definition does not touch upon: the idea of rhetoric as an art. That being said, Herrick (2005) also offers a useful definition of rhetoric.  “Rhetoric is intentionally fashioned discourse, and the art of rhetoric has developed around the activity of crafting discourse to achieve various effects including persuasion, clarity, and beauty of expression” (p. 15).  In order for rhetorical discourse to be most effective, regardless of a rhetor’s goals, it must be planned, adapted to an audience, shaped by human motives, responsive to a situation, persuasion seeking, and concerned with contingent issues. 

In addition to rhetoric’s defining characteristics according to Herrick, I would add that rhetoric must be both practical and moral.  But perhaps the most important thing to recognize though is that rhetoric is power.  When used most effectively, rhetoric has an enormous impact on an audience and can influence individuals to think or act in ways very different than they would otherwise.  This is necessary in some cases and can be a very good thing when it is used to bring about collective thought or action for the betterment of society or used as a neutral tool to bring about agreement.  However, it can also be used unethically to achieve selfish ends.  This is why the study of rhetoric is so important, not just for potential rhetors, but for the audience as well.  Everyone ought to be able to recognize this power and act accordingly. 

Works Cited

Fleming, David.  “Rhetoric as a Course of Study.” College English 61 (1998): 169-91.

Herrick, James A.  The History and Theory of Rhetoric. 3^rd Ed.  Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2005.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 09:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Wabash College Parliamentary Union brought home several awards from the Purdue Boilermaker Speech and Debate Tournament this last weekend (Sept. 12-14, 2008). A total of twenty-two students participated in all or part of the tournament in some fashion, resulting in a fourth place team finish for Wabash College in Individual Events.

The Parliamentary Debate team of Donovan Bisbee' 12 and Victor Nava '09 advanced to the octa-finals, finishing as one of the top sixteen teams from a field of forty-five teams.  They also brought home fourth best speaker (Nava) and third best speaker (Bisbee) awards out of a field of ninety-debaters.

In individual speaking events, Rob Bloss '08 finished fourth in Impromptu Speaking and Donovan Bisbee ‘12 finished third in Extemporaneous Speaking.  Donovan also won the top Novice Award for Extemporaneous Speaking in his first tournament as a collegiate.

Prof. Timmerman also attended the tournament and served as a judge for debate and individual speaking events.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 03:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)