Rhetoric Notes

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)

By Jared Conaway ’08, senior Rhetoric major 

            Inevitably, when one is approaching a question as broad as this, one must do their best to immediately set the boundaries in which they will define the identified term. My definition of rhetoric focuses primarily upon rhetoric as a means of analyzing and better understanding the ways in which artifacts affect our decision making process as a populous. This definition seeks to explain rhetoric as the process in which scholars are able to dissect messages in society and how these messages affect our choices. This definition is grounded in the notion that rhetoric is not solely the art of speaking influentially, but is also the study of how one achieves influence with a target audience.

            Rhetoric in its essence is the art of speaking influentially. However, in light of the 21^st century and all of the advances that have been made in this field of study, rhetoric has grown to become the way in which we interpret and explain the different artifacts that exist in our world to influence our decision making process. In addition, I believe that this definition best supports the argument for rhetoric not being limited to its responsibility to teach its students the art of public speaking, but rather its responsibility to teach students to effectively evaluate arguments and their validity. For rhetoric to be limited to the art of influential public speaking is the equivalent of discrediting rhetoric as a second tier educational field. It becomes relegated to a second tier educationally because as merely the art of public speaking, rhetoric has little to no room to grow as a field of study.

            To put my definition into an example, I will use my education and experiences with this area of study to more clearly explain how rhetoric functions as not only the art of speaking influentially but as a tool of analysis. When addressing an audience, my thought process extends past the idea of how I can deliver my words persuasively. That is, my thought process leads me to discern what artifacts I will use to achieve my influence, how the audience might interpret those artifacts, and if the quality of my sources will gain credibility with my audience. Anyone can go in front of a room and try to be a salesman, but a real rhetorician understands how his arguments work, why they are influential, and most importantly, why those arguments are moral and credible.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Thomas Bell ’08, senior Rhetoric major 

Rhetoric Defined 

            In the minds of many, rhetoric as an area of study has a negative reputation.  And those who do not negatively critique rhetoric typically do not give this area of study enough credit, or even possess awareness of it.  Unfortunately, rhetoric is usually misconceived as only concerned with the study or teaching of public speaking, when in reality this field of study goes much deeper.

            From my perspective, rhetoric is best viewed as consisting of two primary properties or functions.  First, rhetoric is the study of how language, images, and various artifacts influence people.  Primarily, rhetoric focuses on persuasion as a tool that can be used both negatively and positively.  However, it is important to qualify rhetoric’s use as persuasion; since the creation of the field, instruction in rhetoric has been concerned with ethical practice.  In this first category the study and teaching of rhetoric consists of breaking down what an artifact does persuasively, how the artifact attempts persuasion, and its impact.

            The other main property of rhetoric is its use as a means of critique and as a subject with substance.  Rhetoric is the actual process of creating persuasion through various methods.  For one thing, this means that rhetoric concerns effectively using the tools learned to present reason.  Rhetoric continues to use the early teachings of the sophists to present thoughts effectively while attempting to maintain an ethical balance.

            The field of rhetorical studies expands deeper than it is given credit by most intellectuals.  In sum, rhetoric or rhetorical study is a theory and process consisting of public speaking, rhetorical criticism, and the analysis of the way all forms of rhetoric affect society.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Gabe Guerrero ’08, senior Rhetoric major

“What is rhetoric”? “Rhetoric” is probably regarded by many as one of the vaguest terms in the English language. Defining what rhetoric truly is, is a rather difficult task. Rhetoric is a conglomeration of art and style, mixed with content and technique. In explaining and using the term, some would favor the art and style, while others would emphasize content and technique.  I, however, view it as an accumulation of the two aspects and designed to educate and influence another, a party, or even society.

Content and technique are important in rhetoric because they encompass the theory and analytical portion of rhetoric, the very meaning and point one would attempt to get across. For instance, the text of a song represents “content” in this rhetorical meaning. The text acts as the concrete artifact that would influence a person or audience through its words and their meanings. The second half of the meaning, the art and style, attract the audience’s attention to better illustrate the artifact. For example, the person performing the song would use their artistry—expressed through their singing and the musical accompaniments—to attract listeners, which in turn reflects the style used to communicate the meaning of the artifact. By using art and style one can accomplish their goals by forms of persuasion and/or discourse. These two aspects combined work together to form rhetoric.

Rhetoric, for me, ultimately comes down to this very idea. By partly analyzing the content and technique of English language and other forms of communication, along with mastering the art and style of discourse and interaction, one can educate or influence a person, an audience, or even society with rhetoric.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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)