Essay A2—Explain the classical and Enlightenment definitions of rhetoric and propose a contemporary definition. Account for differences between the three.
Classical Rhetoric
Classical rhetoricians are quite concerned with the idea of truth although there is significant philosophical disagreement about whether humans can actually attain absolute truth. The Sophist relied on probable truth in discourse while Plato believed absolute truth could be attained through careful examination. In Phaedrus, Socrates asks, “If speech is to be good, must not the mind of the speaker know the truth about the matters of which he is to speak?” Aristotle took the middle ground saying, “The true and the approximately true are apprehended by the same faculty”(From Rhetoric Book I, sec. I).
The preoccupation for truth grew from the practical need of settling legal disputes between people in the growing city states of ancient Greece. As populations increased, so did the need for creating laws in order to manage a changing society. The ability to deliver convincing arguments in court, having at least the appearance of truth, became known as the art of rhetoric.
With the development of literacy beginning in sixth century B.C.E., Greek society began to shift from a culture of orality to that of literacy. As a result, according to Eric Havelock, verbal style and thought processes shifted between the 6th and 4th centuries b.c.e. as shown in brief below (Bizell an Herzberg 20):
Preliterate Greek Communication
- Ideas placed in simple juxtaposition.
- Concrete imagery used to appeal to senses and emotions.
- Ritualized references to authority in the form or proverbs, epithet and other formulas.
- Argumentative disputations.
With Literacy
- Subordination of one idea to another in logical hierarchies
- Generalizations that appeal to reason and text-assisted memory for validation.
- A questioning relationship to authority and custom.
- Encouraging of disinterested criticism of ideas.
- Greater ability to think abstractly.
Haverlock’s characteristics are evident in the dialogue Gorgias by Plato. Through dialogue, Socrates develops a logical hierarchy of ideas through questions and criticism of Gorgias’ ideas in order to achieve a more precise definition of the nature rhetoric. “Rhetoric, Socrates, is my art,” Gorgias explains, and “persuasion is the chief end of rhetoric…it creates belief about the just and unjust.” Socrates reveals through logical questioning the rhetorician’s ability to create belief and the moral dilemmas of utilizing such ability. Isocrates states in Against the Sophists that “the true precepts of this discipline [rhetoric] may, if they will, be helped more speedily towards honesty of character.” The classical rhetorician, therefore, must or should be concerned with virtue.
Aristotle and Cicero refined the art of rhetoric and had specific opinions about the inclusion of rhetoric in the comprehensive education of promising young Greeks. Overall they valued a liberal education system with rhetoric as a key component. Aristotle explains that “persuasion is achieved” in three ways: 1) When the speaker is perceived as credible; 2) when the audience is moved by emotions; 3) and when the speech proves a truth by means of logical reason. Building on the work of previous philosophers, Cicero zeroes in on “three categories of speech (deliberative, forensic, ceremonial) and five canons of the rhetorical composing process (invention, arrangement, style, memory, delivery)”(Bizzell and Herzberg 283).
In sum, classical “rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”(From Rhetoric, Book I, sec. II). Rhetoric is set apart as an art unto itself to be learned and practiced. Effective rhetoricians employ logos, pathos and ethos to persuade their audiences. Although truth is valued, rhetoricians operate most often in the realm of probable truth, which they attain through logical reasoning. Since rhetoric can be used to sway the ignorant, virtue is an important aspect of a rhetorician’s character. In addition, rhetoricians must be educated in a wide range of subjects, as well as, in the art of rhetoric, but some natural talent is needed in order to excel in the art.
Enlightenment Rhetoric
Prior to the Enlightenment of European history, Peter Ramus had successfully narrowed rhetoric down from Cicero’s five classical canons to just two—style and delivery (Bizzell & Herzberg 792). As experimental science and inductive reasoning became the standard for inquiry during the Enlightenment, Ramus’ version of rhetoric was sidelined.
The Enlightenment was a period marked by revolutions in science, philosophy, literature and politics. Between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries new knowledge in these areas brought about societal changes that affected how people communicate and use language. As a result, the art of classical rhetoric was revived and then redefined within the context of new knowledge and changing times. Most notably, new ideas in philosophy and psychology lead to a rhetorical theory “that focused on the mental faculties in order to persuade”(792).
In On the Study Methods of Our Time, Giambattista Vico responds to the development of the scientific method and the expansion of the sciences proposed by Bacon. Vico’s is concerned that Bacon, in his zeal for the advancement of science, has ignored cultural issues. Vico’s concern about modern methods reveals the characteristics of rhetoric during his time. One intellectual pursuit, Vico says, is “honored by all: Truth”(9). Vico is concerned that the focus on philosophical criticisms and primary truth in education is stifling the imagination and memory of the young pupil. He feels it is a mistake to ignore the art of inventing arguments as a method of sifting out the truth and/or probability. He believes education emphasizes natural sciences too much and doesn’t attend to ethics or human nature. He points out the importance of the relationship of orator and audience and the need for eloquence in speech. Vico believes the focus of education on philosophical criticism and the study of primary truth begins at too young an age. He feels a pupil’s imagination and memory should be cultivated first.
By the mid-eighteenth century Alexander Bain explains, “Rhetoric discusses the means whereby language, spoken or written, may be rendered effective. In speaking there are three principal ends,–to inform, to persuade, to please”(875). Rhetoric is defined then in broader terms than in classical times where persuasive oratory was the paramount goal. Bain connects these principal ends to three departments of the human mind: 1) Understanding which relates to information; 2) The Will which relates to persuasion; 3) and Feelings which coincide with pleasing. Bain contends “the Will can only be moved through Understanding and the Feelings. Hence, there are at bottom but two rhetorical ends”(875).
Rhetoric during the Enlightenment then, was concerned with truth. The difference it has from Classical rhetoric lies in the method by which truth is attained. Classical rhetoric, in part, relied on the development of arguments to arrive at truth or a close approximation. Enlightenment rhetoric sought truth through rational thought and methodical observations in an effort to find primary truth. Morality and ethics were inconsequential, but rather science and exactness dominated the field. Vico calls the rhetoric “intellectualistic” and lacking in eloquence. Scientific knowledge was revered while imagination was neglected. Enlightenment rhetoric aimed for the effective use of language to bring Understanding or Pleasure to the audience which would naturally result in persuasion.
Twenty-first Century Rhetoric
Rhetoric seems to flourish in society when new knowledge brings advancements and changes to existing fields of study and social structures. Rhetoric is therefore, flourishing in the twenty-first century. Advancements in medicine, brain research, learning theory, technology, communication, psychology, and science continue to bring about changes in the ways we operate in and view the world. Many of the changes are controversial and ethically precarious, so the rhetoricians of the day must seek that which is virtuous and strive for truth when making appeals that will impact the freedom and/or well-being of the individual, the community, the nation or the world.
Human rights movements have increased opportunities for women, ethnic minorities and people of all classes to participate in most aspects of society allowing for new perspectives in a wide range of topics. Technological advancements allow for near instant communication with anyone in the world and near instant access to unlimited information. Advancements in brain research and learning theory provide rhetoricians with tools and strategies that appeal to the physical aspects of how people process and learn new information. In the past, rhetoricians used words to paint a picture for the audience, but today, actual visual images offer powerful persuasive elements to a rhetorical message. The summer Olympics in China is an impressive example of the power of technology to move audiences as images of athletes and children of the world were magnified and projected around the full circumference of the Olympic arena. Advancements in science and medicine have provided humans with the power to create clones, harvest human embryos for implantation and experimentation, prolong human life, and genetically alter living organisms just to name a few. All these advancements could yield positive results for the improvement of human life; however, the moral cost and ethical implications must be closely scrutinized.
Other developments and discoveries have led us (U.S. citizens) to consider our place in the world (maybe) as part of a whole rather than as an individual. Environmental studies on global warming have prompted an examination of our responsibility and conduct as inhabitants of the earth. Unbridled greed in business and the downturn of our economy has caused us to question whether unregulated financial practices and wealth building of individuals should be tolerated. In education, the implementation of wide-scale standardized testing has created the rhetoric of deficiency of the whole rather than that of individual accomplishment. President Obama fosters a spirit of cooperation and oneness with phrases like, “yes we can” and “it’s the responsibility of every American” and “when students give up on school they are giving up on their country too.”
I propose the rhetoricians of the twenty first century will also be concerned with truth. Absolute truth will be attained through both logic and reasoning while probable truth will be gleaned from the close examination and debate of a wide range of perspectives and interpretations of evidence. Ethical and moral practices will be discussed and determined in terms of perspective and the greater good rather than by the needs of the individual. Classical methods will persist as the cornerstone of rhetorical expertise; however, technological and scientific advancement will provide endless options for arrangement, style and delivery. Classical syllogism and enthymeme will be the lesser of rhetorical devices while scientific method, research, analysis and synthesis will dominate rhetorical messages. Sadly, imagination will continue to be neglected, but instruction in critical thinking, strategizing and analyzing will persist. An extensive theory of visual rhetoric will be developed and proven just as effective as oratory and composition in its ability to persuade.
Bizzell, Patricia and Herzberg, Bruce., eds. The Rhetorical Tradition. 2nd ed. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2001.
B1—Is it possible to really understand the rhetorical tradition of another culture? Explain why or why not, based on the arguments of Ezzaher Yameng Liu, Lu Xing and using examples from these texts and the Wenxin Diaolong, Nyaya Sutra’s and Incoherence of the Incoherence as needed.
A common thread in the theory of rhetoric is a belief that honest communication is superior to that which is deceptive or destructive. It can be said, however, that honest rhetoric is not necessarily effective, nor is effective rhetoric necessarily honest. So what makes a rhetorical message honest? Some might say, if the rhetorician’s intentions are for the good of the audience and/or the society, then the message is honest. However, many a rhetorician, with the best of intentions, has led his/her audience down a destructive path because the message was fallacious. In light of this then, should rhetoricians only speak of that which is the absolute truth? If so, the art of rhetoric would be greatly diminished because once an absolute truth is revealed there is no longer a need to talk about it further. Rhetoricians, who are honest and value truth, must be willing to talk about the things that are probably true based on their very best efforts at discovering all the evidence available on a given subject. In this age of globalization, when vast amounts of information on different cultures is becoming more accessible, scholars have a responsibility to question old assumptions of probable truth and revise them in light of new evidence. It is possible to understand a great deal of probable truth about another cultures’ rhetorical tradition. Furthermore, it is essential for rhetoricians with the means and scholarly background to achieve such truth to take up the challenge of revising the long-standing, narrow view of non-Western cultures termed by Edward Said as Orientalism.
Yameng Liu in his article, “To Capture the Essence of Chinese Rhetoric: An Anatomy of a Paradigm in Comparative Rhetoric”, points out some of the fallacious assumptions scholars have perpetuated about Chinese rhetoric for lack of evidence and first hand experience. Previous work done on the topic, according to Liu, was based on a very small sample of primary documents. In addition, the documents available were “correlated with changing social conditions and historical circumstances”(322). Carolyn Matalene published the article “Contrastive Rhetoric: An American Writing Teacher in China” (1985), based on her experience and scholarship. Lui points out the problems of scholars from one culture, such as Matalene, researching and defining the traditions of another culture. What will inevitably happen, Lui says, is the culture of inquiry will be compared against the dominant culture and be found deficient in some way. Also, specific assumptions that are gleaned about the culture from research are typically over generalized in the face of “China’s complex and heterogeneous linguistic and cultural makeup”(322). Lui does not suggest comparative rhetoric is not useful, but to adopt “an entirely different intellectual ethos, and to enter a dialogue with comparative scholars in other disciplines as equal partners”(334).
Keith Lloyd makes the argument in his article “Rethinking Rhetoric from an Indian Perspective: Implications in the Ntyaya Sutra” that scholarship on Eastern rhetorical practices ignore the Nyaya Sutra in favor of “predominantly religious text” (367). “Ignorance of the Nyaya”, according to Jonardon Ganeri, “stems from a misperception that the East is more mystical [and] less interested in systematic thinking”(qtd. Lloyd 367). Lloyd’s article is another example of how previous scholarship may have been based on limited sources, fallacious assumptions, and a lack of first hand perspective. Lloyd engages in comparative rhetoric between Western traditions and the Nyaya Sutra which in Lui’s view could be problematic. Lloyd is careful, however, not to speak of either tradition in terms of deficiency, but rather the Nyaya Sutra as an “alternate third approach” to reasoning (381). To avoid over generalizations about what is essentially Indian based on this one text, he calls it but a “glimpse into the thinking of a culture and tradition largely unfamiliar in the West” (381).
The theme of equality between East and West in the examination and comparison of rhetorical traditions is evident in Xing Lu’s book, Rhetoric in Ancient China: Fifth to Third Century B.C.E. She believes the best way to revise inaccurate notions about China in particular is for both Chinese and Western scholars to conduct dialogue, in the spirit of equality, “that result in a mutual recognition of similarities and differences”(43). True equality must first overcome some challenges. Lu believes “ignorance and denial” of the rhetoric of non-Western cultures has led to prejudicial assumptions “with regard to the intellectual histories of other cultures” (1). She agrees with Edward Said’s claim that Western discourse on Eastern cultures “produce[s] distorted and inaccurate views of non-Western people, ideas, and traditions” (15). Therefore, identifying, refuting and disregarding inaccuracies is an important step towards neutral dialogue. Another challenge for scholars lies in the interpretation and understanding of primary text. As the nuances of a language are often lost in translation, Lu points out the limitations of working with translated text in scholarship. Lu encourages a high level of “proficiency of a second language…in cross cultural studies” (11).
Liu, Lloyd and Lu all endeavor to revise and debunk previously held assumptions about non-Western intellectual thought and rhetorical practices. They point out some of the problems of previous work including Orientalism, ethnocentrism, lack of primary sources, loss of meaning and nuances in translated text, lack of scholarly proficiency in the language of the primary documents, and lack of neutral dialogue and collaboration with scholars of both the target and Western cultures. To my knowledge their works are honest and effective and have provided me with a broader perspective of non-Western rhetoric. Lu describes her explication of rhetoric in ancient China as one of
…close examination of social and cultural context; identification of terms associated with language art, rational thinking, persuasion, and argumentation; as well as a careful scrutiny and analysis of rhetorical experience and conceptualization embedded in classical Chinese texts. (3)
Lu exemplifies the model of both an honest and effective rhetorician in that she has utilized her bi-cultural experience and language proficiency together with the best evidence available, and presented her arguments in the spirit of equality.
From past examples, we can see it is not really possible to fully understand another culture’s rhetoric, and that attempting to do so may result in fallacious assumptions and inaccurate perceptions of others. However, attaining what is most probable through careful research should be the ongoing work of qualified scholars, such as Lu, no matter what their culture. Even if they aren’t exactly right about everything, in the light of honest, effective rhetoric, we may find the beauty of our uniqueness and the humaness we all share.
I checked on my mid-term post today and realized I had posted an incomplete draft. I’ve replaced the rough draft with the correct one.
Kathy, A2 is thoroughly explained right up to the final paragraph. I couldn’t quite see how the characteristics of contemporary culture that you describe in the prior paragraph will necessarily dictate the contemporary definition or practice of rhetoric.
B1 is very well argued; you don’t quite say in the end what your answer is about whether one can really understand another rhetorical tradition.
Perhaps you could expand on these points a little?