Style


 * Etymology **

Admittedly, the word style enjoys such popular usages that, as the //OED// points out, the meaning of the term can be interpreted in ways ranging from what is culturally fashionable to ornamental, decorous language. However, the term style stems from the Latin word stilus, a pointed, writing instrument such as a stake or pale used as early as the 13th century for pedagogical purposes. This etymology suggests that communication in general (and rhetoric in particular) is at the conceptual core of style (Brummett, 2008, p. 1). Because of the canonical status of style in the rhetorical tradition, the following entry tracks the conceptual history of style by adhering closely to that tradition.


 * The Classical Era: The Sophists to Augustine **

The concept of style has a history dating back to contestations surrounding imitation (μίμησις) and appearances (φαινόμενα) (Farrell, 1993, pp. 25, 100-118). The dubious task of distinguishing between an apparent “objective” reality and appearances was articulated prior to Plato and Aristotle by the sophists, particularly Gorgias (Johnstone, 2009, pp. 101-106). Plato dismisses “arts,” like poetry and rhetoric because they are at best “third in descent” from Truth, imitating //imitations// of Truth (1993, p. 107; Plato, 1929, 597). Aristotle, however, seems to view poetry favorably, a perspective that carries over in his discussions of lexis (λέξις) or style in book three of the //Rhetoric// (Aristotle, 2009, 1404a1420-1441). He explains that style is crucial to rhetorical practice because “It is not sufficient to understand the things that one needs to argue; it is also necessary to understand how one needs to say them” (2009, 1403b14-16). “Wording” is important because it makes something appear to be a certain way before the audience, and this may include the use of figures (e.g., metaphor) (2009, 1404b33-38). Style elicits an experience, or as Ned O’Gorman explains, “What is absent before the eyes physically is made present to the mind through lexis, in the same way that an individual may 'put' images before her mind while imagining” (O'Gorman, 2005, p. 24). Later Cicero canonized style or elocutio along with invention, arrangement, memory, and delivery, providing further systematization of rhetoric and style in particular (Herrick, 2009, p. 103). Cicero discusses style as a three-tiered structure of “grand, middle, and plain” intended to match the content of the speech, a hierarchy highlighted in //Rhetorica ad Herrennium// and by Augustine (Augustine, 2009, 4.17.34; Cicero, 2001, 3.177; Müller, 2006). For Augustine, the preacher's style should ultimately be characterized by perspicuity or “clarity,” such that it should not hinder the "thing" (i.e., scriptural meaning) (Augustine, 2009, 4.10.24).


 * The Medieval Period, The Renaissance, and Modernity: Boethius to Herbert Spencer **

From the medieval to the 20th century, style would come to be dominated by the descriptors ornamentation or decorum because of the widespread impact of book four of //Rhetorica ad Herennium// (Murphy, 2001, pp. 19-20; n.a., 2001a). Throughout the medieval period, schools taught students how to speak and write through the use of the figures of speech such as the ones found in //ad Herennium// (Müller, 2006; Murphy, 2001, pp. 188-189). Despite rhetoric’s pedagogical usefulness, Peter Ramus in the 16th century wished to elevate dialectic and so removed invention, arrangement, and memory from rhetoric’s purview, leaving only style and delivery, a move that would eventually conflate rhetoric and style (n.a., 2001b, p. 606). Once more perspicuity would emerge as the most important element in style, meanwhile diminishing it to what what is superficial and lacking any substance of its own (Blair, 1787, pp. 232-234). Accordingly, Herbert Spencer in the 19th century declared, “How truly language must be regarded as a hindrance to thought, though the necessary instrument of it…” (Spencer, 1892, pp. 3-4). This period ends with a perception of style as prohibitive to communication rather than a substantial component of it.


 * Post-Modernity: Style’s Resurgence **

Contemporary approaches to style have continued to maintain that it can be conceptualized as a way to “word” or “clothe” thought in communicative contexts (Andersen, 1972, p. 136). However, as Anderson notes, the distinction between “form” and “content” cannot be easily discerned because "We cannot separate the thought from the form which communicates it in terms of effect" (Andersen, 1972, p. 137). This inability–and perhaps unproductive project–to distinguish between “form” and “thought” has led scholars to “look //at//, rather than //through//, the style or //texture// of a text so as to discover how it works and what it might be doing” (Jasinski, 2001, p. 537). This appreciation for the aesthetics of style has led rhetorical scholarship across the disciplinary landscape to advocate a renewed vision for style as a concept in contemporary rhetorical studies. For example, Robert Hariman describes political style as “a coherent repertoire of rhetorical conventions depending on aesthetic reactions for political effect" (Hariman, 1995, p. 4). Bradford Vivian, critiquing Hariman’s neo-Aristotelian conception of rhetoric, proposes that rhetorical inquiry can discover how style can “engender, maintain, or reconfigure” social and political life (Vivian, 2002, p. 226). In a similar vein, Barry Brummett expands the ontological status of style and, thus, explains that style is a “system of signs” that organize a culture in a capitalist society (Brummett, 2008, pp. 3, 11). Anna M. Young applies Brummett’s conception of style when she operationalizes it as a “logos” from which public intellectuals engage the public sphere (Young, 2014, p. 7). As this brief overview suggests, contemporary rhetorical studies’ interest in style will continue investigations into the relationship between reality and appearances in social life.

José G. Izaguirre, III (2015)


 * References**

Andersen, Kenneth E. (1972). //Introduction to Communication Theory and Practice//. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings Publishing Company.

Aristotle. (1947). //The "Art" of Rhetoric// (John Henry Freese, Trans.). London: William Heinemann LTD.

—. (2009). Rhetoric. //Plato Gorgias and Aristotle Rhetoric// (Joseph Sachs, Trans). Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing.

Augustine, St. (2009). //On Christian Doctrine// (Rev. Professor J. F. Shaw, Trans.). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, INC..

Blair, Hugh. (1787). //Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres//. London: Printed for A. Strahan, T. Cadell and W. Creech in Edinburgh.

Brummett, Barry. (2008). //A Rhetoric of Style//. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Cicero. (2001). //On the Ideal Orator// (//De Oratore//) (James M. May and Jakob Wisse, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Farrell, Thomas B. (1993). //Norms of Rhetorical Culture//. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hariman, Robert. (1995). //Political Style: The Artistry of Power//. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Herrick, James A. (2009). //The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction// (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Jasinski, James L. (2001). //Sourcebook on Rhetoric// (pp. 536-559): SAGE Publications.

Johnstone, Christopher Lyle. (2009). //Listening to the Logos: Speech and the Coming of Wisdom//. Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press.

Müller, Wolfgang G. (2006). Style. In Thomas O. Sloane (Ed.), //Encyclopedia of Rhetoric//. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Murphy, James J. (2001). //Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of the Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance//. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

n.a. (2001a). Boethius. In Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg (Ed.), //The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from the Classical Times to the Present// (pp. 486-488). Boston: Bedforst/St. Martins.

n.a. (2001b). Peter Ramus. In Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg (Ed.), //The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from the Classical Times to the Present// (pp. 674-680). Boston: Bedforst/St. Martins.

O'Gorman, Ned. (2005). Aristotle's 'Phantasia' in the 'Rhetoric': 'Lexis', Appearance, and the Epideictic Function of Discourse. //Philosophy of Rhetoric//, //38//(1), 16-40.

Plato. (1929). //The Republic of Plato// (John Llewelyn Davies and David James Vaughan, Trans.). London: Macmillan and Co., Limited.

Spencer, Herbert. (1892). //The Philosophy of Style, Together with an Essay on Style// (Fred N. Scott Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

style. (n.d.). //OED Online//. Retrieved from [|http://dictionary.oed.com.]

Vivian, Bradford. (2002). Style, Rhetoric, and Postmodern Culture. //Philosophy of Rhetoric//, //35//(3), 223-243.

Young, Anna M. (2014). //Prophets, Gurus, and Pundits: Rhetorical Styles & Public Engagement//. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.