Rhetoric


 * Definition**

In the field of Communication, there may be no older, more important concept than “rhetoric.” Through “responses to the crises of language and life” we can, as Thomas Conley (1990) has stated, “…pair Weaver with Plato, Burke with Isocrates, and rhetorics influenced by Richards with the Gorgianic tradition” (p. 304). However, as long-lived as the idea of rhetoric has been, as a concept it is difficult to encapsulate, in large part because of its amorphous quality. “No one definition will ever pin rhetoric down” (Booth, 2004, p. 3).

What rhetoric “means” is not static, and in fact, contemporary usage finds the term invokes multiple conceptions of what rhetoric “is.” The Oxford English Dictionary (2010), in part, defines rhetoric as “The art of using language effectively so as to persuade or influence others, esp. the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques to this end” and “Eloquent, elegant, or ornate language, esp. speech or writing expressed in terms calculated to persuade. Freq. depreciative: language characterized by artificial, insincere, or ostentatious expression; inflated or empty verbiage” (1.a.;1.c.). A more productive and common scholarly definition put forth by Thomas Farrell (2008): "rhetoric is the fine and useful art of making things matter."

Because rhetoric spans many different human arts and mediums, it can be communicated through verbal language, nonverbal signs, visual images, and embodied performance. This makes rhetoric as a scholarly discipline extremely diverse.


 * Classical Perspectives on Rhetoric**

The Platonic view of rhetoric as flattery casts a wide shadow over both modern and classical interpretations of rhetoric and it's value. In //[|the Gorgias]//, Plato makes the argument that rhetoric is not an art but merely a set of learned skills that can be used to manipulate and control people. In the Gorgias, Plato argues that rhetoric is part of a grander whole that is "not an art at all, but ... 'flattery'" (2008). This "grand whole" has other parts, including what Plato calls "cookery", "which may seem to be an art, but, as I maintain, is only an experience or routine" (Plato, Gorgias, 2008). Plato expounds upon his view of rhetoric in //[|the Phaedrus]//, where he argues that one who masters rhetoric "must understand the real nature of everything"; that is, the knowledge of truth is fundamental to strong rhetoric (2008).

Aristotle's //[|On Rhetoric]// is also an important work insofar as it shaped a significant part of modern rhetorical studies. Aristotle primarily uses //On Rhetoric// as a way by which to teach rhetoric; it is one of the first rhetorical handbooks. However, in the introduction, Aristotle defines rhetoric as "the counterpart of dialectic " (Rhetoric 1.1.2) and continues by defining rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given cast the available means of persuasion" (Rhetoric 1.2.1). Aristotle uses a very technical definition of rhetoric that contrasts with Plato, who defines rhetoric in the context of philosophy. Garsten (2006, p 118) argues that Aristotle avoids the examination of ethical concerns and instead "restricted the scope" of rhetoric's competence, putting rhetoric in its place within the political structure as a function of deliberation.


 * Modern Perspectives on Rhetoric**

The connection between rhetoric and exploitation or depreciation has been prevalent during the last century. Conley (1990) has said that World War I enacted many changes, notably a shift in the perception of language, specifically that people “turned…to language as it was used by the competing nations on an unprecedented scale, and with unprecedented effectiveness in propaganda” (p. 261). Conley goes on to note that the world saw “an emerging conviction that language [was] no longer a means of conveying information but the powerful tool used by clever men in quiet offices for the shaping and motivating of attitudes and actions” (p. 262). Some years after World War I, Donald Bryant (1953) said that rhetoric might be defined as “bombast; high-sounding words without content; oratorical falsification to hide meaning; sophistry; ornamentation and the studies of figures of speech” (p. 402). A look at more recent scholarship (Foss, 2009, p. 3; Richards, J., 2008, p. 3; Rowland, 2008, p. 1) reveals a negative perception of rhetoric remains and that even academics often “view the study of rhetoric as at the bottom of the ladder: it is merely fussing with cheap persuasion” (Booth, 2003, p. viii).

Rhetoric is also conceptualized as something which can enhance peoples’ lives. Wayne Booth (2004) insisted that “…the quality of our lives, especially the ethical and communal quality, depends to an astonishing degree on the quality of our rhetoric” (p. 12). It can be used to clarify ideas and thoughts; it is “a study of misunderstanding and its remedies” (Richards, I.A., p. 3). Furthermore, scholars have noted that using rhetoric is uniquely human, that “[it] is an action humans perform when they use symbols for the purpose of communicating with one another” (Foss, S.; Foss, K. and Trapp, 1991, p. 14).


 * The Rhetorical Situation**

A question of interest for modern rhetorical theorists is the role of the context in the crafting of rhetoric. Lloyd Bitzer (1968) theorized that rhetoric arises out of a particular need or context, which he called "the rhetorical situation" (p. 2). The work becomes rhetorical and gains its characteristic out of the situation - the situation is like a question, and the rhetoric is the answer (p.6). However, subsequent theorists have argued that this view does not leave enough room for the agency of the speaker. Richard Vatz (1973) contended that it the speaker who makes a situation rhetorical or meaningful; their discourse is not limited by context or need. Vatz sees the question/answer dichotomy from Bitzer as limiting and simplistic; the "question" of a situation is not outright asked of a speaker - they must interpret it. Thus, it is the speaker who creates the situation, as they make inferences and decisions to address certain exigencies that they observe. "No situation," Vatz argues, "can have a nature independent of of the perception of its interpreter" (p. 154). Jenny Edbauer Rice' (2005) responded to the debate by contending that the distinctions between situation and speaker are blurring and intersecting; she put forth the theory of "rhetorical ecologies" as alternative (p. 7). Rhetorical ecologies points to the ways that material and symbolic components of rhetoric influence each other constantly, and that subsequent speakers and situations are informed by and then alter them. The discussion of rhetorical situations is one example of larger arguments about the role of agency, structures, determinism, and materiality in rhetoric.


 * Rhetorical Criticism**

Rhetorical criticism is nearly as old as the practice of rhetoric itself. Many early theorists of rhetoric (including Plato and Aristotle) used discussions of rhetorical artifacts and strategies as a tool for better understanding how to produce rhetoric more effectively. The act of analyzing rhetoric for either evaluative or informative purposes is what is known as //rhetorical criticism.// The practice of rhetorical criticism as a scholarly endeavor first took shape in the early 20th century. Wayne Brockriede's (1974) article "Rhetorical Criticism as Argument" is the often-cited forerunner of modern rhetorical criticism. Brockriede contends that useful criticism is not merely the process of describing, classifying, or explaining what occurred in a rhetorical artifact. Rather, the rhetorical critic must make an argument - ask an answer a question about the rhetoric that they are studying (p. 171). This could include close textual examination, applying and testing rhetorical theories, or doing comparative work.

Rhetorical criticism is an endeavor that intersects with the work of scholars in other fields - history, critical theory, english, anthropology, media studies, art history, and more. This has led to some anxiety in the field of rhetoric about what the value of rhetorical criticism is, if similar ground is also covered by other disciplines. Barnet Baskerville (1977) building off the work of Gronbeck (1975) and Wrage (1945), argued that rhetorical criticism is a "complementary endeavor" to the work of history (p.100), and that splitting hairs between the work of rhetorical approaches to history and rhetorical criticism was a pointless endeavor. As Brock and Scott (1990) argue, rhetorical critics have great persuasive capabilities, as criticism necessarily involves arguing for an audience to accept the critic's perspective (p. 16). Phillip Wander contends that rhetorical criticism can expose underlying assumptions and beliefs that are manifest in people's discourse. These assumptions can point to ideologies; power that is perpetuated and maintained through attitudes, ideas, and beliefs. Many rhetorical critics see their work as part of their political and moral commitments (see also McKerrow (1989)).


 * Implications for Communication Research**

Rhetoric, as an area of study, is concerned with how humans use symbols, especially language, to reach agreement that permits coordinated effort of some sort….It is not communication for communication’s sake; rhetorical communication, at least implicitly and often explicitly, attempts to coordinate social action. (Hauser, 2002, p. 2-3). Kenneth Burke (1969) said, “Rhetoric is rooted in an essential function of language itself, a function that is wholly realistic and continually born anew: the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols” (p. 43). Of course, symbols are not only language based, as evidenced by the growing body of visual rhetoric work being produced. The myriad of media, venues and ways that rhetoric is created in lend credence to Booth and Conley’s assertions that there is no one, good definition of what rhetoric is. That ever-changing dynamic helps make rhetoric one of the most exciting, productive concepts in the Communication field today.

include component="comments" page="page:Rhetoric" limit="10"


 * References**

Aristotle. //On rhetoric//. (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). MIT. Retrieved from []

Baskerville, B. (1977). Must we all be rhetorical critics? //Quarterly Journal of Speech, 63//, 107-116.

Bitzer, L. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. //Philosophy and Rhetoric// //1//, 1-14.

Booth, W.C. (2003). //The rhetoric of rhetoric: The quest for effective communication//. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Brock, B. and Scott, R. (1990). //Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century perspective (Third edition).// Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Brockriede, W. (1974). Rhetorical Criticism as Argument. //Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60//. 165-174.

Bryant, D.C. (1953). Rhetoric: Its functions and its scope. //Quarterly Journal of Speech, 39//:4, 401-424.

Burke, K. (1969). //A rhetoric of motives.// Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Conley, T. (1990). //Rhetoric in the European tradition.// Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Edbauer - Rice, J. (2005). Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies. //Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35//:4, 5-24.

Farrell, T. (2008). The weight of rhetoric: Studies in cultural delirium. //Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41//:4, 467-487.

Foss, S.K. (2009). //Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice// (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.

Foss, S.K., Foss, K.A., & Trapp, R. (1991). //Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric.// Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Garsten, B. (2006). //Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment//. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Gronbeck, B. (1975). Rhetorical History and Rhetorical Criticism: A Distinction. //Speech Teacher, 24//, 309-320.

Hauser, G.A. (2002). //Introduction to rhetorical theory// (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

McKerrow, R. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. //Communication Monographs, 56//:2, 91-111.

Plato. (2008). //Gorgias//. (B. Jowett, Trans.) Project Gutenberg. Retrieved from []

Plato. (2008). //Phaedrus//. (B. Jowett, Trans.) Project Gutenberg. Retrieved from []

Rhetoric. (2010). //The Oxford english dictionary//. Retrieved (2010, August 1) from http://dictionary.oed.com.

Richards, I.A. (1936). //The philosophy of rhetoric//. London, England: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J. (2008). //Rhetoric//. London, England: Routledge.

Rowland, R.C. (2008). //Analyzing rhetoric: A handbook for the informed citizen in the new millennium.// Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Vatz, R. (1973). The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation. //Philosophy and Rhetoric, 6//:3, 154-161.

Wander, P. (1984). The third persona: An ideological turn in rhetorical theory. //Central States Speech Journal, 35//:4, 197-216.

Wrage, E. (1945). Public Address: A study in social and intellectual history. //Quarterly Journal of Speech, 33//:4, 451-457.