Rhetoric? It Does Not Mean What You Think It Means
Most people hear the word, “rhetoric” on the TV and think it’s the college graduate’s word for hogwash, bologna, and fork-tongued tomfoolery. Politicians toss that word around as part insult, part accusation so it’s easy to see why so many think rhetoric is a synonym for a load of lower-intestinal sludge.
The modern definition of rhetoric is “the practice and study of human communication.” That clarity we get from Stanford Professor Emerita Dr. Andrea Lunsford, an expert in the field. Though pundits and politicians love to use phrases such as “empty rhetoric,” or “the President’s rhetoric,” doing so gives little clarification, leaving audiences to the fecal imagination. Interestingly, that practice is in itself rhetorical, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
The ancient Greeks are best known in the Western world for their philosophies and study of rhetoric – the means by which to persuade others. Rhetoric was the field of study, and rhetorical practice was the way in which knowledge and information was transferred to audiences. In its early history, rhetoric studies were focused on oral rather than written communication.
Ancient Greece, the historical cornerstone of Western democracy, was an oral culture. The average citizen did not read the news, books, or plays. Instead, they spoke, listened, and memorized everything from poetry, to theater, to the speeches delivered in symposium, to law, health practices, recipes, and common knowledge. The fundamental practices of government, law and order, were primary acts of spoken language.
Aristotle was the first to pen a treatise on rhetoric, one that overviewed definitions and strategies for eloquent and effective communication. It is from him that we get the triad of central concerns to evaluate when creating or encountering public arguments, persuasive speeches, or ideas. His definitions and strategies for appealing to logic (logos), emotion (pathos), and credibility of character (ethos) remain as important today as they were 2,000 years ago. They are three concepts that overlap, and when employed eloquently, can lead people to accept ideas, proposals, and ideologies.
When anyone is trying to persuade anyone else they employ rhetorical strategies. Persuasion requires a speaker or writer to make decisions about his or her audience, and then tailor appeals to suit that audience. Getting what you want, it turns out, is so much more than desire and intent.They may appeal to logic, emotion, or their own credibility all at once, or one part at a time.
Rhetorical strategies can also help us to interrogate or question a text. Audiences sometimes equate emotional appeals for logical ones, so questioning a text can help you to answer key questions before taking action, buying the message, or believing .
The effective speaker/writer (rhetorician) will always have a message and motive, and being skilled in communication arts, in rhetoric, helps audiences to weigh ideas for their merit and logic, determine flaws in presentation, and protect themselves from making decisions simply because they have been emotionally manipulated.
To focus on the study and practice of language, to focus on rhetoric, begins with mastering the Aristotelian appeals. The first step to that: Not losing consciousness at the mention of a Greek philosopher. The second: Reading, listening, and applying the appeals. The third: Writing, speaking, and employing the appeals. Easy as 1, 2, 3!
In my following blog posts, I will explore each of the appeals and practical approaches to understanding communication strategies. The goal is to increase rhetorical awareness rather than to proliferate a political “side” or ideology. My aim is to help others be better communicators and audiences in our complex Information Age.