3.31 ~ Rhetorical Perspectives

In the chapter we read from Wayne Booth's The Rhetoric of Rhetoric, he writes, "Any confident claim about the importance of rhetorical studies requires as a first step some sorting of diverse definitions [even though] No one definition will ever pin rhetoric down.*  Although there are a lot of definitions, there are a few macro perspectives that they tend to fall into:  rhetoric as tool; as faculty of mind; as epistemic.

But first, let me point out that one of Booth's main arguments in this piece is that any successful definition of rhetoric must include dangerous/deceitful/obfuscating rhetorics alongside those rhetorics that promote truth and well-being.  Put differently, if we're going to study rhetoric with any seriousness, we must first take note that fascists use rhetoric, too--not just the good guys.  (In fact, they're often far better at it.)  Booth is suggesting that we recognize the expansiveness of rhetoric--from everyday communication to presidential speeches.

Rhetoric as Tool:

The "rhetoric as tool" perspective is the result of separating truth & knowledge from rhetoric.  For Plato, [T]ruth is immutable, eternal, and external from human affairs; in other words: truths are timeless and we can't change them, but it's possible to discover them through certain philosophical/scientific means.  As a tool, rhetoric is often conceived of as:

• Independent from truth/knowledge
• Subservient to truth 
• At its best, it's a tool
• Figured sometimes as a servant whose duty is to make truth more palatable to the masses

Plato's skepticism and derision of rhetoric sets an agenda for subsequent studies.  For example, John Locke perceived rhetoric as the "harlot of the arts," which reinforces a style VS substance dichotomy (and you can guess which side rhetoric falls on).  [Harlot: A Revealing Look at the Arts of Persuasion, by the way, is f**king awesome journal to check out.]  Francis Bacon also supported the separation of rhetoric and truth, upholding the Enlightenment argument that pure, logical reasoning is the best/only way toward truth.

Rhetoric as Faculty of Mind:

Aristotle, a student of Plato, spurred a new line of inquiry about rhetoric as he placed greater emphasis on probable knowledge, instead of incontestable, universal knowledge.  Probable, contingent truths--the kind we deal with everyday--are a necessary and unavoidable element of life.  And since we can't know for absolutely sure whether these ideas/claims are right, persuasion comes into play, as we try to argue for certain views and against others.  This focus led Aristotle to define rhetoric as "the faculty of discovering in any given means all available means of persuasion."  Such a position catalyzed the exploration of audience psychologies, especially those of emotion.  (If you're interested in finding out more, Aristotle's Rhetoric is a good place to start.)

Try practicing a rhetorical mindset every once and awhile, looking for the available means of persuasion in a given situation.  Approaching a professor about having missed class?  What are the available means of persuasion?  Trying to make a political point with a contentious friend?  What are the available means of persuasion?  This does not mean you have enact all of them; it's about knowing options in order to choose the best path.  We have to cultivate a sensitivity to rhetoric if we want to expand our range of choices.

Rhetoric as Epistemic:

Epistemology is the study of knowledge.  Think of it as an area of study that asks these two questions:

• What do we know?
• How do we know what we know? 

To claim that rhetoric is epistemic is to claim that the process of coming to know something is bound up with how it was communicated.  This may seem like a "well, duh" statement--and such a reaction has a lot of truth to it.  It seems really intuitive when stated like this.  But there are important consequences to consider if you adopt the perspective that there is a fundamental connection between discourse and knowledge.

Mull on this: if the knowledge and truth you base your values and behavior on came to you through human communication (that is to say, rhetoric), then rhetoric is a constitutive force in shaping your reality.  The words we choose to describe and explore reality shape our perspective of it.  The words we think with determine how we see others, ourselves, and the world.  These words and thoughts have a direct impact on our behavior.  Rhetoric shapes people, buildings, and societies--its power should never be underestimated.  If you're interested in exploring epistemic rhetoric further (in the academic vein), I've uploaded to the Carmen site a short exposition, "Three Meanings of Epistemic Rhetoric," under the 'Suggested Readings' portion.

Other important points:   

* Be sure to take note of the definitions offered in the presentation above (Plato, Bacon, Aristotle, Ratcliffe, Fumaroli).  And if you need one more, take my pocket-sized definition: rhetoric is the process of naming and framing reality.  Someone told me that all of these definitions will find their way onto the mid-term exam.


Mentioned/Presented in class:

• The segment on bottled water comes from Annie Leonard's project, The Story of Stuff.  Powerful, incisive arguments delivered in a masterfully cogent style.  

• Capt. Charles Moore gives a brief, but compelling talk on the plastic filling our oceans.

• Selections from Friedrich Nietzsche's “On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense” is now up on Carmen.

• "Climategate" -- the hacking of climate scientists' email account to obtain proof that they're applying rhetoric to their work (gasp!).