Speech, and the study of speech, reflects one of the oldest definitions of the academic field we call Rhetoric . Rhetoric, which derives from the Greek rhetor meaning orator or teacher, is a field of study that looks at the production of speech and oral and written discourse (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001b). Rhetors are orators and writers, those who present and write speeches or written discourses for public consumption. Rhetoricians are those who study the rhetoric and analyze how it impacts culture, society, and individuals, and the way that rhetoric shapes reality. This history module will cover theories and concepts by both rhetors and rhetoricians.
Rhetorical study, both theory and criticism, are focused on the situations wherein discourse is used to persuade, inform, and motivate audiences to take an action or adopt a point of view: therefore much of rhetoric is focused on persuasion as you saw in the list of definitions from the first page of this module. The oldest known definition of rhetoric comes from Ancient Egypt's Pharoah Huni more than 4000 years ago (Sandler, Epps, & Waicukauski, 2010). One of the oldest formal definitions comes from the Greek Rhetorician and philosopher, Plato, whom some argue created the term itself (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001c). He defined Rhetoric as the art of persuasion (428?-347 B.C.E./2001a).
Plato believed that Rhetoric was a tool used to instruct humanity and direct them toward a greater good. He also believed that Rhetoric was inherently available to people born into privilege. Other scholars of his era disagreed both that it was mostly used towards the greater good and that it was only something available to people born into privilege. One of Plato’s dissenters was his student Aristotle, deviating from the influence of his mentor, felt that Rhetoric served to create and explain philosophic truths, and should not be used as a simple persuasive tool. For Aristotle, the Rhetorician is someone who is always able to see what is persuasive (Aristotle, 350 B.C.E./ 1908), and Rhetoric as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every given case, serving as an ambassador or facilitator of the truth (Aristotle, 367-322 B.C.E./1991). Thus, Aristotle does not agree with Plato that Rhetoric is the art of persuasion—instead, he infers that Rhetoric is the ability to both create and critique persuasive acts. In this way, politicians and journalists engage in what we now call the Aristotelian approach to Rhetoric
nd with Plato and Aristotle. Their definitions and understanding of Rhetoric became an ongoing debate that continues until today. In order to explain this debate in Rhetoric, it is best to start at the beginning. The study of Rhetoric as we know it today is rooted in the work of the Sophists—the first professional teachers of an academic field. The Sophists taught one particular skill: Sophistry. Now, some of you may recognize that term since it is often associated with negative connotations, such as manipulation and empty Rhetoric. Sophistry is used to label politicians who make false promises.
The Effective Lie
When we teach Rhetoric and public speaking, we often define Sophistry as the art of lying well. The Sophists taught people to make artistic arguments from more than one position. In other words, they taught people the skills of persuasion, without insisting that the message being spoken had to be valid or supported by evidence and logic. You may wonder why the Sophists were hired to teach such techniques. Well, let’s take a minute to break this down. The Sophists were paid to teach—and in Ancient Greece, not everyone could afford to hire a teacher. Basically, the Sophists were teaching the aristocracy tricks to maintain their own power and influence over the rest of society. I’m sure most of you realize that this is not something that stopped happening after Ancient Greece.
Note the illustration above. In it, heavily tattooed American politician and Speaker of the House (1869-1875) James G. Blaine is sitting on a stool while two men attempt to "scrub" him free of his previous scandals (tattoos), using a brush labeled "Tribune Excuses," an "Explanation Pumice Stone", and "Vindication Sand Paper." Additional cleaners are scattered around them, including "W. Walter Phelps Sophistry Acid," and "Borax False Arguments," both of which are references to using Sophistry to attempt to rewrite history and an individual's personal past. Politicians, lawyers, and advertisers all use Sophistry to mislead or confuse the audience, subvert their emotions, and guide them to an idea or product that the audience would not necessarily support. Advertisers use these techniques, this form of Sophistry, to convince us to purchase things we don’t need all the time.
The Rogue Sophist
This was also the case in Ancient Greece. One of the Sophists actually railed against the standard teachings of Sophistry: Socrates. Socrates did not believe that learning should only be for the wealthy—so he chose to teach anyone, without charging them. This made him something of a “rogue Sophist” in his day. One of the fundamental things that he taught is something we have come to call “Socratic Method” This is the process of students and teachers communicating together through a series of questions wherein the teacher asks the students questions to force them to critically think about topics. His primary suggestion is to question the motives, ideals, and assumed facts of a statement or argument. In other words, question everything.
We can apply Socratic Method to any message by questioning the speaker’s or author’s motives. What is s/he getting out of making this point? How is this topic relevant to me? To others? Who will be harmed by this suggestion? What other possibilities are there and is the speaker or author hiding these alternatives?
Socratic Method is an open system of inquiry, allowing audiences to question speakers from multiple points of view and moral standpoints. Today, Socratic Method is commonly taught and used in law schools, with the intention of preparing attorneys to be able to respond to constant questioning.
In this way, Socratic Method has become a tool used to support and reinforce a speaker’s ability to argue with the appearance of credibility. Thus, Socrates not only sets a goal that empowers the audience: he forces the speaker construct his or her arguments concretely enough to withstand constant questioning.
Ironically, all we know about Socrates and his work comes to us through a few contradictory sources, and nothing from Socrates himself (Kahn, 1981,1996; Lacey, 1971; Salkever, 1993). Most of what is attributed to Socrates is from Plato in his Dialogues, many of which were written well after Socrates' reported death. Some scholars therefore argue Plato may have invented Socrates to undermine the power of sophistry, which Plato aggressively distrusted (Lacey, 1971; Salkever, 1993). If this is true, then in creating Socrates Plato essentially used sophistry to attack sophistry...a pattern often seen in courtrooms and politics today. Even if Socrates was real, it's Plato's version of Socrates that we read and understand. Significantly, Socrates' work lives on even if he never did, a statement toward the power of the rhetorical construction of reality.
If Socrates was real, not only did he influence his student Plato, but would also influence Plato's student, Aristotle. If Socrates was not real, his influence remains within the work of both of these rhetoricians.
Platonic Realities
Plato purported to be a student of Socrates and recorded much of his teacher’s tutelage. In fact, most of what we know about Socrates comes to us from Plato, and his use of Socratic Method through written Dialogs. Plato’s Dialogs are conversations between a student and teacher (Socrates) illustrating how the method functions. Plato clearly saw the dangers of Sophistry, as had his teacher. He also came to recognize that not all audiences would be savvy enough to see through the trickeries of persuasive techniques. Plato's definition of Rhetoric is at odds with sophistry--intentionally. Plato disliked the role of sophistry in society and its ability to manipulate, much like Socrates (Bizzel & Herzberg, 2001c).
Therefore, Plato added to the discussion of Rhetoric by making a distinction between what he called True and False Rhetorics. Truth, for Plato, is an absolute—one might say he constantly argued that The Truth is Out There. He felt that the role of a good Rhetor (speaker) was to find the truth and reveal it. Sophistry, therefore, became what he called False Rhetoric (Bizzel & Herzberg, 2001c). True Rhetoric, then, became dependent on logic and reasoning toward the absolute truth. Plato’s Truth is also called the Ideal. This Ideal is a type of utopian perfection toward which, in Plato’s view, humanity is headed. The goal of Rhetoric should be to explore and reveal the Ideal to society. However, not all audiences would agree with the ideal, so persuasion is necessary to As such, Plato is often associated with idealism.
Sophists were in conflict with Ideal truths, for Plato, because they developed artifice and led people away from seeking the ideal. Consider his words from the allegory of the Cave:
Imagine the condition of men living in a sort of cavernous chamber underground, with an entrance open to the light and a long passage all down the cave. Here they have been from childhood, chained by the leg and also by the neck, so that they cannot move and can see only what is in front of them, because the chains will not let them turn their heads. At some distance higher up is the light of a fire burning behind them; and between the prisoners and the fire is a track with a parapet built along it, like the screen at a puppet-show, which hides the performers while they show their puppets over the top....Now...imagine persons carrying along various artificial objects, including figures of men and animals in wood or stone or some other materials, which project above the parapet. (Plato, 380? B.C.E./1941, pp. 227-228)
The shadows seen by the prisoners echo what Plato critiques about sophistry. The prisoners' inability to get out of the cave and see the "truth" represents our inability to see the Ideal in its entire form.
Plato might not agree with how the ideals espoused in the video are presented, as modern idealism is often associated with optimistic naiveté. However, the intentional echoes of Plato are firmly illustrated in the video. Plato firmly believed the Ideals were attainable as we are living in a shadow of the ideal truth. Therefore as humans we should do what we can to make the world reach the ideal, and liberate ourselves from the confinements of the "real" world (Plato, 428?-437 B.C.E./2001a).
Enter Aristotle
Like his own instructor, Socrates, Plato himself became the teacher of a famous student and Rhetorician, Aristotle. Most of our common understanding of the role and functions of rhetoric comes from Aristotle (Sandler, Epps, & Waicukauski, 2010). Aristotle's goal for rhetoric was not to label it as beneficial or problematic, but instead to look at how it functioned, identify its limitations, and determine how it can be used to persuade and generate collective action. "Most rhetorical scholars agree that Aristotle was the greatest theorist ever to write on rhetorical communication, and his Rhetoric is the most influential work ever composed on the subject" (McCroskey, 2016, p. 7).
Aristotle saw several ways that rhetoric functioned, and created a few distinctions or branches that are still applied to rhetoric today (Aristotle, 367-322 B.C.E./1991). These three branches are:
Deliberative rhetoric: deals with political and legislative arguments. These arguments are proposals policies and legislative action. These are predictive arguments, proposing future outcomes for society and nations.
Forensic rhetoric: deals with judicial and legal arguments. This category includes all issues related to court systems and cases, including arguments focused on evidence and data collection standards.
Epideictic: deals with ceremonial and performative oratory. This category includes demonstrations by activists, plays, ceremonies, commemorations, and entertainment.
Aristotle was less interested in the good and bad uses of Rhetoric than Plato (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001a). Instead, Aristotle focused on how a message reaches an audience, and what a single message is capable of evoking from different audiences. He realized that audiences vary, they differ in beliefs, knowledge, and experience, and so public messages will not always be received the same way by different audiences (Sandler, Epps, & Waicukauski, 2010). In order to investigate this process, Aristotle created two methods of criticism that are still in common usage today.
The first of these methods we will discuss is the Artistic Appeals. Aristotle explains that persuasion requires the ability for a speaker to reach an audience, or the Means of Persuasion (Aristotle, 367-322 B.C.E./1991). He describes three dominant ways that speakers reach out to an audience: ethos, the ethical appeal, which centers on the credibility and reputation of the speaker; pathos, the emotional appeal; and logos, the logical appeal.
Using these appeals, or methods of persuasion, a speaker can design a message aimed at the needs of a specific audience. Aristotle expected that good speakers, using these techniques, would alter the focus of a speech act by emphasizing different appeals for different audiences. Thus, a single speech would be re-created in a variety of different ways when the demographics of audiences require the change. In this way, Aristotle created a tool that speakers and writers can utilize to generate the strongest possible persuasive messages, and ideally ones that are ethically, logically, and morally responsible (Aristotle, 367-322 B.C.E./1991). To ensure that messages are moral, ethical, and logical, audiences also have a responsibility to understand these appeals. Aristotle did not assume that all audiences would grasp a message in the same way, and therefore audiences would not always be led by a speaker to the same conclusions. For Aristotle, audiences can resist the manipulations associated with sophistry, and can interpret messages in relation to their own lives and experiences. We must know our audiences to ensure our message is received. Because of this, speakers have to do what they can to reach out to multiple audience members effectively (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001a). Therefore Aristotle sought to teach an effective means of constructing messages that would aid speakers and writers in reaching audiences.
Aristotle’s focus on message construction led him to create a structure or method for the process of speech writing: The Canons of Rhetoric. The five canons were meant to reflect Aristotle’s focus on the social responsibility of Rhetoric, and therefore the first two steps concentrate on argument construction and support (Aristotle, 367-322 B.C.E./1991). Aristotle’s intent was to encourage speakers to create a speech that was logically and ethically solid, with good research and clear goals. The Canons are: Invention, the act of creating an argument; Arrangement, choosing a good method of supporting the argument and arranging the supporting material accordingly; Style, the choice and balancing of appeals to privilege for the intended audience; Memory, having a thorough understanding of your subject so that you can answer questions and address rebuttals; and Delivery, which is the artistry and skill of the presentation (Aristotle, 367-322 B.C.E./1991).
Note how in this structure, the style is not as strong a focus as the substance of the speech. In many ways, Aristotle’s Canons were a response and criticism of the artistry with lack of substance associated with Sophistry. Again, we see Aristotle’s insistence on having a solid message that will have appropriate meaning for a specific audience.
Because of his focus on how a message reaches and is perceived by an audience, Aristotle was very aware of the split between the tool and philosophical aspects of Rhetoric. This is evident in how the tool side of Rhetoric is relayed in the Canons themselves. Aristotle’s Canons are a tool rooted in philosophic and moral goals. They were not his only means of focusing on this divide, however. In fact, Aristotle directly challenged the divide. Borrowing language from Plato, Aristotle described these two aspects as Rhetoric (the tool) and Dialectic(the philosophy) (Aristotle, 367-322 B.C.E./1991). As a tool, Rhetoric is a powerful means of social control. The Dialectic, however, provides an impetus for social change. When we think about Rhetoric in this way, we can see how it has been an influential factor in society for millennia: with Rhetoric we can build up social processes or tear them down.
For Aristotle, much of the focus was on the Dialectic: the need for a speaker to conduct ethical research and put together messages that would improve the quality of life for the audience members. Aristotle himself was interested in encouraging the use of Rhetoric as a means of needed social reform. This socially relevant approach to Rhetoric, however, would begin to fade due to the emergence of the Roman Empire and the early Christian Church.
References
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civil discourse. (G.A. Kennedy, Trans). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Original work published 367-322 B.C.E.
Aristotle. (1908). Topics. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge (ed./trans.). London: Clarendon Press. Original work published 350 B.C.E.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001a). Aristotle. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 169-178). New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001b). Classical Rhetoric: Introduction. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 19-41). New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001c). Plato. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 80-87). New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Kahn, C.H. (1981). Did Plato write Socratic dialogues? The Classical Quarterly, 31(2), 305-320.
Kahn, C.H. (1996). Plato and the Socratic dialogue: The philosophical use of a literary form. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lacey, A.R. (1971). Our knowledge of Socrates. In G. Vlastos, (Ed.). The philosophy of Socrates: A collection of critical essays, (pp. 22-49). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
McCroskey, J.C. (2016). An introduction to rhetorical communication: A Western rhetorical perspective, 9th edition. New York: Routledge
Plato. (2001a). Gorgias. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 87-138). New York: Bedford/St. Martins. Original work published 428? - 347 B.C.E.
Plato. (2001b). Phaedrus. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 138-168). New York: Bedford/St. Martins. Original work published 428? - 347 B.C.E.
Plato. (1941). The republic of Plato. F.M. Cornford (trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Original work published 380? B.C.E.
Salkever, S.G. (1993). Socrates' Aspasian oration: The play of philosophy and politics in Plato's Menexenus. American Political Science Review, 87(1), 133-143.
Sandler, P.M., Epps, J.A., & Waicukauski. R.J. (2010). Classical rhetoric and the modern trial lawyer. Litigation, 36(2), 16-20.
