1.3: Classical Persuasion

Using the terms "persuasion" and "rhetoric" interchangeably is not uncommon, but it is not correct. This misuse is akin to asserting that "soccer" and "scoring a goal" are the same thing. Rhetoric refers to the art of using language well, particularly in terms of written and spoken discourse ("Rhetoric in Literature"). The goal of rhetoric–using language well–is often to persuade or convince someone. Just as scoring a goal is a function of playing soccer, persuasion is a function of rhetoric. Rhetoric is the means; persuasion is the goal or objective.

This distinction is pertinent as we briefly explore the roots of the study of persuasion.

Persuasion as an art, science, discipline, concept–however you wish to conceptualize it–came about shortly after the birth of democracy, and, again, this was no coincidence:

The study of persuasion originated through the study of rhetoric. The ancient Greeks were the first to advocate the importance of rhetoric, oration, persuasion, and communication for the egalitarian arrangement and functioning of deliberative democracy among and within the Greek city-states (i.e. polis). The power of suasion was perceived as critical to the welfare of all citizens living within democracy, due to its power to induce free exchange of opinions and counterarguments within the political arena, which would guarantee arrival at a political consensus on the basis of persuasion and free choice, rather than through coercion and the civil strife (Radakovic).

Historian Hannah Arendt summarized this succinctly by pointing out that "To be political, to live in a polis, meant that everything was decided through words and persuasion and not through force and violence" (26-27).

The ability to persuade others became paramount as people gained freedom, choice, and agency. However, the study of rhetoric was not without controversy. Plato largely rejected rhetoric, expressing concern that rhetoric could be used to manipulate audiences, gratify audiences, and promote one's self-interests (Girouard). Fortunately for generations of communication scholars, Aristotle disagreed.

Many historians argue that Aristotle wrote his famous Rhetoric in order to defend rhetoric from other philosophers’ criticisms. "By offering a complex conception of public speech that appeals to reason as well as human passions and emotions, Aristotle defend[ed] rhetoric against claims that it was simple flattery, or worse still, an artful cloak for injustice" (Triadafilopoulos 744). Aristotle distinguished rhetoric, which he defined as the capability "to see the available means of persuasion," from dialectic, the go-to form of skilled debate used by the Greek philosophers (Floyd-Lapp 3). Although Aristotle recognized that rhetoric could be used by people and for causes that lack integrity, he advocated rhetoric as a tool of public discourse; one that engages both reason and emotion (Floyd-Lapp 3).

Aristotle identified three pisteis, or "proofs," as being available to rhetoricians. Although pistis is usually translated as "proof," Aristotle meant more broadly "reason for or cause of belief" (Nichols 663). The Aristotelian modes of proof are ethos, logos, and pathos.

Although the proofs seem separate, the three modes of proof are inseparable from one another (Nichols 664). Aristotle's arguments in Rhetoric illustrate that "the character of the speaker, the passions he arouses, and the arguments he employs are mutually dependent" (Nichols 665).