There is obviously no unrhetorical ânaturalnessâ of language to which one could appeal; language itself is the result of purely rhetorical arts. The power to discover and to make operative that which works and impresses, with respect to each thing, a power which Aristotle calls rhetoric, is, at the same time, the essence of language ⊠.3
If Nietzsche is correct that nothing in the realm of language is purely ânaturalâ and unmarked by ârhetorical arts,â that rhetoric is âthe essence of language,â then rhetoric is certainly a matter that deserves our attention. Few disciplines can make such a comprehensive claim regarding their consequence for both public and private life.
Re-evaluating Rhetoric
Opinion about rhetoric has always been dramatically divided. In recent decades a number of prominent writers have re-evaluated rhetoric, sometimes arriving at surprisingâand potentially paradigm-shiftingâconclusions.
Wayne Booth, whom we have already encountered, was one of the twentieth centuryâs leading literary critics. Booth affirmed that rhetoric held âentire dominion over all verbal pursuits. Logic, dialectic, grammar, philosophy, history, poetry, all are rhetoric.â4 Entire dominion? All verbal pursuits are rhetoric? What could Booth have had in mind in making such sweeping assertions regarding rhetoric?
Nevertheless, Booth is not alone in maintaining such a stunning view of rhetoric. Another important twentieth-century literary scholar, Richard McKeon (1900â1985), expressed virtually the same opinion. For McKeon, rhetoric was best understood as âa universal and architectonic art.â5 Rhetoric is universal, that is, present everywhere we turn. But what about architectonic? McKeon meant that rhetoric organizes and gives structure to all the other arts and disciplines, that it is a kind of master discipline that orders and lends form to other undertakings. This is because rhetoric is, among other things, the study of how we organize and employ language effectively. Thus, it becomes the study of how we organize our thinking on a wide range of subjects.
In apparent agreement with Booth and McKeon, Richard Lanham (b. 1936) of the University of California has called for a return to rhetorical studies as a way of preparing us to understand the impact of digitization on how we read and write. Rather than developing a completely new theory of literacy for the digital age, Lanham argues that âwe need to go back to the original Western thinking about reading and writingâthe rhetorical paideia [educational program] that provided the backbone of Western education for two thousand years.â6 For Lanham, the study that originally taught the Western world its approach to education and communicationârhetoricâcan still teach us new things, like how to adapt to the emerging world of digital communication.
Professor Andrea Lunsford (b. 1942), Director of Stanford Universityâs Program in Writing and Rhetoric, is among a growing number of scholars who, like Lanham, have returned to rhetoric as providing guidance in understanding how the digital revolution is shaping our reading and writing habits. After analyzing thousands of students writing samplesâincluding blogs, tweets, and classroom assignmentsâLunsford and her colleagues concluded that students today expect their writing to change the world they live in. For todayâs students âgood writing changes something. It doesnât just sit on the page. It gets up, walks off the page and changes something.â7
Rhetoric scholar Laurie Gries brings a rather differentâand highly consequentialâperspective to rhetoric, writing: âBy rhetorical, I refer to somethingâs ability to induce change in thought, feeling, and action; organize and maintain collective formation; exert power, etc.; as it enters into relation with other things (human or nonhuman).â8 Notice that Gries refers to âsomethingâsâ rhetorical capacity, broadening rhetorical agency beyond human beings and thus beyond language.
Booth, McKeon, Lanham, Lunsford, and Gries find much to commend in the study that Plato condemned as âfoul and ugly,â and ask us to reconsider those elements of eloquence that Locke referred to as âperfect cheats.â It appears that we are at a point in our cultural history where rhetoric is re-establishing itself as an important study with insights to offer about a surprisingly broad spectrum of humanâand even non-humanâcommunication activities.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that the practice of rhetoric maintains its Jekyll and Hyde quality, shifting without notice from helpful and constructive to deceptive and manipulative. Why does this study of the effective uses of language and other symbols prove so difficult to evaluate, eliciting as it does such sharply opposed judgments? A complete answer to this question requires some knowledge of rhetoricâs long history, which is the subject of this book. But almost certainly, rhetoricâs mixed reviews have a lot to do with its association with persuasion, that most suspect but essential human activity. A brief digression to explore this connection between rhetoric and persuasion will be worth our while.
Rhetoric and Persuasion
Though there is more to the study of rhetoric than persuasion alone, rhetoric traditionally has been closely concerned with linguistic techniques for gaining compliance. This long-standing association with persuasion has been at the heart of the conflict over whether rhetoric is a neutral tool for bringing about agreements, or a dubious activity that ends in manipulation.
Rhetoricâs intimate connection with persuasion has prompted both intense suspicion and broad interest. After all, we all are leery of persuasion. Who has not had a bad experience as the object of someone elseâs persuasive efforts? Think of the last time you knew you were being persuaded by a high-pressure sales technique, a religious advocate, a politician, a professor, or simply by a friend or family member. Something in you may have resisted the persuasive effort, and you may even have felt some self-protective irritation. But you may also have felt you were being drawn in by the appeal, that you were, in fact, being persuaded. If the person doing the persuading was employing rhetorical techniques, you might conclude that you had some reason to distrust both rhetoric and the people who practice it. So, most of us have developed a healthy suspicion of persuasion, and perhaps a corresponding mistrust of rhetoric.
At the same time, a momentâs thought suggests that all of us seek to persuade others on a regular basis. Many professions, in fact, require a certain understating of and capacity to persuade. Persuasion can even be understood as an important part of economics and the world of work. Economist Deirdre McCloskey (b. 1942) has argued that âpersuasion has become astonishingly importantâ to the economy.9 She estimated, for example, that one quarter of the work force depended on skill with words to do their work. What has she concluded? âI gradually realized that the economy ⊠is rhetorical. An economy is continuously negotiated with words.â McCloskey adds, âan economy is a conversation.â She explains: âThe point is that the economy is very largely about persuasion, because it is negotiated and innovative and above all because it is about a future to which we are vulnerable.â10
But, what about in our private lives? It seems we remain perpetual persuaders in our personal relationships. Who does not make arguments, advance opinions, and seek compliance from friends? Moreover, we typically engage in these persuasive activities without thinking we are doing anything wrong. In fact, it is difficult not to persuade; we ...