Introduction
Asked to provide the meaning of rhetoric, what is the first thing that is the first thing that is likely to come to mind? Well, most certainly one or in some cases both of these two ideas quickly spring to mind when compelled to define the term rhetoric. First is the contemplation of an enthralling commercial. The second thing that one is likely to picture is the idea of a facile politician either lying outright to an audience, or sometimes trying to manipulate an audience. However, these imaginations are nothing but degeneracies of true rhetoric. True rhetoric aspires to persuade others of the truth. The perceptions about rhetoric, as cited above, are therefore considered as false forms of rhetoric. False forms of rhetoric can take various shapes: brainwashing, propaganda, double speak, and demagoguery. According to James Herrick, rhetoric implies an art of speech or of a speaker that is aimed at appreciation of the truth, the beautiful, and the good. Herrick also affirmed that rhetoric encompasses several imperative attributes such as the aptitude to talk articulately and persuasively, and that rhetoric also requires a virtuous character. (Herrick, 2017). In addition, Herrick (2017) is also cited saying that “true rhetoric” barely exists today. To amplify the comprehension of rhetoric therefore, it is important to explore into details the implications of the term rhetoric as an art of speech that seeks to persuade others of the truth, its origin, as well as the negative overtones it has gained over the years.
Rhetoric as an Art and its Origin
As mentioned above, rhetoric is the art of employing language to convince or persuade people. Rhetoric can also be described as an art of effectual or cogent writing or speaking, particularly the utilization of figures of speech as well as compositional techniques. According to a publication by Michigan Radio, rhetoric bears close semblance to terms used to describe how one speaks such as eloquence, and oratory (Michigan Radio Newsroom, 2013). Having further examined the meaning of rhetoric, to help advance this paragraph, it is crucial to explore the origin of rhetoric. The origin of rhetoric can be traced back to the 8 th century among the Greek sophists- special types of educators in ancient Greece who focused on using the tools of rhetoric and philosophy to teach poetry. Homer was one such sophist, and he conveyed that skill and wisdom (‘sophos’) were prized. The sophists also served as lawyers playing key roles in the ancient Greek civilization such as advising on the new Athenian democracy, and also directing on governance since they were knowledgeable (“A brief history of rhetoric,” 2018). The sophists described a rhetorical question as one that does not answer, implying the amount of wisdom contained in such questions. As time progressed, the sophists concentrated more on eloquence of speech and rhetoric, staging massive claims about their proficiency to respond to nearly all questions (“A brief history of rhetoric,” 2018). Focusing on eloquent speaking and rhetoric brought the sophists up against ‘contemporary’ thinkers, for example Socrates and Plato. The latter portrayed the sophists as greedy/ selfish instructors who deployed deceptive ratiocination obscured in embellished language to delude and also gain power. Another philosopher, Aristotle, helped advance the understanding of the term rhetoric (“A brief history of rhetoric,” 2018). He alienated philosophy as a distinct faculty, thereby leaving sophism as entailing largely the technique of rhetoric. Popular opinion since then turned against the sophists, and consequently, sophism today denotes the use of disingenuous argument, pulling on emotional strings rather than using rational logic, and striving to appear smart, rather than being actually smart (“A brief history of rhetoric,” 2018). Even with all these facts stated, the 8 th century Greek sophists are still considered the pioneers of rhetoric and that cannot be taken away from them.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Negative Connotations Rhetoric has gained over the years
Analyzing some of the negative connotations rhetoric has gained over the years helps advance this discussion. What are some of the circles where rhetoric is viewed in a rather negative light today? Professor Anne Curzan of the University of Michigan said that rhetoric today is perceived as more of an affront, rather than as an encomium, particularly in the political field, thanks to several advancements back in the years. The 17 th century was the period when rhetoric began to lose meaning, and duality in the use of rhetoric surfaced. It is during this period when people began using rhetoric to speak about somewhat pompous speech, speech that was characterized by big words, and that were not backed up most of the times (Michigan Radio Newsroom, 2013). However, it was not until the 1960s when rhetoric became fashionable in politics, followed by an upsurge in usage between during late last century (20 th century) (Michigan Radio Newsroom, 2013). Thanks to the association between rhetoric and politics it has become apparent how negative rhetoric can be especially where people use ‘harsh’ or ‘empty’ rhetoric.
The mass media has also on a number of occasions labeled the term rhetoric in the political scene as negative and this has only helped aggravate the repute of present day rhetoric. Albrow (2012) helped highlight the significance of political rhetoric, something he also says has been scrutinized by the media for quite some time now. Albrow indicated that political rhetoric concerns itself with the strategies used to construct persuasive arguments both in formal public debates as well as in everyday political impugns. Rhetoric is also key to grass-root political action. Condor, Tilea and Billing (2013) echoed this opinion by Albrow on the relevance of rhetoric to grass-root politics. They are cited saying that, ““Rhetoric facilitates the making and hearing of representation claims spanning subjects and audiences … democracy requires a deliberative system with multiple components whose linkage often needs rhetoric.” Additionally, political leaders are coerced to govern sovereign people through constant persuasion, rhetoric is unquestionably central to their political careers. One institution that does not buy into the opinions listed above is the mass media. Mass media (broadcast, digital, and internet media) sometimes emerge as critics of the efforts of politicians claiming asserting that they are mostly difficult to believe. By using rhetoric, they are only doing what they have to do to exert their political influence and stay in their positions of political influence. Political rhetoric, otherwise referred to as false rhetoric, has been on many occasions termed by several media outlets as brainwashing, propaganda, and demagoguery (Albrow, 2012). Further exploring this discussion, Steven Pinker explained that the media has been blamed for exaggerating political news (Pinker, 2018). The media, especially broadcast and internet media covers to a large extent news pertaining to politics, war, terrorism, oppression, and inequality, and all of which are mostly printed negatively.
Exploring how the dilettante individual does not comprehend the true implication of rhetoric is also another way of studying some of the negative connotations rhetoric has gained through the years. According to Kaufer and Butler (2013), there exists a lot of facts unknown to the lay person as far as the use of rhetoric is concerned. One such appreciation is the conception that rhetoric is defined by a communication medium, social location, or topic. However, rhetoric is defined by its function. It is not therefore restricted to speech and writing, but rather exists across all genres and all forms of media. Music as well as the arts in twitter posts, greeting cards, elementary education, architecture, and advertising are just but a few more examples of the ways rhetoric can be performed and appreciated. There also exists the impression that rhetoric is limited to the public discourse and politics (Boudiny, 2013). Conversely, rhetoric is a feature of communication that is applicable to every social situation, and also to any given topic. Finally, there exists a belief among the lay individuals that rhetoric to have an external, human audience (Boudiny, 2013). Nonetheless, this is not the case. Rhetoric can even exist within a person. One such example of intrapersonal rhetoric is when one persuades him/herself through their internal decision-making processes, for example, during spiritual practices as they often call for divine conviction as well as communion through prayer. It is therefore apparent that most people unknowingly encounter and practice rhetoric in their day to day life.
Conclusion
Rhetoric is an art of employing language to persuade and convince people of the truth. However, this is not the implication of the word rhetoric as we are accustomed today. How we understand rhetoric today in vastly based on our comprehension of the corruptions of true rhetoric. Since its initiation several centuries ago, rhetoric has gained several negative connotations which have consequently led to the loss of its meaning. Use of rhetoric in the political scene by politicians to exert their influences and also maintain their positions if power is one of the factors that have largely contributed to the corruption of the meaning of rhetoric. Other factors that have contributed to the loss of meaning of true rhetoric include the mass media labelling rhetoric, especially that deployed in the political scene as negative. Erosion of the true implication of rhetoric has also been aided by lack of human understanding on what true rhetoric entails. Many people encounter and even use rhetoric without realizing they are doing so, and therefore, have never seen the urge to study it.
References
1. A brief history of rhetoric. (2018). Changing Minds. Retrieved December 16, 2018 from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/rhetoric/rhetoric_history.htm
This publication explores the history of rhetoric as an art of speech. It touches on various aspects of the history of this art including its origin, development, and transition into how we understand it today. The publication also offers the meaning of rhetoric.
2. Albrow, M. (2012). Global age. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog240
This article is a study of a period of time when there existed the consensus of the interconnectedness of all human beings, of a common for the human species, and of a threat to its life on planet earth. This concept has evolved and ultimately become a framing device in political rhetoric since the final years of the 20 th century. The article surveys the role of mass media in advancing the idea that political rhetoric is negative.
3. Boudiny, K. (2013). ‘Active ageing’: from empty rhetoric to effective policy tool. Ageing & Society, 33 (6), pp. 1077-1098. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X1200030X
The article is a revelation of the increasing attention in the policy and scientific discussions on ageing. However, the article also focuses on rhetoric and serves to reveal certain facts about rhetoric. It reveals a lot of facts prior unknown to many people regarding rhetoric as an art of speech.
4. Condor, S., Tilea, G.A., & Billing, M. (2013). Political rhetoric. In: Huddy, L., Sears, D.O., & Levy, J.S. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology . Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 9, pp. 262-300.
Condor, Tilea, and Billing discussed political rhetoric into details. They explored how political rhetoric is important to politicians. This way, the trio were able to publicize why political rhetoric has been subject to media criticism.
5. Herrick, J.A. (2017). The history and theory of rhetoric. New York: Routledge.
This book traces the history of the progression of rhetoric. Beginning with discussing traditional Greek Sophists, the book explains why rhetoric was influenced by ‘modern’ thinkers such as Aristotle and how rhetoric developed the meaning that it is characterized with today. This book also emphasizes on the germaneness of rhetoric to students today.
6. Kaufer, D.S., & Butler, B.S. (2013). Rhetoric and the arts of design. New York: Routledge.
Kaufer and Butler talked about design arts. They explained that design arts are linked with various types of knowledge as well as performance perceived to be modular, structured, and well structured. They explained that rhetoric in one such example of design arts and went ahead to state some of the facts about rhetoric little understood by laymen.
7. Michigan Radio Newsroom. (2013). Rhetoric: positive, negative, or both? Michigan Radio. Retrieved December 16, 2018 from http://www.michiganradio.org/post/rhetoric-postive-negative-or-both
This publication touched into the fact that rhetoric as used today does not have the same meaning it was meant to have. In an attempt to explain the disparity in the implications of the term rhetoric (traditional vs. modern), it explored some of the causes of the change in meaning. According to the post, use of rhetoric in the political setup, especially for political gains is one of the reasons people today view rhetoric negatively.
8. Pinker, S. (2018). The media exaggerates negative news. This distortion has consequences. The Guardian. Retrieved December 16, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/17/steven-pinker-media-negative-news
This post on The Guardian talked about media influences on major global issues. It points fingers at the media for apparently aggravating the state of most global issues. Pinker talks about global issues such as war, oppression, politics, and inequality before concluding that the media has reflected these subjects differently by according them too much attention.
