On Rhetoric
Various thoughts on the use and function of Rhetoric. Much of the following is transcribed from recent discussions on the subject.
Aristotle begins the very first line of his Rhetoric by stating “Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic.” He is saying that rhetoric and the manner in which one relays ideas are very closely related, so that by employing one, we are also using the other. He continues in his introduction saying “…all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others.” So, rhetoric is used to persuade others of a point or describe an idea.
In writing, rhetoric serves another purpose. Good writing is more than simply presenting valid arguments, because writing exists to be read by an audience. (I like to tell myself I write only for myself, but if this were really true, what then is the point of writing at all?) So, the general audience is simply the reader – one who’s mind and ideas are different from the writer’s. If writing is to find a place in his mind as being valid, it must stand out in some way. It must be interesting, convincing, and memorable. If not, the writing never gets past his eyes, may never even be read, and certainly will never really be absorbed or fully considered. Rhetoric can help the writer to overcome these challenges by providing him with means to keep the reader interested, while presenting his arguments in a clear and logical fashion.
If we take an example of politicians talking “for hours while not saying anything at all.” It is not that they are saying nothing or speaking of nothing, rather they have made nothing into something. They have found a way, through the use of rhetoric, to keep the audience interested in and even believe in statements that would otherwise be found false or deceptive…
I read a quote very recently (though have since have been unable to find it again) that described this difference between speaking and writing. To paraphrase, it attributed one major downfall of writing that must be overcome by the author to the fact that writer and audience are never in the same moment (in time).
When someone is speaking to an audience, both the speaker and the audience exist and experience the work at essentially the same moment in time. When writing however, a writer must assume (barring major technological or, perhaps more likely, extreme mental advances) that his audience will never experience his work until after he has actually written it.
This simply alludes to the fact that the writer and reader will never experience a written work in the same way. Perhaps it is also so of spoken words, but at least one element is constant between speaker and audience. Whether a written work is read one minute later, one year later, or one century later, something in time (history, the weather, etc.) will have changed to affect the reader’s perspective.
I would say the purpose of using rhetoric without substance would probably be twofold. As the politicians (not to wear out this example, but it fits well to the subject) are also out for a grade, trying to gain approval of their audience, so must a student gain approval from his teacher. Even it is only superficial approval he is after; he is still trying to ‘fool’ his teacher to believing he is worthy of such approval. I do not believe this is a unique aspect of the student/teacher relationship, but actually with nearly every relationship where convincing, argument, or appeasing is necessary. Think of an apathetic employee writing a proposal to a boss, an unfaithful lover appealing to his mate for forgiveness, or Bill Clinton explaining why he lied under oath. All are examples of someone using empty rhetoric to essentially ‘fool’ his audience in a seemingly logical fashion.
I would have to disagree that someone well trained in rhetoric (no matter how well) or any form of public speaking could deliver one of Dr. King’s speeches as well as he could. Rhetoric can be a tremendous aid to writing and speaking, but there are some things it can not do. I think there is very much to be said for the moment and for the spirit or passion of the speaker, and rhetoric, or any writing, can not portray this emotional aspect.
Compare an extraordinarily trained artist attempting to recreate Van Gogh or Degas. The result could be amazingly close, but I believe would still lack a true creative element which is essentially what makes any work of art worthy of appreciation.
Besides the rhetoric Dr. King used in his speeches, he was very passionate about what he was speaking about. He truly believed the points he was making, and thus the rhetoric he used only enforced those beliefs. It was not because of the rhetoric he used that his speech was as powerful as it was. He simply had a very powerful spirit, and used rhetoric as a mode of appealing to his audience’s intellect.
