Breaking Down Rhetoric What is Rhetoric?

The term rhetoric is one that can entail various forms of meaning and emotions. In our society today, it is easy to instantly think negatively of the term. It can be seen as a way of manipulation and craft in order to achieve power. This way of thinking is easily shown in the political arena. When we watch politicians, we are instantly skeptical of their language. It is also easily interpreted as a subject solely limited to the legal field. We often see different modes of persuasion argued out in the courtroom. Even though rhetoric can legitimately fall under these categories, it is essential to investigate the whole realm of what rhetoric means. Rhetoric is a tool we all use in our daily lives. We all say things that have meaning, convey emotion, and carry out various tasks. It is a vastly complex subject that requires knowledge of multiple concepts in order to understand how we communicate, our meaning behind our communication, the tools used, and the overall perception and understanding of our audience. Persuasion In order to understand rhetoric, it is important to understand its history in the academic field. Aristotle defined rhetoric as, the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion (Aristotle, Chapter 2). In his book, Rhetoric, he goes on to explain that rhetoric is unique to other forms of art, because it explains the art of persuasion itself, not just any particular subject matter. Geometry persuades and explains magnitudes. Medicine persuades others the best method to keep healthy. Rhetoric, though, goes even deeper. It explains and persuades the art of persuasion (Aristotle, Chapter 1). It dissects how we speak when we persuade. An important introductory question to ask is, is all speech persuasive? Is

Breaking Down Rhetoric everything is say a persuasive argument? I believe most of what we say is in essence persuasion. For example, if I say, Im hungry then I am persuading the other person that my stomach is empty. If they question my hunger, then the next logical step would be to go into further detail about why I would be hungry, for example, I havent eaten since 8:00 this morning. Even in the technical field there is persuasion. If there is a manual that warns me not to touch an open wire because it will shock me, I will not touch that wire. The overall function of a persuasive argument is to instill conviction. Another imperative question to ask is, what is persuasion? Persuasive writing is the art of crafting argument. Successful argumentation motivates action, not just food for thought. What do I want I want my audience to do? How do I want them to act? Aristotle broke down persuasion into three main concepts: logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos pertains to logical reasoning. What specific facts can I contribute to my argument? How will I back up my claims? This is one of the most important aspects to an argument. It is essential to back up a claim with facts and logic. The second concept, ethos, pertains to the authenticity of the speaker. Will the audience respect me enough to even listen to what I have to say? Am I credible? These are essential questions to ask. The way I live my life and the things I say are imperative. The third concept is pathos, which is emotional appeal. What can I do to pull emotion into my audience? This concept must be used very carefully when crafting a persuasive argument. Putting too much emotion without logical reasoning or speaker authenticity can turn your argument into a manipulative tactic. There must be a strong

Breaking Down Rhetoric foundation of logic and credibility before implementing emotional appeal. (Aristotle, Chapter 1). Searching for Truth The overall investigation of rhetoric and persuasion, though, is the search for truth. Searching for truth is a complex subject that rhetoricians have been dealing with for thousands of years. Truth, in its simplest form, is a reflection of reality. What is witnessed and experienced without any kind of falsehood. Of course, there is a lot of grey area and complex questioning when discerning truth from falsehood. Two tools that were used for the search of truth were deductive and inductive reasoning (Aristotle, Chapter 2). Deductive reasoning took a general statement or argument and deduced it down two times into a more specific argument, for example: Chocolate is a necessity for female livelihood. Lydia is a female. Lydia needs chocolate. Deductive reasoning can be categorized by the syllogism and enthymeme. A syllogism creates a more concrete conclusion, while the enthymeme allows for more contingency. The enthymeme must consist of few propositions, fewer often than those which make up the normal syllogism. For if any of these propositions is a familiar fact, there is no need even to mention it; the hearer adds it himself. (Aristotle, Chapter 2).

Breaking Down Rhetoric Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, is the opposite. It takes a specific argument and generalizes the outcome, for example:

Lydia, and other females I have been around are crabby when they dont get chocolate. Therefore, all females are crabby when they dont get chocolate. Of course, as you can see in this example, inductive reasoning has the opportunity to make false arguments. Even when the parameters you see make sense, you have generalized an outcome that is not true in all females. An example of a strong inductive argument would be, All cats that anyone has observed meow. Therefore, all cats meow. Since there has never been a cat observed that has ever made a noise other than meow, it is safe to say that every cat on the face of the earth meows. Much has been discussed with the realm of truth in rhetoric. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about truth in On Truth and Lies in the Nonmoral Sense that all language is a metaphor for truth. Language itself cannot fully describe truth. What we perceive as truth is nothing but metaphors that have been repeated over and over until we believe the illusion that they are facts. Language, however, does not have the capability to describe truth. The thing in itself, (which is precisely what the pure truth, apart from any of its consequences would be) is likewise something quite incomprehensible to the creator of language and something not in the least worth striving for (Nietzsche, 890).

Breaking Down Rhetoric This is an interesting concept that he has proposed. To me, this seems like he cancels himself out. If we take what he says seriously, than we must not listen to what he has to say. He, too, is susceptible to the language illusion that he professes. I wont dig into the spiraling question of what is truth?, but I do believe there is truth to seek out and language can help us attain that goal. We can make things very complicated and muddled through language, but I believe we can use language in order to find truth. For instance, saying the rock is hard can be subjective, but it describes the composition of the rock itself. If I did not know how to vocalize that phrase, I would subconsciously think that way if I got hit with a rock. I know it is of a composition that would hurt me. Saying that in words doesnt degenerate the fact that I know it is hard and would hurt me. Through scientific analysis, we can further examine the rock to describe facts about it. Language helps us discover these truths to fully understand the composition, so we can come to a conclusion. In Christianity, humility is of great importance when discerning truth. We must surrender in order to gain knowledge and wisdom. If we confine ourselves to our own minds and ego, then we can trap ourselves. Proverbs 11:2 states, When pride comes, then com es dishonor, but with the humble comes wisdom (New American Bible). That is something that can be regarded outside of religion, too. We must be constantly seeking and learning. We should feel confident in what we have gained through knowledge, but we should never feel like we have it all. We should always feel like we have more to discover.

Breaking Down Rhetoric The Rhetorical Situation Another important aspect of rhetoric to examine is the rhetorical situation. This pertains to a situation that has been has been created or modified by speech. How do words affect a situation? Lloyd Bitzer coined the term, rhetorical situation in an article in 1968. He described three parts that create a rhetorical situation. The first is exigence, which is a sudden problem that requires attention. This can be created by rhetoric itself, for example if someone shouts an insult or threat which in turn creates a problem. It can also be created by natural, nonrhetorical related situations, such as a death or natural disaster. The second part is audience. Who is involved in this situation, and how will rhetorical discourse affect the outcome of it? The third part is about constraints. What actions, people, words, or objects will constrain action? How will interaction play a part in these constraints? Interaction is a key factor in a rhetorical situation. Without speaking and interaction, no action takes place after exigence (Bitzer). A key feature in any rhetorical situation is kairos, which is effective timing or an opportune moment (Bitzer). Rather than thinking about a chronological time frame, kairos pertains to a somewhat magical moment. When is the best time to say something? When will my audience fully hear and understand what Im trying to say? Kairos One interesting kairos moment that we see currently is rhetoric in social media, especially Facebook. Many people try to post things at the right time in order to get the maximum number of views, comments, and likes. We wait for that magical moment where people will see everything we have to say. Our world is becoming easily customizable. Social media in general
6

Breaking Down Rhetoric has changed the way we see rhetoric. Today, we can instantly publish our thoughts, musings, and actions on the internet for people to see. We can control who sees our posts and whose posts we want to see. On Facebook, if I want to unfriend someone so I dont see their profile and they dont see mine I can simply click a button. If I dont want to go that far, I can simply hide them from my posts or ignore their posts. By implementing these settings, I can customize a virtual world for myself. How does this change the cultural realm of rhetoric? With our new sense of virtual reality, we can create worlds that only show what we agree with and limit what we dont agree with. How does this compare to how we interact in real life? Can we just suddenly hide things that we dont like? In a way, we can. I believe we can control what we put into our minds, but it can be slightly harder than in the virtual world of social media. I can control what books I read, what I watch on TV, or who I decide to spend my time with, but we cannot control all of our reality. We will at times hear and see things we disagree with. We cannot simply push a button and have it disappear from our world. Digital Personalities Another interesting aspect that has cropped up in age of the internet is how we speak to each other on the internet. When you randomly search for comments on the internet, such as magazine sites or YouTube, you will find a vast array of hateful argumentative commentaries. It seems to be overwhelming. Do we hear or experience hurtful words in real life? Absolutely, but I do not hear them nearly as much as I see them on the internet. What is this phenomenon? Helen Lewis writes about the increasing problem of online abuse towards women in You Should Have Your Tongue Ripped Out: The Reality of Sexist Abuse Online. In the article there

Breaking Down Rhetoric are several testimonials of women who have received violent pornographic comments. One woman writes about the drastic number of abusive comments shes received: If I'd been trying to keep a tally I would have lost count by now of the number of abusive comments I've received since I first started writing online back in 2007. And by abusive I don't mean comments that disagree with whatever I've written. I came up through the trade union movement don't forget, and I've worked in a men's prison, so I'm not some delicate flower who can't handle a bit of banter or heated debate -- no, I'm talking about personal, usually sexualized abuse, the sort that on more than one occasion now has made me stop and wonder if what I'm doing is actually worth it (Lewis). The internet is a huge playing field in the world of rhetoric. We are able to instantly talk to millions of people without ever revealing our true identity. To some, this can seem like free reign. They can speak however they want to without seeing or hearing the emotional response. Rhetoric and Technology Technology and rhetoric has had intensive investigation for decades. Donna Haraway, a professor at UC Santa Cruz, wrote about a theory she called the Cyborg Theory. In essence, this theory was created to break down traditional perceptions of identity, especially feminism. Instead of the theory that we need to be one with nature, we need to instead focus on creating an identity to that of a cyborg. The boundaries between human, animal, and machine are becoming blurred. Our consciousness connects with technological objects.

Breaking Down Rhetoric "The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust (Haraway). In a way, we can see this playing out in our society today. We are becoming more and more dependent on technology than ever before. Our social life, entertainment, research, communication, and daily organization can all be used through technology. Instant gratification is a great issue that is at the forefront of our society. I believe, though, that we all inherently want to be unique and have our own sense of natural identity. Technology, like it has for thousands of years, can help us achieve that, or does it? While our use and dependency of technology make the cyborg theory seem accurate, maybe we werent meant to be cyborgs at all. What if we are artificially creating ourselves to be this form of post-human being, but it is driving us insane, because we werent meant to fully indulge ourselves in this way? What if we were meant for the natural form of self, but were too bored and impatient to fully examine and become who were supposed to be? Maybe the cyborg theory is a way of compromising the true search for self. I am not anti-technology by any means; I believe it can help us in many ways, but I find that the more I depend on modern technology such as computers, the internet, and cell phones, the more distracted I become. Organic Reasoning Not everyone views identity in this way, though. Mark Johnson and George Lakoff wrote in Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought that reason is not an external force that humans seek to discover, but an intrinsic organic structure

Breaking Down Rhetoric that arises from human experience. In order to understand reason, we must look at psychological and physiological factors. Instead of looking to material forces, we must look inside. Another interesting claim they make is that since reason arises from the mind and body; it is largely metaphorical and abstract. Because reason is created organically through our experience, it is constricted within the confines of our minds and bodies. This is in contrast with the view that reason is a free-reigned concept that we can externally grab.

Reason is not disembodied, as the tradition is largely held, but arises from the nature of our brains, bodies, and bodily experience. This is not just the innocuous and obvious claim that we need a body to reason; rather, it is the striking claim that the very structure of reason itself comes from the details of our embodiment (Lakoff and Johnson, 4). Nature and Technology The claims made in this article and Cyborg Manifesto give an interesting perspective. As I mentioned earlier, I believe the true sense of our identity comes from nature and ourselves, but I do think that not all forms of reason come solely from this. Our use of the material world can largely change our psychological behaviors which in turn can alter our reasoning. Matt Richtel from The New York Times wrote about how computers are affecting our brains in an article Your brain on Computers: Attached to Technology and Paying a Price. In this article, he gives an example of a man who completely bypassed an important email from a large company who wanted to buy his start up internet business. The reason, they say, is because he was so enumerated with multi-tasking that he completely missed it. He goes on to

10

Breaking Down Rhetoric describe how it is affecting his memory. He easily forgets dinner plans, and has trouble spending time with his family. Scientists say this is due to the impulse through dopamine, which is an organic chemical that makes us happy (Richtel). How does this new way of thinking and multi-tasking play into our reasoning and decision-making? It seems like our organic consciousness and the material technological world directly affect each other. Using technology directly affects an organic chemical in our bodies. Virtual Reality and Actualization In order to understand the technological world, it is important to think about what the word, virtual really means. Pierre Levy investigated this topic in his book, Becoming Virtual: Reality in the Digital Age. In our cultural description, virtual usually means something that is not in reality. It is out of the sphere of the tangible and concrete. There is a third concept to think about though; actualization. The virtual world progresses to something that will later become reality. For instance, saying, youll get better soon means that they are on the road to recovery, but the reality is that they have not fully recovered. They are progressing toward actualization. Levy stresses that it is important to look at the virtual in reference to actualization rather than concrete reality (Levy, 23-25). Taking these general points about what virtual means, it is important to investigate what this means in the digital realm. When we look at a text and see its formatting, fonts, and layout, what are we looking at? Is the text we see on print any more real than text we see on a computer or tablet? It seems like many publications are asking this question. With the advent of various tablets, publications are becoming virtual. Newsweek magazine, after 79 years of print publication, is becoming all-digital in January 2013 (Saba and Lauria). Why are so many
11

Breaking Down Rhetoric people gravitating toward digital copies? It could be because of environmental reasons. There is less paper waste when reading from a digital device. Tablets are also handy organizational tools and all in one devices. You can read, surf the internet, listen to music, and do a vast number of other things with apps. Maybe its because its just flashier and more fun. Maybe the virtual world is more entertaining than concrete reality. The field of rhetoric is something that requires a lot of thought and processing. It is not something that can easily be figured out in a short amount of time, but something that reveals itself through day-to-day usage and investigation. There are many complex factors integrated that cause us to act, speak, and write the way we do. By observing and investigating, I will be able to better grasp the reasons behind communication and the way I project myself through speech and writing. Through this process, it will be easier to define rhetoric as something greater than a manipulative tactic reserved for the political arena. If we all investigated what rhetoric means to us, then maybe we will be able to better communicate and understand each other.

12

Breaking Down Rhetoric Works Cited Aristotle. Rhetoric, chapters 1 and 2. http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/oneindex.html. Bitzer, Lloyd. The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric. Penn State University Press. January 1968. Haraway, Donna. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist -Feminism in the Late 20th Century. Socialist Review. 1985. Johnson, Mark and Lakoff, George. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York. Basic Books. 1999. Levy, Pierre. Becoming Virtual: Reality in the Digital Age. Plenum Trade. New York. Translated by Robert Bononno. Lewis, Helen. You Should Have Your Tongue Ripped Out: The Reality of Sexist Abuse Online. New Statesman. 3 November 2011. New American Bible. Catholic Book Publishing. 1970. Nietzsche, Friedrich. On Truth and Lies in the Nonmoral Sense.1870. http://imrl.usu.edu/6890/OnTruthandLies.pdf. Richtel, Mark. Your Brain On Computers: Attached to Technology and Paying a Price. The New York Times. 6 June 2010. Saba, Jennifer and Lauria, Peter. After 79 Years in Print, Newsweek Goes Digital Only. Reuters. 18 October 2012.

13