Will the Next Aristotle Please Stand?
In early Greece, a new type of government—democracy—required a “strategy for effectively talking to others in juries, in forums, and in the senate” (Keith/Lundberg, 5). Speech was the primary method for discourse; hence, speakers needed improved skills. Aristotle established rhetoric as an area of study. He “demonstrated the possibilities for becoming more persuasive and figuring out what motivates people to action” (Keith/Lundberg, 7).
Since Aristotle, rhetorical theories have expanded, becoming more expansive in order to modify the practice of rhetoric to fit an increasingly complex world. Having examined all the evolutions in theory, I find that later versions are more applicable to 2010. However, none seems to reach far enough. Perhaps we need a new Aristotle (or Cicero, Bitzer, McGee, or Burke) to suggest a model more appropriate for our times.
One problem is that the term “rhetoric” has too negative a connotation. The populace uses the word rhetoric to describe the manipulation of others with communication. Politicians, advertisements, corporate communications, any unidirectional discourse that—at any cost—achieves the desired result. Jones writes that the “’all’s fair’ idea can lead us to arguments that result in propaganda, spin, and, dirty politics” (157). Watch any television news show, read any newspaper, or listen to any political speech. Anymore, there are only two sides of every argument. Each side twists and shades the facts. Each side shouts across the abyss. The middle is gone.
Jones and Lundberg ask a key question: “…what does today’s much older and more complicated democracy need from rhetoric” (10)? I argue that it needs skills considered separate and apart from rhetoric: listening, understanding, and collaboration. In a world with a preponderance of manipulative rhetoric and a near absence of cooperation, don’t we need a drastically new form of rhetoric that, instead of merely teaching us to speak, also teaches us to listen and understand? Aren’t these skills now crucial to persuasion?
If each side of an argument simply digs in heels, increases the volume, and ramps up the manipulation, what has rhetoric accomplished? Isn’t our greatest need the ability to build consensus, to increase our capacity to work together?
As the human population moves toward 9 billion in 2050 (2008 Gates Foundation study, p. 3), as we humans scrunch closer together, don’t we need a new rhetorical theory that allows us to work together?
Jones states that a good argument consists of two persons, each of whom is willing to concede when proven wrong (158). Everyone knows this should be true, but when was the last time you saw this happen? In today’s society, rhetorical argument does not allow for conceding anything. The rulebook has been thrown out the window.
Jones continues by explaining what makes for good and bad arguments (160). She is right on; however these principles are presently useless. No one adheres to them. Therefore, I believe we new rhetorical skills that will push us back toward productive discourse.
Persuasion should include listening and cooperation. These days, there is too much polarity, not enough middle.
Keith and Lundberg write, “Rhetoric is about how discourses get things done in our social world” (p. 4). I think we will all agree that there is too little getting done in our country and the world. We have reached rhetorical gridlock. The world is full of skillful manipulators, but it is nearly absent rhetoricians that are listeners and bridge builders.
It seems we need a new Aristotle, a rhetorician to teach the world a new pedagogy: listening and understanding. Is there a new Aristotle among us, please stand now.
Thank you for your insightful post Jayme. I agree with you, we do need a new kind of rhetoric. The roots of many of our democracy’s problems lie in our failure to collaborate effectively. Perhaps this comes from our culture’s impulse to think in binaries (us vs. them, good vs. bad) that debilitates creative problem solving and collaboration. I believe you are familiar with Joseph Meeker, a scholar and literary critic, and his essay, “The Comic Mode.” Your post reminded me of his conversation on our cultural trajectory as tragic figures. It seems like the characteristics you identified, the tendency for “each side of an argument [to] simply dig in [their] heels, increase the volume, and ramp up the manipulation” is an embodiment of this tragic mode. This mode values fighting for abstract ideals over adaptation and collaboration, it values tenacity, even to the point of self-destruction, over harmony.
ReplyDeleteThis version of communication and rhetoric is ridiculous when it is played out in real debates. It seems that we can escape this cultural trapping by delving seriously and earnestly into the art of rhetoric itself. If we as citizens and as a society were familiar with the way rhetoric can and does work, then we would be more aware and less tolerant of manipulative or false arguments. Once we can truly see the ways rhetoric is being misused, then perhaps we could establish guidelines for rhetorical communication, which, according to Cicero, is all communication (Keith/Lundberg 26). In The Essential Guide to Rhetoric, Keith and Lundberg identify four key ethical issues that could serve as a structure with which to judge arguments. They are: deception, contrary evidence, responsibility and accountability (22). Deception can involve: “lying by commission,” an intentional untruth, “lying by omission,” an intentional lack of information or “mak[ing] assertions without knowing if they are true.” All of these forms of untruthful persuasion need to be avoided if we are to re-establish trust in argument. If we are to take part in effective rhetorical conversations, arguments need to provide good evidence: studies, examples and research that is relevant and factual. We also need to take responsibility for what we argue and remain accountable to the effects that our arguments have on our audience (22). If we as citizens understood these issues and established guidelines for acceptable arguments, we could reclaim argument and rhetorical speech as a method of collaboration.
Thank you for your insightful post Jayme. I agree with you, we do need a new kind of rhetoric. The roots of many of our democracy’s problems lie in our failure to collaborate effectively. Perhaps this comes from our culture’s impulse to think in binaries (us vs. them, good vs. bad) that debilitates creative problem solving and collaboration. I believe you are familiar with Joseph Meeker, a scholar and literary critic, and his essay, “The Comic Mode.” Your post reminded me of his conversation on our cultural trajectory as tragic figures. It seems like the characteristics you identified, the tendency for “each side of an argument [to] simply dig in [their] heels, increase the volume, and ramp up the manipulation” is an embodiment of this tragic mode. This mode values fighting for abstract ideals over adaptation and collaboration, it values tenacity, even to the point of self-destruction, over harmony.
ReplyDeleteThis version of communication and rhetoric is ridiculous when it is played out in real debates. It seems that we can escape this cultural trapping by delving seriously and earnestly into the art of rhetoric itself. If we as citizens and as a society were familiar with the way rhetoric can and does work, then we would be more aware and less tolerant of manipulative or false arguments. Once we can truly see the ways rhetoric is being misused, then perhaps we could establish guidelines for rhetorical communication, which, according to Cicero, is all communication (Keith/Lundberg 26).
Jayme, well said. I was moved by how apt Lakoff’s and Johnson’s war metaphor for argument was; this idea of argument as intellectual collaboration and exercise is so foreign to us now. In fact, I have so loved being back in an academic setting because it seems this is the only place where rhetoric as a sincere exercise in inquiry exists today – and even then, it’s more likely to be found at a pot luck among friends and wine.
ReplyDeleteMy students are all about winning and losing with their arguments; often, I am too, so much so that prior to reading Jones, I had difficulty seeing any other outcome. In conference this past week, most of them expressed the same concerns: How could they make their arguments strong (meaning winning, not necessarily credible or valid)? And if they were arguing against something, wasn’t that just ranting? When confronted by questions like these – when required to teach our students about argument and rhetoric – I absolutely agree with you that we need to start including collaboration, listening and understanding in our instruction. Today, rhetoric is a sly, empty word – Tea Party rhetoric, Obamacare rhetoric, etc., etc. – but I would like to see us change that in the classroom, with the sort of lasting impression that makes it easy for students to then apply that outside the classroom. Perhaps a few debates on some of the topics our students wrote about are in order?
"In a world with a preponderance of manipulative rhetoric and a near absence of cooperation, don’t we need a drastically new form of rhetoric that, instead of merely teaching us to speak, also teaches us to listen and understand? Aren’t these skills now crucial to persuasion?"
ReplyDeleteGreat points, Jayme. I agree with Noel, so much of the 'sly' use of rhetoric indeed holds a negative connotation in today's world and is one that my students seem to embrace. When we hold a challenging class dicussion or I pose a complicated question, the outcome is always "I won that argument" or "Who's right?" I like to think of 101 as training ground for effective communication in embracing the rhetorical world. I want to show my students, (or rather, I want them to see for themselves) that an engaging, involved and layered class dicussion doesn't have to result in an 'end - all, be all' outcome. In understanding and applying rhetorical terms and theories, hopefully my students will begin to understand that writing and dicussion go hand in hand. If we can apply and observe the rhetorical elements of both, then perhaps our disucussions will grow from a "Who's right" attitude, to an attidute fostered on an appreication of growth from layered, complicated and interesting class discourse. Isn't that what the Greeks intended anyway? We may have to work extra hard given our current argumentative culture.
Like Jayme, I agree that the “middle ground” has been all but lost in today’s rhetorical interactions and that we need to move toward a version of rhetoric that includes “listening, understanding, and collaboration.” Jones illustrates the absurdity of this black and white view of arguments by quoting Lakoff and Johnson’s war metaphor: “We actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own” (157). But if we partially disagree? How to react then?
ReplyDeleteThe cause of the absence of this middle ground is complex and rooted in cultural, economic, and political systems. While this could be the subject of an entire book, Laurel did an excellent job of pointing out one leading cause: lack of trust. Do rhetoricians trust their audiences to analyze and interpret arguments for themselves? Do audiences trust rhetoricians to present factual, unbiased information? In today’s society, the trusting relationship between audience and rhetorician is nearly non-existent.
To do our part, we can encourage our students to be honest in their writing. I had a student ask me during conferences, “Should I present facts that don’t support my argument in my paper? Won’t I lose credibility by doing so?” The answer: a resounding “Yes!” and “No!” In my opinion, when an author presents information arguing both sides, thereby playing devil’s advocate as Michelle suggests, she is being honest with her readers. This honesty shows the author’s confidence in her position; even with all facts presented, her argument makes the best case. This also places great trust in the reader- we assume that he or she is capable of making an informed judgment and is “willing to concede if the point is proven wrong” (Jones 158).
Our unwillingness to concede has resulted in this rhetorical gridlock, as you eloquently put it Jayme, and while I don’t necessarily agree that rules of rhetoric need to change, I do believe that the values that shape our interactions with one another in our Western culture do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJayme I concur your comparison of today's rhetorician trying to manipulate and control the volume. I think a lot of that "volume" you speak of is controlled behind the scenes before the rhetoric even takes place. To engage FOX news or other panel shows where the panel has been pre-picked to take a certain rhetorical stance, well then you have engaged in a fixed argument. When you say "volume" I also think control. I think of five major media companies owning most of our news. I think maybe the "rules" of rhetoric would stabilize a bit if People learned what they should and shouldn't engage in. I think this goes on verbal engagement and into our roles as consumers and viewers.
ReplyDeleteWhy are these shows popular? Because they have an audience, and the audience, although left out of the conversation, is engaging them just by watching. Even though I think most people that watch these shows know that they are watching a simulated debate, or as Jon Stewart says: "New's version of pro wrestling" , watching for entertainment value is giving them validity. It's sad.
The question of whether or not we need a new rhetoric has emerged at different points in time, often in response to different historical circumstances. In 1970 Young, Becker and Pike published a textbook called _Rhetoric: Discovery and Change_ that offered Rogerian rhetoric to emphasize cooperation. Others look to Kenneth Burke, who believes that the "fundamental element of persuasion is identification, the perceived sympathy, empathy, or analogy between speaker and audience.... (Keith and Lundberg 53). Check out http://www.cla.purdue.edu/dblakesley/burke/ The Foss sisters have made the argument that persuasion is violence and offered invitational rhetoric to focus more on understanding: http://www.waveland.com/Titles/Foss-Foss.htm. In other words, there are a number of theorists who've also been persuaded that the "answer" to the emphasis on rhetoric as war is to revise rhetoric accordingly. Of course, for some scholars, the problem is we don't know/practice Aristotelian rhetoric properly - calling what we see on Fox news rhetoric deals with only the most limited definition - a point some of you addressed as well.
ReplyDeleteJayme,
ReplyDeleteI’m intrigued by your suggestion that we need a new Aristotle “to suggest a model more appropriate for our times.” I see your point, here—I’ve found through teaching Writ 101 that 1. My students are unaware of what the term really means, though they do unwittingly employ rhetoric in their daily lives, or 2. that some students do have the negative association of rhetoric as deception (which Keith and Lundberg explore on p. 22 of their text) or, as Jones discusses extensively, war. Because of these negative connotations, I think my students are a bit afraid to engage in rhetoric: first of all, they don’t want to be deceptive or “slimy” like the bad politicians they associate with negative rhetoric, and second of all, I think many of them doubt their capability in crafting rhetoric at all—they think “I’m not a politician or a Greek orator; I don’t have a speech writer—there’s no way I can do this!” Like Lauren, who admits in her post that she’d been using rhetoric without realizing it, my students are still discovering that ordinary choices they make during various forms of communication—speaking, texting, writing on Facebook, writing academically—are rhetorical choices. I’m interested to see their reactions as we move into the Op-Ed unit. I think that really diving into rhetorical appeals and logical fallacies will help them understand the principles of rhetoric better, and will make them realize that these concepts are already at play in their written and oral communication.
I like your idea of combining listening, understanding, and collaboration in this new rhetoric—I’m sure Keith and Lundberg would agree, since as Laurel points out, they assert that the rhetor should be aware of the effects their arguments have on their audience (22). This awareness is a form of collaboration with the audience. Your model of listening, understanding, and collaborating also seems to fit very well with the recursive and communal elements Writ 101 is already trying to foster. Who knows—perhaps the new Aristotle will be one of our own students!