Rhetorical Journey through Time - Literature review Example

Rhetorical Journey through Time. al Affiliation: Introduction: Society has learned to adopt new measures and technologies in order to survive and make life easy in comparison to those who lived in medieval times. Rhetoric may be finely defined as the art of public speaking, being able to portray our ideas and thoughts to others. While talking about rhetoric in this day and age, electronic management systems come into play. Reliance on technology is no longer a luxury but a basic need seeing that everything from basic shopping to talking has been made electronic. In this regard then the definition of the word rhetoric does not just amount to public speaking but goes deeper into the understanding of effective communication. In ancient times, people were taught how to speak in public effectively, an art that is still in practice in the royal families. Having the ability to express yourself and give a speech effectively is important for any leader worldwide. Presently, rhetorical studies have been effected mainly in colleges and universities with studies being carried out on the effectiveness of the same. These when well nurtured develop into full-fledged organizations that provide support not only for the academicians but also for the government departments. Theories of Rhetoric: In ancient Greece, the Greek speakers used the word rhetoric to identify the art and skill of public speaking. This was important for anyone wishing to carry out effective public speaking seeing that it weighed heavily on one’s reputation. Every time people engage in any form of communication, they engage in some form of rhetoric whether it is to please others or for their own gain. Rhetoric acts as a form of socio-political action where the speaker convinces the listeners to believe and understand their point of view based on their extensive arguments. There are many forms of rhetoric and various speakers apply the method that is most effective for them to pass their message across. Berlin a scholar, studied the various rhetorical theories and was able to identify that there are different forms. He said that, “rhetoric has as its base or backbone the concept that there is a reality underneath and human nature is involved, and that this is expressed through language”, (Berlin, 1984, p.200). In his view, rhetoric cannot be confined to the constraints of a few words but to understand it, it is important to understand what can and what cannot be known. Strange as this may sound, it is absolutely true because by understanding this it then allows us to understand what the person who knows understands and their relationship with what they have discovered. Different people finding out information on the same thing will not all give the same results, everyone has a different understanding and this influences the way people think and behave. The language used and the audience will determine the ultimate rhetoric applied by the public speaker. It is then correct to say that, in every aspect of daily life, rhetoric is applied as it is central to every activity that people will engage in. Society can be judged based on the people that speak, how they go about their speech, their audience and what arguments they are able to apply to persuade others to listen effectively. There are various theories that can help achieve the understanding of rhetoric in various people. One is based on objective theories where people believe that reality is in the world today and is evidenced by materialistic demands. There is no need for the speaker to exude ideas and beliefs of things that do not exists and that are not available to the listener. They will speak about the reality of the day what is real and what occurs in their everyday environment. Other rhetoric’s rely on people’s fears and beliefs and use this as a means of creating and developing their arguments. They rely on truth, whether or not it is a reality is subjective so long as some of the people can believe that it is possible. In addition to this the transactional theories of rhetoric’s sees truth as that based on interactions between various elements. Where there is an active interaction, then there is a possibility of creating and delivering truth. With this it is clear that rhetoric’s all have the same idea that truth must be told but what differs is their interpretation of the truth. Truth is an interaction between the audience and the speaker and in this the rhetoric is born and created. By looking at the relationships of people in society and how they conduct their everyday affairs, it is then easy to create an argument based on truth as it is. The primary test of any leader in any movement is their ability to have an effective rhetorical strategy that speaks to the hearts of the people. There is a challenge to have the most creative methods to mobilize and create influence among the people. When social movements are formed, they are at a disadvantage when compared to the government apparatus based on access to resources. In situations relating to social movements, leaders are assured of little to none interference from outside forces that will create resistance. They have created their own systems of rhetoric that allows them to effectively communicate with the people either based on threats or even control. Business organizations on the other hand may use other forms of control including rewards and punishments for any form of deviation. Expanding Our Understanding of Rhetoric: Rhetoric has in many aspects being redefined from the old to the new form of rhetoric each having its own identity. Burke was quick to identify the two by observing that, “the old rhetoric in his view was based on persuasion while the new was based on identification”, (Burke, 1969, p.150). Rhetoric can be identified as a symbolic action where words and language are used to induce some form of cooperation in people. This symbols can be in the form of statements and even slogans but they have the effect of passing a strong statement and message to their audience. It also allows people to create their own version of reality based on the various theories seen above, which all have different variations of what people perceive to be the truth. It is therefore easy to agree that rhetoric is a way of understanding, knowing, organizing and interacting with the world. There have been various criticisms of rhetoric over the years that have played an important role in helping expand our understanding. Taking a look at the Aristotelian systems of rhetoric, it is clear to see even from the various critics that, that he focused mainly on singular rhetorical events and strategies. In this way they were not able to go back long enough to trace traditions and also seek to understand and events as they occurred. It is important to look back into the traditions as this assist in enabling the rhetoric to answer questions concerning why and how rhetorical forms and strategies have become more influential over time in relation to others. In trying to understand rhetoric therefore there is a need to understand persuasion and also achieve persuasion, which are both important aspects of any public speaking. Cognitive rhetoric was used in the ancient times by princes, who would use words laced with sweet words that would somehow help sorrows disappear. This form of rhetoric used psychological effects of persuasion to convince people that all was well and that what they deemed as doom and gloom was actually not so. Plato made the same observation because in his view words that were used in cognitive rhetoric were meant to appeal to the mind of the listener in such a way that they felt like sweet food to the tongue. The language that was used was so persuasive as to attract the attention of the audience and leave them seeking more clarification and information about the topic and agenda presented before them. This form of rhetoric awakens in the person a certain aspect of expectancy where the speech is based on a set of oppositions each creating a different argument. By doing this the rhetoric is able to create attention and interest in even those who do not have an idea or opinion about the matter but would like to feel somewhat involved in the debate or topic. In no uncertain terms there will be participation as the rhetoric appeals to the cognitive aspects creating a desire to participate irrespective of the subject matter. In this idea the rhetoric creates a form and rhythm that allows others to accept and move along with the proposition. By doing this there is created a collaboration with the rhetoric where every movement and word is like a note in a musical composition having its full weight. What should be of concern is that using cognitive rhetoric not only sells the idea to the listener but also creates a convincing argument to the effect that they own it entirely. Rhetoric is used to influence through use of succession and opposition parallels each having its own distinct view and placement. Constant repetition of certain terms also plays a hand in cognitive rhetoric as it creates a situation where it sounds like it’s the same words and same thoughts which many may not be keen to identify and differentiate. Science plays a hand in rhetoric as it lends a hand to some aspects that are used in cognitive rhetoric. The study of rhetoric in the 20th century has seen a lot of keen interest and development in the field with many curiously seeking answers to methods and ideas. In contrast to ancient times like in Greece, rhetoric was an essential feature in any form of education a factor that is no longer present in education even in college or university. There is a need to improve and create more interest in rhetoric seeing that technology favors development and there are many aspects of rhetoric that will factor in. the media constantly throws to our understanding the meaning behind what politicians say and create a form of rapport with the viewer to create a deeper understanding of the speeches. The analysis has been expanded greatly by mass media through various avenues including photography, radio and even film. Every day there is some form of rhetoric being conveyed into people’s minds. Through cognitive rhetoric people are made to appreciate and understand things to the point that they make them their own. Not because they feel this way, but because they have been indoctrinated to believe based on what is constantly broadcasted and put in their view on a daily basis. In truth, rhetoric has gained the status of being a moral way of persuading people to do and act in certain ways. Of importance is the fact that, the definition or understanding of rhetoric today and what was accepted when theorists and inventors of the same began has changed. Because of the constant information and ideas from the media, it is now common to find people viewing rhetoric as being deceptive. In ancient times, rhetoric was used as an avenue for communication and expression and as a channel of delivering truth. The change in mentality and understanding has then created this situation where rhetoric is no longer trusted as it is seen as a means of manipulating others. The media is the main culprit of defaming and changing the true meaning and face of rhetoric. They use it in such derogatory terms and means that people are no longer receptive in a positive way to information given through rhetoric. Whether or not it is used in a negative way, there is a place for rhetoric and it is therefore important to ensure that a clear understanding of the same is propagated. It is not enough to use cognitive rhetoric to influence peoples decisions, there must be more. Rhetoric in its real sense was developed by orators, educators and advocates who at the time were collectively referred to as Sophists. According to Herrick, “they were seen to shock their audiences and at the same time they were able to provoke debate and inquiry in their listeners”, (Herrick, 2012, p.200). At that time, there was created a different idea on what rhetoric was and what it entailed and this differences have greatly contributed to the flawed understanding in view today. The Sophists in their understanding saw rhetoric as a means that would unite the people and create pressure for the government and where needed support them. Language is a very strong tool and when used effectively can make very drastic changes in the lives of individuals. Words at the time were used to entice and influence the audience to believe whatever was on offer, by ensuring that they were so persuasive as to entice the entire crowd. At the time rhetoric was seen as an art and a skill of which few had the privilege of possessing, as it was the preserve of the well-educated. But with the continued criticism of Plato, then rhetoric became something different and was now seen as a machine and instrument of manipulation and not one of truth. Plato who was Socrates student, had a very negative view of the Sophists and was a famed critic of rhetoric. In his view, the Sophists used their writing skills to mislead and manipulate their audience into doing what they wanted. This was just but an assumption as Plato in no way backed or gave evidence of the same although his views were widely accepted as being true. This was the beginning of the change of rhetoric from being the light and center of knowledge to a deprived institution that did not care for people. The fact that he did not have any trust of the Sophist did not literary mean that they were wrong but this view was not taken into consideration. In light of the arguments given earlier, he formed his own form of rhetoric which people now believed to be the truth. This was quite interesting seeing that he was criticizing a similar rhetoric that was just different from his. He was also influencing people’s minds but he was able to successfully apply cognitive rhetoric and affect the thoughts and ideas of his listeners. The ideas on rhetoric have not changed much since Plato and looking at the various ideas of scholars and writers, he created a new definition of the term rhetoric. This can be seen in modern day in the argument put forward by Jarratt who in her definition, “defines sophism in a derogatory manner as to mean that which had been crafted carefully and not only that, with a false argument that was meant to deceive others”, (Jarratt, 1998, p.150). This is just but a beginning into the misunderstanding that was created when critics of Sophism in a way diluted the true intention of rhetoric as created by the skilled writers and oralists. Their intention was not one of manipulation but of understanding and clarity. They wanted people to be able to actively participate in discussions and debates with the governments and authorities regarding their matters without getting lost and confused. By creating a situation where people are now skeptical of the truth, it is no wonder that most rhetorical works are taken as untrue. The misunderstanding has seen the loss of marvelous pieces and works that would have contributed greatly to the development of man. There are instances where sophism is used to incite emotional control and demand over the people instead of emphasizing logical demands. When speakers play on the emotions and fears of their listeners, they are not applying the true meaning of rhetoric but the diluted version that has been adopted over the years. It would be interesting to see what the very first people who came up with the idea would say should they listen or witness rhetoric in the modern age. Going back into the middle ages, when Christianity was being spread by missionaries, there was an increase in using rhetoric as a way of entertaining people. During the fall of the Roman Empire there was increase in fanciful and expressive rhetoric. This was in form of plays and caricatures that would have a hidden meaning and message meant to create a picture of the events as they were. The term rhetoric moved from passing the real message as it was to creating undertones and having people create their own interpretations. This may in many aspects have led to the dilution and demised understanding of what rhetoric was meant to achieve. By the 16th century however things had changed slightly, as some scholars took it upon themselves to constantly criticize rhetoric in the same way that Plato had done. Many of them questioned the true intention of rhetoric to the extent of seeking an understanding of what it really stood for. One famous reformer in those times Peter Ramus who was a critic of rhetoric sought an answer to the question whether, rhetoric added any value. He was of the view that rhetoric was just a form of verbal enhancement like many others and because of this it did not have any influence and if it did, it was insignificant. This and other criticisms of rhetoric saw its downfall as it was seen as a form of manipulation something many people did not want to be a part of. There was need at the time for truth and expression and anything that was contrary to that was seen as being unacceptable. “Rhetoric was then placed in its own category as being based on style, delivery and memory, while the creative aspects of invention and disposition were taken away”, (Lanham, 1993, p.157). By this they clearly separated language and thought and created a different form of education. In this new system, reason was seen to be independent of speech and language was therefore an impartial way of passing information to others. Once people had carried out research and collected information, their findings would then be seen as information and not as a specific art form that could be mastered and developed creatively. Aristotle was also a contributor to what can only be equated to the development of modern Rhetoric. He studied under Plato who brought in much criticism to the original meaning and idea of rhetoric creating a situation where people did not trust in its ideologies. Aristotle in his view saw rhetoric differently, as a form of philosophy that went together with dialect and logic. He took a different view trying to understanding what the inventors of rhetoric aimed at achieving. In his view, logic went hand in hand with the way people think and gain scientific understanding of things. Dialect on the other hand he believed was concerned with possibilities in the same way that rhetoric was, hence was connected to human affairs. He changed his view back to the original idea that rhetoric was based and was an instrument of sensible debate, and not manipulation as was the view of Plato. He then used his observations to clarify that dialectic and rhetoric are able to persuade people based on the information derived from knowledge rather than using people’s emotions to convince them. Modern Rhetoric: Modern scholars on the other hand have taken a completely different view of what rhetoric is and its influence on people. By observing the writings of Plato and Aristotle it is clear to see that there was a difference not just of opinion but of ideals. Today’s rhetoric is taken to be abusive because people do not go back into history and check what the inventors and scholars sought to achieve. They will only believe what is the accepted stand of those who have an opinion and in most cases this would be of the same school of thought as Plato. Rhetoric today is equated to trickery and a way of political machinations where lies and propaganda are spread by the leaders. Looking back into history, this misunderstanding has contributed to the fall of many democracies creating a situation where people are not able to trust anything said in the media. To them it is all propaganda either for attention or to play to the emotions of people in order to serve a purpose. There is talk that electronic and modern means of communication like texts and words tend to encourage democratic discourse. This view is highly refuted by Lanham, who has a positive view of the digital age observing that modern technology does not in any way influence communication in a negative way”, (Lanham, 1993, p.14). The idea and definition of literacy is slowly changing, moving from texts in print to digitally defined means that are displayed in computer screens and are easy to access. The introduction of emails, text messages, network messages and hypertext are all changing the way people relate with each other. In addition they are changing the need for rhetoric as was defined by the ancient scholars. The impact of the electronic age both to literacy and rhetoric is a subject that is worth researching thoroughly. There are many aspects of positivity although some negative ideals are in existence and this cannot be denied. The people behind the digital rhetoric have in a way applied the ancient systems of rhetoric as being informative and also applied an appreciation of information to go with it. As digital media develops, human language decreases and communication is then a preserve of images and information. The most people do nowadays is rely on memory and images relayed digitally that are able to pass information and hence create a new form of rhetoric. The new rhetoric goes back to try and discover the true meaning and reasoning behind the scholars and oralists in their definition of rhetoric. The new rhetoric works on persuasion and creates arguments that helps people understand their surrounding and also have the ability to question things, as opposed to just accepting what they hear. Rhetoric in the middle ages was used by educators as a tool of education for students that assisted them in writing good essays and that were grammatically correct. It was also highly used as a tool of persuasion where the students were persuaded to accept schools of thought based on what they believed. In today’s world however, rhetoric is not used in that way, having found its footing in business, technical writings and most important politics. There is a change in the way people understand the meaning of rhetoric. As opposed to the past methods where good essays and perfect speeches were key, there is an addition today where there are expectations on recognition and influence of communication in people’s lives. The internet has also been a great contributor giving users a wider variety and access of rhetoric in comparison to what was available in the past. Even with the changes, there are key aspects and principles that do not change and remain constant. This include and are not limited to invention, memory, arrangement, delivery and style. The notion of literacy has changed over the years, with the emphasis on being able to orally express oneself reducing in importance. In comparison to ancient times, access to information and resources is instant and this promotes various aspects of invention. One is able to offer links to documents and materials on the web, where people can read and form their own opinions freely without having to suffer the stress of browsing through thousands of texts for information. With this invention, however much has been lost in terms of document organization and construction. It is not easy to determine whether a document has an introduction and conclusion since it is all available in prose form with little to no headings. The idea of creativity in the modern age is therefore challenged in the sense that, organization is not a key aspect of development of ideas. People cannot write and create their own materials and form their own rhetoric which many believe and others refuse. The truth is subjective and is based entirely on the beliefs of different people and most especially on the ideas of the person making any writings. When people read they perceive different things and whether or not they are deceptive, the decision rests on the person who has accessed the information. Rhetoric has a place in the future seeing that it still has its roots in the current age as information and ideas still have to be conveyed to others. Everywhere we look be it the print media, electronic and even the personal messages sent through mobile phones rhetoric is alive and well. Although this is the case, it is no longer important as it was in the early days but it helps us understand one another and communicate effectively. References: Berlin, J. A. (1984). Writing Instruction in Nineteenth- Century American Colleges. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP. Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press. 1-356. Herrick, J. (2012). The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. Pearson. 1-304. Jarratt, S.C. (1998). Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Southern Illinois University Press. 1-184. Lanham, R.A. (1993). The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology and the Arts. University of Chicago Press. 1-157. Read More