“
D
Rhetoric is essential to a vital democracy.
I was asked to give the eulogy at my best friend’s funeral. I had never given a speech
like that, and at first, I wasn’t sure what I would say. I decided that I should talk
about what a special person he was and tell some stories about the thoughtful
things he did and the crazy stunts he pulled. I figured we needed to remember his
life as much as we needed to mourn his death.
—Dan
an recognized the power of rhetorical communication to honor and commemorate. Rhetoric is communication that influences the attitudes or behaviors of others; it is also called the art of persuasion. Dan’s eulogy was
rhetorical in that it was designed to influence how his listeners viewed his
deceased friend; through his speech, he encouraged them to see his friend as
unique, fun, and thoughtful. On other occasions, communicators might use rhetoric
to influence people to vote a particular way, to recognize Pope John Paul II as a
saint, or to participate in a Walk for the Cure for breast cancer.
Dan’s speech served important cultural and personal functions, and gaining
insight into such functions is, by itself, an important reason to study the art of
rhetoric. But people study rhetoric, which comes from the ancient Greek word for
speaking, for a variety of other important reasons as well, which we will explore
throughout this chapter. Since most of us spend more time as receivers of rhetorical
communication, this chapter also focuses on how to be a responsible rhetorical critic.
In this chapter, we explore rhetoric as it informs the study of communication today. We will first consider the definition and functions of rhetoric. We next
examine how characteristics of public speakers, or rhetors, make them credible, influence what they say, and impact how they relate to their audiences. We then turn
our focus to a broader topic—the intersection of society and rhetoric. And, before
providing a guide for preparing a rhetorical presentation, we consider the merits of
being a rhetorical critic.
Once you have read this chapter, you will be able to:
■
■
■
■
■
■
Describe some of the key issues in rhetorical communication.
Identify cultural and social influences on the development of rhetoric.
Identify and define the three artistic proofs (ethos, pathos, logos).
Explain four functions of rhetoric: reaffirming cultural values, increasing
democratic participation, securing justice, and promoting social change.
Understand the ethical issues facing rhetors and audience members.
Identify the basic steps in preparing a speech.
THE IMPORTANCE OF RHETORIC
The rhetorical tradition lies at the heart of communication studies. Since the days
of Aristotle in ancient Greece, rhetoric has been considered the art of persuasion. Its
practice is contingent upon culture, political arrangements, and social contexts and
319
320
CHAPTER 12 Rhetorical Communication
rhetoric
communication that is used to
influence the attitudes or behaviors
of others; the art of persuasion
conventions. For example, how might courtroom rhetoric differ among people who
believe in magic, witches, and the presumption of guilt from courtroom rhetoric
among people who believe in DNA, forensic science, and the presumption of innocence? Or in a political system with a dictator versus one with elected officials?
We’ll look at the changing notions of rhetoric as cultures and societies have differed. First, let’s look at how rhetoric functions in our society.
Rhetoric’s Functions in Society
Rhetorical communication serves at least three important social functions. First,
as you may have surmised, rhetoric is essential to a vital democracy. For people to
make informed decisions (and vote) about a range of issues, they must listen critically and speak with care. By advocating for one’s perspective and engaging with the
perspectives of others, people can make decisions together regarding the common
good. Hence, rhetoric can strengthen democratic society, and speeches or other types
of communication to the public can serve important political and social functions.
Second, rhetoric helps people seek justice. Probably one of the most obvious sites
of this rhetorical function is the courtroom. Not only lawyers but also jurors need
rhetorical skills; they need to listen carefully and critically not only to what is said, but
how it is said, and they must be able to persuade other jurors of the proper verdict.
Speakers also use rhetoric to persuade others to pursue social justice—for example, to
support a moratorium on the death penalty or treat animals more ethically.
Third, rhetoric helps people clarify their own beliefs and actions. For example, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, many people, like our student in
It Happened to Me: Denise, were not sure what to believe about why the United
States was attacked or how they should respond or behave. Therefore, they turned
to experts and national leaders, such as the president, to gather information that
could help them clarify their beliefs and understanding. In his speech after 9/11,
President George W. Bush told the nation and the world that “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity
in the world. And no one will
keep that light from shining”
It Happened to Me:
(2001). Many people who
heard his message felt that it
spoke to their own views and
When the president was going to speak about 9/11 for the first time, I was right there
helped them articulate how
listening. Most of the people I knew, including me, were frightened and not sure what
they were feeling. Conversely,
to believe or how to understand the attacks. We wanted to know what was really
others who heard the message
happening and what he was doing to protect the United States.
realized that it did not reflect
their feelings, but in thinking
and talking about their reaction to the speech, they were better able to explain to
themselves and others what they did believe.
Denise
The Advantages of Studying Rhetoric
In addition to serving important functions in society, rhetoric is also an important
area of academic inquiry. Studying rhetoric as a field of scholarship is useful for
four reasons. First, the study of public communication generates findings that help
people understand the range of viewpoints on social issues. For example, if you
wanted to understand the reasoning behind the U.S. immigration policy, you could
examine the rhetoric of people who are attempting to influence that policy. You
might listen to the president’s speeches on immigration; you could examine the
Catholic Church’s views on pending immigration legislation; you could review the
public comments of various members of Congress, some of whom are themselves
the children or grandchildren of immigrants; and you could listen to interviews and
speeches of other people who support various changes to immigration policy. By
The Importance of Rhetoric
321
examining the rhetoric of these individuals and groups, you would be better able
to understand how U.S. immigration policies respond to these varied perspectives.
Second, the study of rhetoric helps people better understand culture. Both consciously and unconsciously, through listening to and analyzing public communication, people learn the expectations of their own cultures—what it means to be a good
parent, how to present oneself, how to decorate one’s home, and much more. People
can study and understand other cultures, too, by being attuned to how public communication sustains patterns of social life.
Third, studying rhetoric can help people critically evaluate messages designed to
influence them, such as advertising. Other rhetoric tries to persuade people to support particular policies or to vote for or against certain politicians or propositions.
As receivers of these persuasive messages, people can learn to listen critically, analyze
these messages, and respond appropriately.
Finally, the study of public communication helps us to become better public
communicators or to understand what makes specific public communicators effective
or ineffective. We can learn much about public speaking by analyzing instances of
public speech. In addition, we can determine why some speakers are more successful
or persuasive than others by comparing their public communication.
Becoming a Rhetorical Critic The term rhetorical critic refers to an in-
formed consumer of rhetorical discourse who is prepared to analyze rhetorical texts.
You may think that a critic’s job is simply to be negative about whatever is under
analysis. However, everyone is a critic in everyday life, and we have an ethical duty
to think critically about the rhetorical texts we encounter. Although some people
reserve the term rhetorical critic for those who work in academia, we see it differently. We consider anyone who pursues sustained and detailed analyses of rhetorical
discourse to be a rhetorical critic.
We hope that you and your fellow citizens all become more attuned to the
sensitivities of rhetorical discourse and that you become strong analysts of it, as it
has tremendous influence on the ways you conduct your everyday life and the way
society functions. To give just one example, rhetorical discourse likely shapes your
understanding of what it means to be a good parent. Do you think that good parents
have to sacrifice everything for their children? Pay for their college educations? Do
good parents expect their children to take care of them in their old age? Or should
good parents do everything possible to avoid being a burden? Of course, no “right”
answer exists for any of these questions. But it’s important to be aware that you do
have some ideas about what constitutes good parenting. It’s also important to be
aware that these ideas came from a barrage of rhetorical messages from newspaper reporters, magazine writers, psychologists, religious organizations, and others.
Becoming more aware of your opinions and where they come from can make you a
more effective rhetorical critic.
Being an informed rhetorical critic can also help one appreciate the artistic aspects
of discourse (Darsey, 1994), as well as what makes a particular rhetorical message
effective or persuasive. When you read the excerpt from a famous antislavery speech
in Did You Know? Frederick Douglass, consider what makes it effective. What are the
artistic aspects of this speech? Why didn’t Douglass simply say, “Slavery is wrong”?
Rhetorical criticism is a method for generating knowledge about rhetoric.
Through attentiveness to how rhetoric has functioned and continues to function in
various contexts, you can build an understanding of your culture, society, and the
ideas that predominated during a given period. Hence, an analysis of any one rhetorical message should be seen as part of a much larger and ongoing dialogue.
A variety of approaches to rhetorical criticism exist. We cannot cover all the
major approaches to rhetorical criticism in this introductory course. There are
many courses and textbooks that focus on rhetorical criticism. Instead we hope
to teach you to listen carefully to how rhetoric functions every day and to analyze
rhetorical critic
an informed consumer of rhetorical
discourse who is prepared to analyze
rhetorical texts
322
CHAPTER 12 Rhetorical Communication
Did You Know?
Frederick Douglass
When Frederick Douglass began to speak out against slavery, many White Americans did
not believe he had really been a slave, or that he was African American. In her biography
of Douglass, Sandra Thomas explains: “People gradually began to doubt that Douglass was
telling the truth about himself. Reporting on a lecture that he gave in 1844, the Liberator
wrote that many people in the audience refused to believe his stories: ‘How a man, only
six years out of bondage, and who had never gone to school could speak with such eloquence—with such precision of language and power of thought—they were utterly at a
loss to devise.’” Unfortunately, this response to minority speakers may not be unusual.
Here is a famous excerpt from a speech Douglass gave about the Fourth of July. How
do the artistic proofs used in this speech help to move an audience?
Frederick Douglass was a
powerful rhetor who spoke out
against slavery in the United
States.
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him,
more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the
constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy
license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and
heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty
and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud,
deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace
a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking
and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.
SOURCES: Douglass, F. (1852, July 5). The meaning of July Fourth for the Negro. Retrieved June 26,
2006, from www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927t.html Thomas, S. (n.d.). From slave to abolitionist/
editor. Retrieved June 26, 2006, from http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/douglass/part2.html
How do you view the sophists’
relativistic approach to rhetoric?
Have you ever been
in a situation in
a class or debate
where you were
required to argue
for a position that
clashed with your personal values? How did it feel to make the
argument?
?
sophists
the first group to teach persuasive
speaking skills in the Greek city-states
what purposes it serves. As you listen to rhetoric from presidents, governors, mayors, church leaders, or others, ask yourself, how does this message reinforce the status quo? How does it argue for change? What ideas are mentioned and what ideas
are absent? How and why is it persuasive, and how might it influence the public in
making public policy decisions?
Because you can only consume a limited amount of the rhetoric generated, and
because the rhetorical environment is always changing, the ways in which you understand and think about the world will always be changing as well. By adopting a
critical approach, you can empower yourself to better understand the messages and
the issues at hand.
Truth and Rhetoric
Since the fifth century b.c.e., teachers and scholars of rhetoric have argued over its
fundamental purpose. Does it help speakers and listeners discern truth—or is it only
concerned with what an audience can be persuaded to believe? If persuasion is the
goal, then truth plays a smaller, perhaps even nonexistent, role.
The first people to teach persuasive speaking skills in the Greek city-states were
called sophists. Their approach to rhetoric was practical; they believed rhetoric’s
purpose was to persuade, especially on matters of urgency. Therefore, they taught
speakers to adjust their notions of right or wrong, true or untrue, depending on
their speaking situation, their audience, and their goals.
323
What Is Rhetoric? A Broader View
Others disagreed, however. One of the more prominent of these was Plato (429–
347 b.c.e.), who strongly opposed this relativistic approach. In his well-known dialogue, Gorgias, he disparagingly compared sophistic rhetoric to “cookery,” in which
a set of elements (or ingredients) were “mixed together” to create the final speech (or
dish) for the sake of pleasure and not of the good. Plato believed speakers should use
rhetoric to search for universal principles of truth and that these truths should then
influence people’s behavior for the better. In fact, he thought the best way to search
for truth was through oral dialogue, and in the Phaedrus he argued for a philosophical
rhetoric based on truth (Conley, 1994; Infante, Ranceer, & Womack, 1990).
Not unlike students today, Plato’s student Aristotle (384–322 b.c.e.) challenged
his teacher’s arguments. He did not agree with Plato’s insistence on the relationship
of absolute truth to rhetoric; instead he believed speakers needed to learn skillful
persuasion so they could defend truth and justice. As you might guess, his position
was more relativistic than Plato’s, but less relativistic than the sophists’.
Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the art of discovering all the available means of
persuasion in a given situation” (Aristotle, 350 b.c.e./1991, p. 42). With this perspective in mind, he sought to create general rules of rhetoric that could be applied
to a variety of circumstances and occasions. He was so successful that his text The
Rhetoric has been used as a handbook for public speaking for more than 2,000 years.
When the Romans conquered the Greeks in 146 b.c.e., they incorporated the
writings of Greek rhetoricians into Roman education. Cicero (106–43 b.c.e.), a
prominent advocate and politician, is often considered the greatest Roman orator,
or public speaker, and the most influential theorist of ancient rhetoric. Cicero believed speakers should use rhetoric for the public good and that eloquence without
wisdom was feeble and even dangerous.
Cicero offered guidelines for organizing speeches and was a master of style; in fact,
his speeches are still appreciated today for their rhetorical force. He is known best for
identifying the three purposes or goals of public speaking: to instruct, to please, and
to win over. Modern public speaking courses require mastery of these three types of
speeches, which we now refer to as speeches to inform, to entertain, and to persuade.
As the Roman Empire declined, the Catholic Church replaced secular educational
institutions as the leading disseminator of knowledge in the West. Once again the
issue of truth’s relationship to rhetoric became important. First, since rhetoric had
developed from a non-Christian tradition, concerns arose about its relevance and appropriateness to Christianity. The most prominent thinker and writer of this era was
Augustine of Hippo (354–430 c.e.), whom you may know as St. Augustine. He was
a professor of rhetoric before converting to Christianity, and he struggled to reconcile
his rhetorical background with his religious beliefs. Augustine’s view of truth was
close to Plato’s—that truth exists in an absolute way—and he promoted the idea that
rhetoric could impart the divine truth (Conley, 1994). From this perspective, ethical
decisions were not situation specific; choices were always right or wrong, good or evil.
WHAT IS RHETORIC? A BROADER VIEW
When you think of rhetoric, you may think about overblown statements, exaggerations, or even outright lies and misstatements—as in, “Oh, that’s just a bunch of
political rhetoric.” Unfortunately, this dismissive view of rhetoric is all too common
today. However, as we saw in the preceding section, rhetoric has a rich history, and
it serves important functions in a democratic society. As you saw in the opening
example about giving the eulogy at a friend’s funeral, rhetoric in its truest sense
refers to communication that is used to influence others. Thus, rhetoricians would
not view the president’s communication following 9/11 as simply an attempt to
provide information, but also as an attempt to guide us to view this topic in a way
that suits his particular goals. In both the historical and the contemporary sense,
orator
a public speaker
324
CHAPTER 12 Rhetorical Communication
rhetoric focuses primarily on public communication or messages designed to influence large audiences.
More than forty years ago, communication professor Douglas Ehninger suggested that throughout history people have had different ideas of what rhetoric is and
the purposes it serves (1967). Ehninger’s thinking sparked interest in connecting rhetoric to the cultural, social, and historical forces that exist in any particular time and in
exploring how these forces shape rhetoric. Therefore, scholars began to research the
ways that rhetoric serves social needs in societies around the world. For example, they
looked at how the uses of rhetoric in a religious state may differ from those in a secular one. In addition, their research showed that the methods and reasons that people
speak out in public depend on how such communication is received. While Ehninger
focused on the European tradition, his argument stirred interest in understanding how
non-Western cultures developed their own rhetorical traditions (Lucaites, Condit, &
Caudill, 1999). See Did You Know? Scholarly Definitions of Rhetoric.
Did You Know?
Scholarly Definitions of Rhetoric
As you can see from the following list, the term rhetoric has been defined again and again,
with many variations. Which definitions are most helpful in thinking about using communication strategically and which ones are least useful? Which ones are most helpful in
contemporary society? Why?
Plato: Rhetoric is “the art of winning the soul by discourse.”
Aristotle: Rhetoric is “the faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available
means of persuasion.”
Quintilian: “Rhetoric is the art of speaking well.”
George Campbell: “[Rhetoric] is that art or talent by which discourse is adapted to its end.
The four ends of discourse are to enlighten the understanding, please the imagination,
move the passion, and influence the will.”
I. A. Richards: “Rhetoric is the study of misunderstandings and their remedies.”
Kenneth Burke: “The most characteristic concern of rhetoric [is] the manipulation of
men’s beliefs for political ends … the basic function of rhetoric [is] the use of words by
human agents to form attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents.”
Lloyd Bitzer: “… rhetoric is a mode of altering reality, not by the direct application of
energy to objects, but by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action.”
Douglas Ehninger: “[Rhetoric is] that discipline which studies all of the ways in which men
may influence each other’s thinking and behavior through the strategic use of symbols.”
Gerard A. Hauser: “Rhetoric is an instrumental use of language. One person engages another person in an exchange of symbols to accomplish some goal. It is not communication
for communication’s sake. Rhetoric is communication that attempts to coordinate social
action. For this reason, rhetorical communication is explicitly pragmatic. Its goal is to influence human choices on specific matters that require immediate attention.”
John Locke: “[Rhetoric,] that powerful instrument of error and deceit.”
Alfred North Whitehead: “The creation of the world—said Plato—is the victory of persuasion over force. The worth of men consists in their liability to persuasion.”
SOURCE: Excerpts taken from: Scholarly definitions of rhetoric. Retrieved June 26, 2006, from http://
www.americanrhetoric.com/rhetoricdefinitions.htm. Reprinted by permission.
What Is Rhetoric? A Broader View
The European rhetorical tradition is only one of many in the world, and public
communication functions in different ways in other places. It can, however, be difficult to research and study rhetoric historically and/or globally because the word
rhetoric is not used in all cultures to describe that which is called “rhetoric” in
the European tradition. The term comes to the English language from the Greek
word rhetor. A rhetor is a person or institution that addresses the public. George
Kennedy, a scholar of the ancient world, focuses less on the word and more on the
concept itself: “Rhetoric is apparently a form of energy that drives and is imparted
to communication. . . . All communication carries some rhetorical energy” (1998,
p. 215). In this sense, rhetoric is not a cultural phenomenon unique to the West (see
Did You Know? Ancient Chinese Rhetoric), but a facet of communication across
cultures—it is the motive for communicating.
Did You Know?
Ancient Chinese Rhetoric
It is important to remember that the concept of rhetoric was not unique to the Greeks. For
example, the ancient Chinese had a well-developed sense of the power and impact of language on their social, political, and individual lives. The Western study of rhetoric is comparable to the Chinese Ming Bian Xue: the study of naming (Ming) and argumentation (Bian).
Why do you think most Westerners are unaware of the Chinese rhetorical tradition? Can
you imagine a society that could thrive without rhetoric? What would such a society look like?
From the fifth to the third century B.C.E. China had five schools of thought in rhetorical
philosophy.
School of Ming: These philosophers were interested in the function of language in political
settings as well as in rational thinking. They lived in the same time period and shared some
similarity in worldview and theoretical perspectives with the Greek sophists. Both recognized
the power of language and were intelligent, professional, eloquent speakers who traveled
around selling their expertise. But unlike the Greek sophists, the Chinese Mingjia used their
psychological and rational appeals in mostly private settings.
Confucianism: This philosophy is concerned with morality and three principles—ren (benevolence), li (rites), and zhong (the middle way). Each directly affects rhetorical perspectives.
Confucians were primarily interested in speech as an ethical issue, believing that proper use
of language keeps society orderly and moral. A person with high moral standards is ethical
in speech and action, knows his audience, and can use language appropriately. You can see
that ancient Chinese and Greek thinkers have much in common.
School of Mohism: This philosophy closely resembles Western logical, religious, and ethical
systems. It is deeply concerned with questions about sources of knowledge, uses of names,
and methods of inference, but always with a preference for a commonsense attitude. This very
practical, utilitarian approach threatened the then-ruling class in China and was considered
unethical by the standards of Confucianism. Those associated with Mohism became unfairly
equated with the Mingjia and rejected for their lack of concern for the morals of society.
School of Daoism: The three schools of thought we have described thus far all assumed
that reality could be represented by language, and language could affect social, political,
and moral conditions. In contrast, Daoism is a mystical philosophy that points out the limitation of speech. Instead, it advocates the boundlessness of the mind, the wealth of rhetorical possibilities, and the artfulness of living wisely and freely.
(continued)
325
rhetor
a person or institution that addresses
a large audience; the originator of
a communication message but not
necessarily the one delivering it
326
CHAPTER 12 Rhetorical Communication
Did You Know?
(continued)
School of Han Feizi: Han Feizi was a legalist who viewed language through the lens of political power, specifically the power struggle between a ruler and his ministers. He believed in
“government of the ruler, by the ruler, and for the ruler.” He described deceptive and cunning
rhetorical strategies using audience psychology and practicality. This created an ideology of
despotism in which the sole authority was a living god who exerted total political control over
his people and was thus capable of great cultural, intellectual, and economic devastation.
ADAPTED FROM: Lu, X. (1998). Rhetoric in ancient China fifth to third century B.C.E: A comparison
with classical Greek rhetoric (p. 72). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Different cultures assign power to
people based on different factors.
Culturally, the social position of the rhetor often determines his or her right
to speak or to access civic speaking spaces. In some cultures, it is important that
the rhetor is an elder or that he be male or come from a high-status family. In others, everyone is able to speak. These cultural differences
influence who has the ability to speak and who needs to
study rhetoric to be the most capable communicators.
To understand how these social positions differ
across cultures, it is important to seek out the structures
of different cultures and societies. In some cultures,
people rise to leadership positions by being democratically elected, while in other cultures leaders gain and
hold onto power through financial prowess, political
intrigue, or military force. Religious leaders sometimes
hold the most powerful positions. Some cultures are led
by a group instead of a single leader. Relationships to
certain families, credentials from certain schools, or even
one’s physical attractiveness can lead to empowerment
(or disempowerment). Yet, how one’s rhetoric is received
is very much dependent on where one is in society.
As you think about the role of rhetoric around the
world, consider how decisions are made in different
societies. You might also contemplate how our own culture is changing as we take
part in public debates over such far-reaching topics as gay marriage, immigration
reform, retirement and pension plans, and more.
TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE
r What are some of the ways that the study of rhetoric has been influenced by its historical
context?
THE RHETOR: RHETORIC’S POINT OF ORIGIN
It is conventional to think about a rhetor as a specific public speaker; for example,
when the president speaks to the nation, the president is a rhetor. As notions of
rhetoric have expanded over time, however, corporations, organizations, and governments have also come to be thought of as rhetors. Thus, a rhetor is the originator of a communication message, not necessarily the person delivering it.
Like other areas of communication studies, the study of rhetoric acknowledges
the relationship between individual forces and societal forces. In this segment of
the chapter, we look at the individual forces that make for more or less effective
rhetors. These forces include the rhetor’s artistic proofs, position in society, and
relationship to the audience.
327
The Rhetor: Rhetoric’s Point of Origin
Ethos, Pathos, and Logos
In the Art of Rhetoric, Aristotle argued that there are three artistic proofs, or means
through which a rhetor gains the trust of an audience and designs credible messages.
They are: ethos, pathos, and logos.
Ethos Aristotle considered ethos—usually translated as “character”—the most
important of the three artistic proofs. Aristotle emphasized that rhetors create ethos,
or a sense of their character, by displaying to their audience good sense, moral character, and goodwill. He also included family background, attractiveness, and athletic ability as valuable assets in persuasion through ethos. Advertising commonly
exploits this aspect of ethos, using famous family names, attractive models, and
celebrated athletes to promote products.
To communicate a certain aspect of their ethos, a rhetor can create and project
a persona. Persona is related to the notion of identity that we discussed in Chapter 3
it describes the identity one creates through one’s public communication efforts. A
speaker’s public persona may be quite different from his or her private one. In
contrast, a speaker’s social identities, such as race, ethnicity, age, and nationality,
remain unchanged from situation to situation and are not under the speaker’s control. The public persona a speaker projects can enhance her ethos if audiences find
the persona credible, informed, or intelligent; it can diminish her ethos if audiences
perceive the persona to be untrustworthy, deceitful, unintelligent, or misinformed.
Interpretations of ethos are influenced not only by how a speaker presents herself or himself but also by social factors such as stereotypes and assumptions. For
example, sometimes people hear accents that increase or decrease their perceptions
of the speaker’s intelligence. British accents tend to increase credibility in the United
States, while southern accents may have the opposite effect, especially in the northern United States.
Pathos Pathos refers to the rhetorical use of emotions to affect audience decision
making. Speakers often use emotion to influence the audience to identify with a particular perspective. In a court case, the prosecuting lawyer may reenact the crime to
help the jury see the case from the victim’s point of view. An effective reenactment
may influence the jury to emotionally identify and thus side with the prosecution
rather than the defense.
There are many different emotional appeals that can be made. Emotional appeals to fear have been used many times throughout history. Fear can get people
to support government actions that they otherwise would not, such as the USA
PATRIOT Act, TSA screening procedures, and other measures instituted in reaction
to fears of terrorism.
Emotional appeals are often more subtle. For example, the athletic and alumni
Web sites of many universities incorporate pathos to invite participation in their events
and support for their organizations. Some of these emotional appeals may involve
feelings of pride by associating with the university, as well as positive memories that
alumni may have about their student days. You may have similar feelings some day.
Logos While the word logos looks like “logic,” it is not as narrowly defined.
Rather, logos refers to reasoning or argumentation more generally. As an artistic
proof, logos refers to how rhetors construct arguments or present evidence so that
audiences reach a particular conclusion. For example, a lawyer may use evidence
such as fingerprints to build a case and explain how a crime occurred, or a politician may point to her voting record to establish her credibility as a conservative.
Aristotle felt that combining ethos, pathos, and logos was more effective than
relying on only one kind of proof. For example, if a rhetor wanted to address the
problem of obesity, it would be important to use ethos appeals to establish goodwill,
avoiding mockery or mean-spiritedness. Logos, in turn, could offer the rationale for
artistic proofs
artistic skills of a rhetor that influence
effectiveness
ethos
the rhetorical construction of character
persona
the identity one creates through one’s
public communication efforts
pathos
the rhetorical use of emotions to affect
audience decision making
logos
rational appeals; the use of rhetoric to
help the audience see the rationale for
a particular conclusion
What characteristics do you
think are important
to a speaker’s
credibility, or
ethos? Which of
Aristotle’s list apply today? Which
characteristics are most
important to you?
?
328
CHAPTER 12 Rhetorical Communication
losing weight. Combining these appeals with the pathos-based approach of television shows like The Biggest Loser might enhance the impact on waistlines. The three
artistic proofs work best synergistically.
Social Position and Relationship to Audiences
If this officer were to testify
against you in court, how might
your different social positions
influence how the officer’s
testimony and your testimony
are heard?
social position
place in the social hierarchy, which
comes from the way society is
structured
Related to the concept of ethos is the social position from which a rhetor speaks.
Aristotle noted that those who came from noble families were better positioned as
rhetors. Yet social position refers to more than the prestige of one’s family. One’s
social position comes from the way society is structured. Everyone is located in
more than one position in the social structure as she or he speaks—as a student, a
customer, a friend, a voter, and so on. As a receiver of public communication, you
should always consider the position or positions from which the rhetor is speaking.
What aspects of social position might help or hinder a speaker’s ability to advocate a point of view? The answer is that it depends on the society and the situation.
We expect certain people to speak in certain situations, such as family members at
a funeral or the governor after a natural disaster. In these cases, the rhetor’s authority comes from a combination of her or his position and the audience members’
expectations. Yet these social positions are also hierarchical, meaning that some
positions have more power than others. For example, if you, as a student, were to
speak out about U.S. immigration policies, you would be less influential than the
president when he speaks about the same topic. Even if you spoke well, you could
not make up for the difference in social positions between a student and a president.
Social positions and positions of power are deeply intertwined, as social positions
gain their power from the society that supports the structure. This power structure
allows certain rhetors to be more effective than others in promoting a message.
In societies that have strong caste systems, such as India, lower castes have few
rhetorical mechanisms for changing the rules that guide their lives. Compared with
higher castes, fewer of them have access to the Internet, they are less able to garner
media coverage of their issues, and they therefore have fewer opportunities to be
heard by those in power. Furthermore, in her study of the use of Native Americans
as sports mascots, Janis King (2002) concluded that Native Americans have few opportunities to change the use of these mascots, as “team owners and the majority of
the fans are White. And it is these individuals who have the power to eliminate the
mascots, clothing and actions” (p. 211).
Social institutions, also considered rhetors according to our definition, have
distinct social positions that contribute to the effectiveness or persuasiveness of
their public messages. For example, when the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling, it
sends a public message that—coming from its position of power within our social
structure—has tremendous implications for the ways we live. Other social institutions, including those involved in medicine, religion, the military, and education,
also exercise their power through rhetoric.
Just as different rhetors wield different amounts of influence, so do audiences
differ in terms of cultural, social, and political assumptions and perspectives. For
example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, polls showed that Whites and African
Americans had very different views on the role of race in the response to this disaster.
A Pew Research Center Survey (2005) found that 66 percent of African Americans
felt that the response would have been faster if the victims were White, whereas only
17 percent of Whites felt that way (Pew Research Center for People and the Press,
2005). One common mistake of speakers is to think only of the dominant culture,
overlooking minorities who may also be part of the audience. The wide disparity in the
ways racial groups viewed the government’s response to Katrina serves as an important reminder of the range of opinions that may be represented in any audience.
Who, then, is the rhetorical audience for any particular message? Rhetorical
scholar Lloyd Bitzer (1968) argued that only those people who could take the
The Individual, Rhetoric, and Society
329
appropriate action are part of the rhetorical audience. In other words, if a candidate
for president of the United States wants to persuade a group of people to vote for
her, only those people in the audience who are U.S. citizens and registered voters
are part of the rhetorical audience. While citizens of other nations or minors may
be physically present for the campaign pitch, because they cannot vote for this
candidate, they would not be part of the rhetorical audience. Thinking about the
audience in this way may help the speaker design an appropriate, appealing, and
potentially persuasive message.
Yet, this perspective on audience is quite narrow. As you may have noticed
from following presidential elections, U.S. citizens are not the only people who pay
attention to campaign rhetoric. People around the world are also quite interested in
who is elected and which policies—economic, military, cultural—this president will
pursue. We live in a global environment in which the actions of the United States
affect others around the world. Thus, the presidential candidate can use rhetoric to
construct the desired rhetorical audience, perhaps including non-U.S. citizens and
even people living in other countries.
In addition to being broader than a speaker might initially think, audiences are
also fragmented. French theorist Michel Maffesoli (1996) has suggested that society
consists of multiple “tribes,” or identity groups, with their own ways of seeing the
world. These groups are often marked by how they consume products, wear clothing, or participate in certain activities. These tribes might include NASCAR dads,
soccer moms, or goths. This tribe theory can help illuminate the complexity of
audiences and how rhetoric works in differing contexts with various groups. Much
more work needs to be done on the use of specific rhetorical devices among diverse
cultural audiences so that we can better understand their complex functions.
In summary, a rhetor’s effectiveness depends on a configuration of characteristics such as artistic proofs—ethos, pathos, and logos—as well as social position
and relationship to audiences. Many factors contribute to our impression that
one speaker is more charismatic and powerful than another. Audience members
may not always agree on which speaker is the best, but most can say which one
moves them and which leaves them cold—or drowsy! Considering individual rhetor
characteristics gives us only a partial view of rhetoric. In the next section, we will
broaden our focus to examine the relationship between rhetoric and society and the
roles rhetoric plays in giving meaning to major events, fulfilling democratic functions, and bringing about justice and social change.
TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE
r What are the most important characteristics of individual rhetors?
THE INDIVIDUAL, RHETORIC, AND SOCIETY
Since rhetoric always arises within a specific social context, its functions can vary
considerably. Thus the distinct cultural forces that influence a particular society
should be considered when studying its rhetoric. In the United States today, rhetoric
serves four important democratic functions that form the basis of how we come to
decisions and work together collectively. We will look at these four functions next.
Reaffirming Cultural Values
The term rhetorical event refers to any event that generates a significant amount of
public discourse. Such “explosions” of rhetoric give insight into the ways meaning
is constructed and rhetoric and cultural values are affirmed. For example, unusual
weather or natural disasters incite a great deal of rhetorical discourse that attempts
to explain what has occurred. Some of the discourse usually comes from scientists,
who provide scientific explanations about the event. Other discourse may come
rhetorical audience
those people who can take the appropriate action in response to a message
rhetorical event
any event that generates a significant
amount of public discourse
330
CHAPTER 12 Rhetorical Communication
from political commentators, who try to connect such natural disasters to a larger
political or religious meaning. For example, after the devastating earthquake and
tsunami that hit Japan in March 2011, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh snickered that Japan was hit in spite of its environmental consciousness: “Even now,
refugees are still recycling, and yet Gaia levels them! Just wipes them out!. . . What
kind of payback is this?” (qtd. in Witt, 2011). Limbaugh used this disaster to criticize environmentally friendly policies and practices.
Part of the function of rhetorical events, then, is to reaffirm cultural values.
Every four years, for example, the United States inaugurates a president, and the
speeches given, particularly the president’s inaugural speech, highlight important
national values along with that president’s goals. Holidays, sports events, weddings,
funerals, retirement parties, campaign speeches, declarations of war, and protest
marches are also rhetorical events. Such occasions often include speakers who celebrate cultural values relevant to and that resonate with their respective audiences.
Increasing Democratic Participation
deliberative rhetoric
the type of rhetoric used to argue what
a society should do in the future
public sphere
the arena in which deliberative
decision making occurs through the
exchange of ideas and arguments
forensic rhetoric
rhetoric that addresses events that
happened in the past with the goal of
setting things right after an injustice
has occurred
As noted, among the ancient Greeks and Romans, rhetoric was valued for its use in
civic life. The belief that advocating for one’s ideas is in the best interests of society
is a cornerstone of democracy. Not all societies are democracies, of course, and in
those nondemocratic societies rhetoric has served very different purposes. For our
discussion we will examine aspects of rhetorical communication that influence citizen participation, a key part of the democratic process.
Deliberative rhetoric, the type of rhetoric used to argue what a society should
do in the future, is deeply embedded in the democratic process. When legislators
argue about raising taxes to pay for new roads or increasing funding for education,
they are engaged in deliberative rhetoric. A speaker’s ability to advocate effectively
drives the open discussion and debate about what society should or should not do.
Also essential to a democracy is citizens’ ability to evaluate the many important
arguments they hear. In 2003, the United States argued in front of the United Nations
Security Council that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that,
therefore, military intervention was needed. In hindsight, both government officials
and citizens can see the errors made in arguments for the invasion. However, at the
time, social position played an important role in the persuasiveness of the argument to
go to war. Because Secretary of State Colin Powell was well respected nationally and
internationally, he spoke from a position of power and credibility. Donald Rumsfeld,
as Secretary of Defense, also spoke in favor of invading Iraq, as did President George
W. Bush. In this instance, however, as well as in many others, citizens in a democracy
benefit from listening to a variety of arguments and evaluating them based on the
evidence available—without the undue influence of social position.
Another important area of inquiry within rhetorical studies as it relates to
democracy focuses on the public sphere. The public sphere is the arena in which
deliberative decision making occurs through the exchange of ideas and arguments.
For example, legislative bodies such as Congress are places where decisions are
made about a wide range of issues. Protests against the World Trade Organization,
underground and alternative magazines and newspapers, and performance art that
critiques social issues also constitute types of public sphere rhetoric, but are sometimes referred to as counter-publics, as they occur outside the mainstream media
and institutions. This type of rhetoric is also central to the functioning of a democratic society because it typically includes the voices of marginalized or less powerful individuals and groups.
Bringing About Justice
As we noted earlier in this chapter, a specific type of rhetoric is used in courts of
law to bring about justice. Called forensic rhetoric, this form addresses events that
The Individual, Rhetoric, and Society
331
happened in the past, as in “Where were you on the night of April 24?” The goal of
forensic rhetoric is to set things right after an injustice has occurred. Another function of rhetoric in the context of justice is to allow citizens to exchange and negotiate ideas about what constitutes “just” and “unjust.” As we look back over U.S.
history, we can see how notions of justice have changed. In 1692, people in Salem,
Massachusetts, felt that justice was served when they hanged nineteen people and
jailed hundreds more for practicing witchcraft. Today, we see those trials as examples of injustice. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony, along with a number of other women,
voted in an election in Rochester, New York. Anthony was arrested and convicted
of violating laws that prevented women from voting. Today, most people view her
actions as not only just but also courageous.
As these examples illustrate, laws and court judgments can only determine
what is just and unjust within specific situations at particular moments in history.
For example, Dred Scott was a nineteenth-century slave who tried to buy freedom
for himself and his wife, but when the owner refused, he sought freedom through
the court system. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that he was neither a
citizen—and therefore could not bring a case in federal court—nor entitled to his
freedom, as he was someone’s personal property. Today, we would be shocked at
this kind of Supreme Court ruling. As a nation, we have decided that slavery is an
injustice, but coming to this decision involved considerable public communication,
or rhetoric, about slavery. It also involved a bloody civil war. Nevertheless, debates
about citizenship and racial restrictions on who was eligible to be a U.S. citizen continued well into the twentieth century.
Hindsight makes it easy to see that slavery or the denial of rights to women or
Blacks is unjust. In many cases, however, considerable disagreement exists about
what is just. For example, the U.S. military has been grappling with cases of torture,
the most notorious being those committed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003.
Some of the photographs of tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib were broadcast on
television. What is the just response to this set of events? As the discussion about
justice ensues, some will argue that these soldiers were under orders from their superiors and thus not responsible, while others will argue that each person is responsible
for her or his own acts. Lawyers are generally at the forefront of these discussions, at
least in the courtroom, but the public, the press, and politicians also weigh in.
In the effort to find justice, Ameneh Bahrami, an Iranian woman, has asked
that Islamic law be imposed on a man who threw acid on her face, disfiguring and
blinding her. This man had wanted to marry Bahrami, but she declined his marriage
proposal. Recently, “an Iranian court ordered that five drops of the same chemical
be placed in each of her attacker’s eyes, acceding to Bahrami’s demand that he be
punished according to a principle in Islamic jurisprudence that allows a victim to
seek retribution for a crime” (Erdbrink, 2008, p. A1). In late July 2011, she pardoned her attacker so that he did not end up being blinded (Dehghan, 2011). While
recognizing cultural and religious differences, is this justice? How do we determine
what is just and what is unjust, except through public discussion and deliberation?
As you contemplate these types of questions you will undoubtedly realize that many
different kinds of punishments were (and are) acceptable in different periods and
places. Questions of justice are neither easily settled nor universally agreed upon,
and they are negotiated rhetorically. Through our public discussions, we try to
build a more just society.
Prompting Social Change
As you can see from the Dred Scott case and others, laws do not always ensure justice
for all. Thus, people who want to bring about social change and promote their views
of justice often use rhetoric to mobilize large numbers of people. If a mobilization
succeeds, it can lead to a social movement, a mass movement of people motivated
social movement
a large, organized body of people who
are attempting to create social change
332
CHAPTER 12 Rhetorical Communication
Led by Janice Dickinson, owner
of a modeling agency, fashion
models protest against the use of
fur. They are using rhetoric to try
to change how society views and
uses animals.
to create social change. Scholars have studied the
public messages of social movements, such as the
movement to abolish slavery, the women’s suffrage
movement, and the anti-Vietnam War movement.
Social movement scholars also have tried to understand opposition to such movements and to evaluate the persuasiveness of that opposition.
Other social movements that have received attention from rhetoricians include the Chicano movement (Delgado, 1995), the environmental movement
(DeLuca, 1999), and the gay/lesbian movement
(Darsey, 1991). In this latter study, Darsey tracked
the changing arguments of gay rights activists over
time in relation to the changing contexts of sexual
liberation, antigay legislation, and AIDS. The goals
of his study and other similar ones are to understand the arguments that activists in social movements make, the social and historical context in
which they put forth these arguments, the events that spark the emergence of social
movement discourse, the resistance to the arguments, and why arguments on both
sides are or are not persuasive.
As you can see, public messages are deeply embedded in the culture of their
times. In past eras, debates and speeches about slavery, women’s suffrage, and U.S.
involvement in the Vietnam War permeated the daily life of U.S. Americans. Today,
far more rhetoric focuses on terrorism, Iraq, and gay marriage. As people perceive
wrongs that need to be corrected, social movements emerge, and people utilize rhetoric to argue for the desired changes. Because a social movement is typically controversial, those who prefer to maintain the status quo will oppose it and also use rhetoric
to argue against change. This has been the case in every social movement mentioned.
Today, the uses of rhetoric extend far beyond the traditional medium of public
speaking. People who desire to change our society use every available means of
communicating. This means that rhetoric is a part of our everyday lives, relayed via
advertising, blogs, emails, texts, television programming, and newspapers. Rhetoric
is embedded in all manner of communicative media, which are themselves the topic
of the next chapter. Various aspects of communication often overlap.
In sum, rhetoric plays an important role in a society. It can provide meaning
and shape our thoughts about major events. It can also serve democratic functions
in the political life of a society. Furthermore, rhetoric can bring about justice and
provide momentum for major social changes, as it has in historical movements and
as it continues to do today. (For a summary of these functions, see Visual Summary
12.1: Functions of Rhetoric.) But how can you use these ideas about rhetoric to become more ethical? This is the topic of the next section.
TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE
r Why is rhetoric important in a democratic society?
r How can rhetoric bring about justice and social change?
ETHICS AND RHETORIC
While there are limited and specific instances in which rhetors may be justified in
deceiving audiences—such as in cases of immediate national security—outright lying
can rarely be considered ethical. But in the context of rhetoric, outright lying is not
usually the ethical concern. More commonly, rhetors push against the boundaries
of ethical communication by omitting facts or taking information out of context.
The Individual, Rhetoric, and Society
VISUAL SUMMARY 12.1
Functions of Rhetoric
REAFFIRMING CULTURAL VALUES
Rhetorical events reinforce and sustain our
cultural values, as we emphasize the values
that are important to us.
INCREASING DEMOCRATIC
PARTICIPATION
Democratic institutions depend on rhetoric
for the presentation and evaluation of ideas
and viewpoints.
BRINGING ABOUT JUSTICE
The legal system relies on rhetoric for
persuading judges and juries of the merits
of a case.
PROMPTING SOCIAL CHANGE
Rhetoric plays a key role in creating, sustaining,
and maintaining social movements that strive
for social change.
333
334
CHAPTER 12 Rhetorical Communication
In addition, some rhetors may demean or disparage a particular social group, either
overtly or subtly. And, of course, each rhetor is generally promoting only one
among many possible points of view, an aspect of rhetoric that is not unethical but
needs to be considered by those in the audience.
Using what you know about rhetoric, then, what can you do to become an ethical receiver of rhetorical communication? Here are some guidelines:
Be willing to listen to a range of perspectives on a particular topic. While you
may not initially agree with a particular rhetor, you should consider her or his
perspective (Makau, 1997), including why you do or do not agree.
■ Be willing to speak out if you know that a rhetor is giving misinformation or
deceiving an audience.
■ Don’t be silenced by information overload. If a speaker gives too much information, focus on the main points and be critical of this kind of presentation.
■ Listen critically to the rhetor; don’t accept the arguments presented at face
value.
■ Be willing to speak out publicly if a rhetor communicates in a way that dehumanizes or demeans others (Johannesen, 1997).
■ Listen to and fairly assess what you hear, which may require that you postpone
judgment until you hear the entire message.
■ Be willing to change your mind as more evidence becomes available.
■
USING YOUR RHETORICAL
SKILLS: SPEAKING IN PUBLIC
Throughout this chapter, we have discussed rhetoric primarily from the viewpoint
of the receiver or critic. But we can also be rhetors by writing for an audience, by
using other media such as video to reach audiences, and by practicing the art of
public speaking. Becoming an effective rhetor is very important, as speaking in
public is a cornerstone of our participatory democracy in the United States. Citizens
need to become adept public speakers so that they can advocate for what they think
is best (Gayle, 2004). Learning to speak up for your interests can also improve your
satisfaction from participating in student organizations, as well as in local organizations such as a city council or a volunteer group. Public speaking skills are also important for success in most jobs. Increasingly, businesses want employees who can
speak well in meetings and in public settings outside the organization (Osterman,
2005).
In the following sections, we introduce the basic elements of speech preparation. We’ll look at the range of communication events where people may be called
to speak, the importance of understanding audiences, and the basics of constructing, organizing, and delivering a speech. These elements supply the foundations for
effective public speaking.
Understanding the Communication
Event: The Synergetic Model
Recall from Chapter 1 that the Synergetic Model of Communication depicts communication as a transactional process that is influenced by individual, societal, and
cultural factors. It is easy to see how this model applies to public speaking. Far from
being a one-way communication in which the rhetor delivers a speech to the audience, effective public speaking is a transaction between the rhetor and the audience.
You as an individual bring yourself to the speech—speaking is self-presentation as