Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Rhetorical Tradition

    Uploaded by

    Kevin Kato
    9 views9 pages
    General introduction to the rhetorical tradition

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    General introduction to the rhetorical tradition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views9 pages

    The Rhetorical Tradition

    Uploaded by

    Kevin Kato
    General introduction to the rhetorical tradition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 9
    GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1n parson gin ie coral of ta pervs eye, The diftent nerous sens, rong exgunge et he ws of pratt ret aren cepmmies of eress ard {les soc commantes bargin nasa eee, Andou th san end te come mises the “avr” tori ato toners Bee Rhetoric has a nuinbér of oveclapping ineanngs: the pratice.of ratory: tho sendy ofthe sauegis of effective oratory; th use of language writen or spoken, t2 ‘efor or persuade; te study ofthe persuasive effects of lengwage; the sudy of the ‘ation betwen angiage and knowledge: the lsseation and se of tropes a i= ures; and of cour, the use of emp premises and half-mue a # form of prope- sande. Nor does this lst exhaust the dtitions that might be given, Rhone 3 counplox discipline withing histor: Is es helpful ory to define it once and fee st} thant fok atthe many defindons has aocumlated over the yours end fo ‘empto understand how each aoae and how each til abit and shapes te fel ‘This general introduction olfers an overview of the historical development of shetere divided into conventional eltorologieal pari: the Classics (rom the ‘ich of etre in ancient Gresce so about 400 C8) the Medioval aboot 1400), the Renaissance (to about 1700), dhe Ealigtanment rom the lale seventeenth ‘trough te elghteeti century), i Nineeeath Centary, andthe Modern ane Post, ‘moder (the twentish cetiry), Te inwodverions vo etch of the si pets of The Rhetorical Tradon provide amore dtalledhistorcal nd theoretical pure ofthe evelopment of bate ‘THE ORIGINS OF RHETORIC "Rzorc in its various incarnations has bee a powedtut force in poli ffs and in ‘education fr most of is existence since the fithceanryB.., when te dveloped ik Greek pete cours and flourished under Greek demorcy, Retore was, ‘corey, nemoUCTTON foremost, tue at of persuisive speaking. In civil dispotes, pexsvasion established ‘huime where no clear auth was available, Persuasive speech, 100, could epee of empower yan, determine public poiey nd administer lv, Publ speaking wa3 ‘recperable fom te business of government and civil fis, and eay on some et qerpisng orators toed io Wexching the ar of persuasive speech 8 well as practicing wt Speeches reqeired arguments tat would coavince and sires et would move Speeches could be vided ine parts, the pars had sategies, he strategies variod Sr abe secesion and the audience, and the ished speech had we be memerized and rally delivered. Rhetoric thus came to designate both te pace of persuasive ose tory aed the description of ways to cosiruct a suecessfol speech ‘Rhetorie selects, fran the vast reals of buman discourse, occasions for speaking and writing that canbe regarded as persuasive in intent Rhetoric categorizes the types ‘Braiceourgeithas selected, analyzes enc of those types i terms of structure and put pose, and sens the nvans for suocesfully constructing ach spe. In passing these goals, Fetoric comes to endorse codes for Tinguistic corres and to mak tenenmmnies of artful waye to ose lenguage. It suggests resources for evidence and a tgument and gives ruts for accurate resocing. And it divides the mind into faces fo which perscasive appeals, both Togical and psyeheslogicl, can br adresse. “The study of rhetoric deminaied fornal edasation in imost of Europe and the ‘ited States ure] well into the nineteenth centry, To study rhetoric was, for mach Srlts history, to study Greck and Latin gramsrar, classical Kerature and history, ad fogis, es well esto practic tse composiion and delivery of speeches. But by and farge thetic bas nex boen & for of inquiy seking to extond Is soope by looking nis the various uses of discourse chat might be considered pecsuasive. Rather it has toon chiefly prosriptive, intended 1 tack @ practial art and co provide, guidelines Feo ulacornse in several wel-dafined social, politica, and artist areas. Nonethe- Sees ental ert iavitably produces a body of theory —-some of it implicit in its pracy Ten systema, some of itsbstact and specuteive— et investigates pilesopbical i So itis with rhetoric! theory, ist its very inception, the study of sheicric generated not only aa elaborate £y5° tem for invedtigading langiege practices but alro a set of far-reaching, theoretical (questions about the relationship of language to knowledge, The gystem of clasica A Mrorie pas too powersul 10 be limited to the few. forms of. public speaking to nich it was orginally applied, and the questions about language and knowledge ised by clasical rhetoriians wese-never to be pul to rest, Alter the classical p> Hod the bounds of rbetcrie expanded, uml today they encompass virtually ai fooms of discourse and symbele communication. Yet the classical gystem remained the basis of rhetriedhroughous its history and in farge measur rexains 30 today CLASSICAL RHETORIC Late inthe fourth century 8.6.5, Arisotl reduced the concer of shetorc 0 a 8y5> tam thet thereafter served as It tovehstone. To speak of classe! ehetoric is Unus to speak of Aristotle's aystem and its elaboration hy Ciesro ang Quintiian GENERAL, NTRODUGTION ' i | ' ‘Types of Rhetorical Discourse The elassical system of retonc defines oY 7 “guerre ses, eh ks patente cnrsvom nd once pen deo ps atone pea orders spac ne ngve eb Soncened wih stow geal Je sot, a ecm or epi Spesh in apo frum, ended to sapien sae lets aos he pee ‘State of affairs, In the classical system, these three situations constitute the entire domain of thetoric. Later thetoricians expanded this list to include sermons, lesters, tn veanaly fons of cou, tea convertion, : ven convertion, theo Be a ek suasive in intent, Nae seen pe Peychology and Audience Analysis See on din ea cng ce sa ee nt Cee en eee different Kinds of peopie who may comprise an eudience, Aristotle assumes that set Airc st mr te CTS Sey rao at ste te eae hat sara ct anon chs eae eer eanar cme teed ene semester es eee Serer Se fetes ser we not supposed to be subject to such vagaries. sist apes anise) ‘The Preparation of @ Spiech lain sare dies he poses of pares «peousive sesh the 5. Tnvention, the search for persuasive ways (o present informa Tenens es pes ‘ways (o present information and form ‘Arangunet the organisation of he pass fa ssh io ense a al he eas of persuasion are presént and propedy disposed ‘Sry, the us of comes, appropists, snd 5 a sikng language teodghout toe ‘Memoty, the use of mnemonics and practice ofthe speech Delivery, the use of effective. gesta Dany f effective gestures and vocal modulation to present the Dis ep somporing ps " cess romain a comeron of th shay of tors, 1 lies: pera si dere ype epi rosa ‘ages Atoiph the spear select ech sage of th procs CGEKERAL wwrRODUCTION depend.on the occasion fox his (or, rarely. her) speech, th fve-part process i ken to be appropriate for composing any Kind of speech. Al of the parts aze necessary 0 ‘ensure production ofa fall ge of appeals. The elessical system assumes that there fre three forms of persuasive appeal: to reason (logos), to emotion (paths), and (0 the speaker's authority (ethos), We shall see how ese forms are included fm a speech as we examine each stage of the process. mt i ae Seat eto te a teen ned semen pee OO re on eo eg a rete “csi a a iain i neta a ad ce ra a a ci cra eo 27 eco eal wpa kc sha ie a gee ee a ee redone * ‘The rhetorician consyucting en argument must draw on sources of Koved a lobar CGenERAL NTROBUCTION sudy, 9 point heavily szestod by Ciro and Quintin, Given the scope of ‘hess, however, te distinctions between inside and-ausie can Dor, taking Un- clear the nature ofthe etorcin's activites with respect to krone. This pode dem isa sontauig theme of rhetorical theory Jn the casial view, rhetoric maa ages knowledge, conveying but not creating it, the chetorician’s- activities ore ordinate jo the u-seeking ofthe scientist andthe pilosophe But people hve no always sazeed that philosophy or sience has acess to tus Inowledge. Xf, as some silosophos maintain, al knowledge it uncertain and constructed bya _Bumern, then #etoric has all the more vale because it studies the ways in which fgument and perstasen crest convieton, and necase it creates toe provisional sgreements and shared values on which human commonity depencs. Ir Arisole's day, the postion tat ll knowledges contingent was defended ‘most exdently by the Sopiss, who sew themoelven a beth philosophers and ‘erricians. in der parlance, se Sophiss teat rhetoric as epistemic, as making knowledge. Moreover, they tend to eal language tse a¢setericl —hst i er susie in iatent. Through Language. people callectively consret value-laden worldview (ie only Kind of wordviwsvslale) and teach agreement on How ¢o set iogetier fer er mutvl benefit ight ofthat worldview. Different commun ties may see things differently because of their cultural traditions and historical cir- comstance. Fr the Soph, ther ae no privileged nomerrial discourses and 1 privileged noneetortcl knowledge. “The Sophist"poion war atackod and divorodved by Avisote'seacher Pato, Jn teaiionsl histories of thet, the Sophiss are often slighted, but their epi: temic vision of rhetorie haunts he subject othe proseat day. Even Plato, wko con dened te Sophisis, came to se rhetoric as an extemal componeat in the search. for tue knovedge. And in other ons the Sophisticviow of etc is reasserted ‘self. Today, philosophical skepicnm about me or foondsional knowledge has sparked renewed Interest in Sophism. Arrangement. Inthe stage of artangement, the arguments devised through in- vention are placed in the most effective order. Aristotle says that all speeches have four parts: the introduction, the statement ofthe issve, the argument, and the con clusion. Logical appeals should go into the statement and argument, wale appeals te pathos ang ethos should appear inthe incroduetion and conelusioa, Cicero spells outs fivespan structure with a more precise distribution of appeals: The introduc. Vion should contain ethical and pathetic appeals: the narration of the facts of the ‘case, while ostensibly logical, should also be en occasion for pathetie appeals; the Statement of position should hold she logical arguments in favor of the pasition; ‘he refutation should make logical arguments against the opponeat’s position; and the conclusion should embody further pathetic and ethical appeals. ‘Emotional appeals are something of an embarrassment in the classical system. ‘They are generated by a kind of invention pzocees that examines the nature of emo: ‘ons, the kinds of simlithat may excite thera, end the motives and inclinations of the different types of people to whom the emotional appeais might be directed. In the classical aster, trom loca iavension, and it shits by default rom te favenin Sesh to the tam genent sag. In the atangeren: sage the eeakes Sonshirs ‘he Kind of dis- arcengee poeete, ihe nature of the Subject, nd he shasta cof the audi caer arab guide dezistons abou the rluive welgt an acne of logi- cal appenis Arzangesent fiefs cus orm of Son}DBEAT sppeal, a ter tneoreinas scknewledgec. From te seventeen CEU Om philosophers seid aereasing statin to payerology wnich pu both ansngeTe ‘ané emotions! reals on a new footing. Peyonologkcal thers eer’ © “pata!” sequence of 2 tons leading from reasoning to beet acon, veto ‘also oot imental er eth lesa abtevan at reason. coutd rarely PHSSAle by ie self “spe. Siyiesseparae trom invention nd arangement tte classical five-part se Pelcae up previ Formal idea in ateasive tbl BD Asistotle scheme Tees oP ecru, sp wc Dase forma ds for sensual NEE ten everieless, he begins what woul became the habia 989 ‘bees eI tee aring feoscians of caloring and ossaing We mombers of seal gues, Sever times init Tong history, the uly oF rhetoric has contracted eee iy te te say of je, Rhetric nthe schools Bas of consited of ooo is of irs of seth To the Rensivonce fo ex stylistic ried thst List bounded, Highly omamented ses Nove often ther et or heir best ad ingeniy and siya eto cme in me 10 de ta losely allied with poetry as it was orth oratory Serie metaric doce typi address the question of genet ideas, See ae eo ave, But Tor sore hearin, he ears foe Gee mney ioe ak to eveton. The eetrial Res ke he fons of te A elf uman fou prosssses nee formulating st fs" car er ommamenting arguments wil ake ther sructarally Mo ‘understandable, ae ea iteng, Ate sme ts the proves: of style fool rae a ia neursiereteod, in whieh ides ae cisovered search for ourave sxpresion, Meapbor sn pares Ras Ween reared generative. The Seah made his connection btwacn se and generative Senet ‘ang have been, Sere or i. Renaissance sites woulé be derouneed in wre. MCT secently. sary devonszotive ces have ben working worehabise Ns insight into the fnveative power of syle. "Soe sensoal power of word magic to reat belie! was PerbEps MOS potently felt eee ep al ewployed hegely In ra gens, and eeponte is POE AM pve drindied a8 eetoric inereasinly moved 9 wren {98 Centainty the wea) ages of te ve-part composing process, memory and der, dwindled in immpostance withthe torn to pret though they ee ne diseppear entirely. Memory. Cssieal storie adapted he notin that memory could of improved ty emu ic as yaar of visualized eons, fore SIRE the way the eras are imagined to reside Jn actual mena Tectens fat oe Shs oor GENERAL INTRODUCTION srt on pr Thespian eset Se i ai eo ae swe things tet than: ome, butte were those who found it workable. “ “or memory is a link not just with earthly places but wit 0 sa psc Se a eho tyes Der ne omy scot ged a mm ne ee i cian ‘of how knowledge is represented in the mind. em se guess Dr, ey a ai aig, eh is HOLY as often received rather perfunctory treatment, ever , ei cso i slant and ose iota ian ie te a ily aft he pao al et ns gone inte speak Deve i Pein af cone gn the ba eromos Powe,» power recog) cighteenth-eenturyelocutionists and by twent i aes ry elocutionists and by twenteth-century eleetconic media analysts, The Influence of Classical Rhetoric Pye ey i fr aces ce ee he intact owtan ranean ee ei treme tate ee ge Spt nya nen con wine cee cope spc mitt eee Sere Wii esp eg a SSeS ale shri grown an change Clie Thotarie may name many of the funda- SEES tea Soe ee Late Classical Rhetoric in Rome tng enna, acres oe va ei prescriptive, providing guidelines for employing the techniques arrayed in reemcianens encene ee A ‘GENERAL NTRODUCTION smn oem o e oe n) m e wa a a les eee Oy ma a ee er oe atm na a ee sonst rote Early Christianity _ TE Quin Eee oy new lh, chai. But any ofthe Cerne rie a es Se aca ei Tay oe Cea The Later Middle Ages 5 sgt dnt ces n me 26% Augie accommodation of tear and Chris 2 A ee nile Ages weve, Not Tong set Angus’ Os Fe ee gabon th sie ning Greek ml Lain, we 8 aor elastase. Hi urna. ore wey ae dan he rs mnance of page of eo) and praca ace to 8 few Bes oA ee gen pims Ths Kn of works piel ofthe etent on each of oF branch f lean freinostepht undid yest srg dso Augie st Beco, choi x wt ee caren he as wisest ese Ms ee Cour ee Ace dd praetor othe ao preaching ar eee Sg wach te er ng Church and sects sDvehets 1 ee es Sms of peseisg an of fete wing ez © FEE we fea wlth cnry, Ala pooiing ou etn peo Fea in gomly ep ry a Fel cancers and 280- ST be sompaon ee aor ft end sen Ci ee ts of pli iteratn—fr exams, i repdon Fr nonce ron, he, work of Chrisie de Pizan, ‘GENERAL INTRODUCTION i ‘THE RENAISSANCE. Siylistic Riietorie ‘Te study of figures gave names (o every sat of phrase and sentence, i practice that ‘became more widespread inthe fifteenth century, Tas emphasis on style was stime- lated by renewed interest in classical learning. It was not possible, inthe Renals- ‘sance, 10 speak without “using” thetorc, end » groat occupation of clevér theta is this period was ampllfcation ofthe naiues of figures and copious demonstrations of ‘their use For the delectation of other expers. Many shetorcal terms, too, found their way into the new science of vemacular grammar: colon, comma, apostrophe, and parenthesis. For stylistic rhetoric text in the Renaissance, the idea hat al language tse could be tested rhetorically was confined forthe miost par :o style, to the Forms of sttements and not to the social stvations of thelr utterance, Private Discourse in Rhetoric Private discourse, however persuasive, tad hitherto remained ovtside the tound- ari of shetoric. Now the ar of lewer writing, in the hands of the Renaissance ha- manisis, grew to inciude private as wel public communications. By the lve seven teenth cenmury privaie conversation, too, cate 10 be seen as rhetorical, in guides sich 15 Madeleine de Seudéry's that placed rhetoric at the she of considerable politica) power in 2 society inereascigly governed by monarchs and their avers. Seudeéry ‘Was well known both forher influence at zte court of Louis XIV and forthe high lite trary quality of the dialogues in which she explained and exemplified the art of courtly conversation Public Discourse by Women ‘Warten’slitersey increased in the Renaissence, and although few women recelved instrction in rhetoric and almost all women were forbidden to speak in public, rove worten ventured into public forums, Often their motive was to promote the religious views, but always they found themselves forced to defend their very right to redd, write, and speak, It the late seventeenth century, an carly leader of the So- ciety of Friends, oF Quakers, Margaret Fell, was ene of the fist wornon to publish on aggressive defense of these rights. She attacked prevailing intexpretations of such Droncuncements-against women's speaking: as are found in the writings of the poate Paul, which were frequently cited to sitence ivomnen. Ironically, this sor of defense had fo be mounied repeatedly over the next two centuries, as Women's a= sgiments, even thosé well known atthe time, like Fel’, tended 10 go oot of print "apidly and fo be fost to later women writers, In this way the defense of the right to speak becomes almost a trope in wornen’s *hetoic, from zhe writings of Fells con- temporary Sor Juana Inés de la Crux in the late seventeenth century to Sarah Geimke's defense of women abolitionists inthe nineteenth century. While the cope ‘of classical rhetoric was narrowing in the work of late Renaissance male theoriss, ‘womwen were enlarging their claims on thotoric's taditional powers CObNBRAL nerRODUCTION ems chk wat ple hy the ye seen cet, th eases ach 0 yo Be pe Ram wha pond» paper fr of he ae of dialectic and rhetoric. Dialectic sought to perfect the syllogism as: so ar a Lome prts seer ong tng strana te wr ue Dia on wma cago he Are fle rt yee ven : a tnd an ts dete Rares eve a cones Blof sy pootd not Jssesses a clearly supestor method — ye anceps whe SP yr i aoe, Ramee eng so Sa ee eet eee com. ap to So ere mmm fr become paren Sen al eomosing ee Seionce, Epistemology, and Rhetoric con iit incutv oematon a ve emepion esas aveae ws Te Ree ee con an eee er) Meco on bce maT Hope en Le gut tarveen iy we bane Fa tg Bver tong Reon sors ate ba ce soak! a en eee of eon see vent fee salt to ces uo eegees of ene a nd So ter ta sw fame sone fae et pad ony sore et ge Sa era eee omy mn? On i en ci sn fossa? Ce SN see er te gy Beso ac he poe wana Aceon oman ony eel te ia ih 2 Haman owed a eee om eres ngage. Vel son wares y Penge oats citation bevaue thy af sgn ht Ty SA ecard kone sees Base tact 2 ono ie png ir nd i ie ns nc ee tea 2 a ol cin te meee oy orig eT tage eset econ yee ‘TH ENLIGHTENMENT stake of a alo srg wit hs pole, Homan lingua ost Jae ected ore rors il poealong ih he AS neat vl language Becomes 0 inrome (0 8 [GENERAL INTRODUCTION aiently. Generales don't acwaly exist: They are ideas, simllastes perceived by thurman observers. But while Locke seems certain thatthe general idea comes fist, ine also suggests tht itis in some sense ereated by language. In any case, there 1s n0 ‘guarantee that tke generality signified by a word will convey the same ides to all ‘users of the language. This is a serious problem, ané Locke and his successors ‘lame rhetoric for making it worse. IF only stylistic extravagance were curbed, they say, language might be closer to-the things it rames—if not ro tings cut in the ‘world, then at least o peopie's clear and distinct ideas sbout tiem, For a number of seventeentt~ and cighteenth-cantury shetoricians, these. cam: pleints were a call for reform. Rhetoric was ovt of step wich the times it seemed, ‘because invention refed on outdated deduerve methods and stjlistic rhetoric im ‘ped the slredy ditficlt search for tre. Rhetoric ought to mederate its reliance (n the tapes for invention because those topics depend on received wisdom rather than observed fact. Furthermore, sylogistc reasoning should be limited, a¢ in Bacon's scheme; to avoiding fallacies. And clesness (or “perspicuity") sbould of course be preferred to an omamented style. These reforms proved to be widely in- fluential and Inter allowed for the deveiopmeat of a more epistamolagically sophis- scaled shetore, ‘The Bighteenth Century Giambatista Vieo, a Halian professor of rhetoric of the exsy eighteenth century, ‘as ons of the few in his day to challongeseience’s claim of epistemological supe rorty. Responding tothe philosophy of René Descartes, Vico objects thatthe fa. ‘mous philosophers method relies; no Iss than chetorie does; on probabilty-and be Tee rather than demonstration of rbsolote th, Vieo even sees chetori as superior to the Cartesian method, for rhetoric eakes probability seriously, understands the ‘ays in which argument produces belief, a trains young people for seaponsible civic action, while Cartesiznism does not. An hones! analysis ofthe fonction of la ‘euage, Vico argues, wil reveal the ways in which knowledge is actually formed, in ‘contrast. co the Cartesian claims to have the ral troth, Vieo's ideas, however, had Jil inuence in his own day. His elaboration of the epistemological doubts hinted. in Bacon conflicted with the positive dre of the new theory of knowledge, a thmust that as supported by the growih of empirial scientific learning. Vieo was fen 25a seactionary. an opponent of ssientfic and philosophical progress. But Bacon had already suggested an obvious and less contentious connection that chetotic could make with epistemology—namely, through paychology, Rhetoric could observe the structure of the mind and thereby entwrice communica: ‘ion. Rhetoric, after all, adresses the faculties ofthe mind, Should i not stedy the ‘ways of acing this adévess most efficient ard effective? By ieking a scientific i= tude toward the study of language, chetcric could ally itself with a power tt would otherwise remain a dangeraes enemy. Thes eighteca-century rhetoricians endorse ‘larity as an ideal of style, suppor “natural” strangement, and favor a rhetorical the- ony that follows "husnan nature” x appealirg 10 reason and emotions. Moreover, they regard the classical authors as excellent observers of human naiure. According (wLocke's theory of uniform prychotogy,hurman nature presumably has not changed ‘cenesat INTRODUCTION n +o cov vk snc ne! wor day arene, ing tae writes BO Se let sds! Pl? =A hen ayo ee ey ot a ere py fr Nemory. od ete Fe sn i hy ees ye cna Bao Geos Cae a psn ne fn of nmin oy, Ree, enh eee spe Comal, ng ese co Ves gen ie FA Fa ae spe connie, sd SN I ee Campa sn ge ot ONDE Baton aces a en ip he be ozo cl ee but also of the other faculties of the human mnind, Campbell argues, he ba ao fe ihe ts ot pst a0 Tse oe sgh Bacon Cont oe tt et eon ae ee te peu lei Bee tu othe emp on univer” mae of SHEDS Serle Tra tone ote eens een mara PCIE Rhetoric and Paychology — ee an ei ‘Sv us me ce orator hn ms of i once nna verse yn ec tea oe ia es iy ng sa ia ua cae ee Cec hac aan rc Se aes coc ome tae teres TH. CENTURY REETORIC ay oma tn x og he eth ey Ot ey ard ng fen 8 enh be gm ue ern eal spn somomon Ba eof sone Ce oncom en ara, xi, pore 8 20 0 for Bn on ora wnt SE te def Ta a sion of tno sth ng or even cobs meat (GENERAL UETRODUCTION subject and eyliogistie reasoning. AS for style, clarity is stil dhe standard, except, of ‘course, for imaginative lneratre Challenges to Rhetoric and Prychology ‘The comfortable notion promoted by Bain's faculty psychology that all audiences: ‘were essentially the same was disrupted in the ofoeteenth century, as public speak ors aad their audiences became increasingly diverse. White women, who tad begua toclaim a public voice inthe Rensissanee, now mounted the speaker's patios in Increasing numbers to agitate fora variety of social reforms. In-doing so, they still had to defend ther right to speak, and often they dic so by drawing on religious ax- thority. Women and men of color also addressed new audiences, although, as Mris Stewart armed, Aftican American women sometimes faced stiff reistancs to their public speaking even within the black community; and as Frederick Douglass expe rienced, white audiences often attempted to impose racist stereotypes on African American speakers, But no longer would the typical dhotorical situation ic the West ‘be one in which speaker and audienes were all the same race and tex, and thetorical theory, though slowly, began to tke this diversity into wecount ‘Though sill seking universal, psychology changed radically atthe close of the nineteenth ceotury: largely through the. work of Sigmund Froud, The patient's speech is atthe heast of psychoanalysis, but Freud and his followers were interested in,what as hidden in this speech—in is source in nonverbal experiences sud an- onszions drives—not in its persuasive effects, Psychoanalysis pointed to mental realms apparently beyond the reach of verbal persuasion, and So rhetorie continued torely forte struct ofits appeals upon the oléer psychology of Bain, Vet the in- adequacy of Bain's system was demonstrated not only by changes inthe science of psychology bucelso by changing shetorica situations, Inthe nineteenth century, to, schools and colleges adéed 2 vast numberof new subjects responding et tnst Za the demands of science, eshnology, and business as ‘well as to the pressure for mass education, Rhetoric had hod the lion's share of the ccurriculom, but competition rom other disciplines now forced tetoric into ane- oF two-temester conrees, Narrowed in compass, *hetoric fooused more and more on ‘waitten composition. Soon written compositian became an adjunct of newly formed opertments of English IKerature, and separate deparments of speech communica lion arose to take aver instruction in oral delivery and the study of thetoric's his- tary. Moreover; education beyond the elementery lovel became increasingly aviil= able to white women and to men and women of color, and the traditional curiculum esigned fora white male eite woul not meet these new students’ needs. ‘ut itseience, self, and society all escaped the domain ofthe rhetorical —at least, for a time—they have returned in.the modem eta, In dhe late nineteenth century, Dhilosopher and one-time shetoric teacher Friedrich Nietzsche challenged the self Salisfied.sssumptions.on which scientifc knowledge appeared, to its defenders, 1 test, What we are pleased to call Truth, says Nietzsche (echoing the Sophists), is 9 social arrangement, not a glimpse of ulimate reality. Seientinis and. philosophers Aelede themselves in thinking otberwise. They construct the world they wish to ‘GENERAL ITTRODUCTION 3 blieweincesing language has fa rom cbestve and new, Language can never beso, uy Nietzsche: Ii rays pia, valued, intentional —In short tere cal Niswecho's ideas, so dissonant in his own ime, have made dir mark in US. MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC ‘The Twentieth Century ‘a numberof rwenteth-century shetorcins tave offered metrically grounded the- a ef meaning, vue. antenton, and knewedge. 1. A. Richards, for example, ees Fremetene an approach to meaning that can conect the “proper meaning falls” whe en {sendy aacked by Nits) that there is = direct link between words wee tings or igeastheytepreses, Rooke show, for Richards, cat meaning is ar tion of cortex. Waves re mefnngul only in discourse coo, thats, in dietio areas and discauree is meaningfai wo poopie who understand language by relating Ms preset use to thst previous experience of it. Richards thos defines Hhetone proudly, as the study of commpnication ard understensing. Keveath Burke follows a siilaz pak in his work, Discourse of afl Minds, he any seks te mesivie people ik some way. © we should seck ming in etn, Toes and effects Language is fos of bumman action: I requires an agete with & Jrpose scene of ation,» hetoccal sate, and en atl speech or ext, Sein retorve this way, "Cransaisticelly" as Burke calls it 0 see al language a mal Pata hence ve ehctocal. Burke also searches discourse for is ideologies! Function Er promaving Mentfeaion with commis and thei belief, fo his analyses, Sree marges alith plies, psychotogical, socologieal, religious, and aésthetic Investigations of human behavior, ‘Tar Chains Perelman, cheori is » powerful and necessary attemative to forma tonic or the sidy of practical reasoning. Tndeed. he says formal loge 1 wee Tee ride ts own tiny, abstract realm, Echoing Vieo, Perelman objects to the (Cohistes implication that probebiistiargumnent i not rational ané therefore Ace cacy of development because it does nok produce shsclue wath, Bu pebabilise “igorsnts are he bass of legal tie! and practice decisions hat gle ue es Rocrovie cat talus, says Percimen, bout he way tht knowledge als fone by arguments based on probable reasoning, experience. and established cus Tare Moreaven, 2 shetorcel view of knowledge serves as @ warming agains the ‘Neha often advanced in sliberal ceuses, that some knowledge is bselite and bee Giond agament. Even ir seence, as moder pslosophers of sence admit (or Here Jebats), Knowledge arses throug argues within communis that share a ‘sumptions and beliefs. ‘Rnctercal theory, following thse lines of develepavent, has come to foens ty con the question of the source A status of knowledge, Philosophers ke Mika sSaluins Michel Foveaott, and Jacques Deriga, who do not work inthe rhetorical pation, wonetheless eoatbate to modem rheloris! theory rough thei mmportins Tate of language and its relation to kxowledge. Fouerot, for example, follows hares in attacking the idea the! language ithe passive conveyor of Knowledge CCENBRAL (veRODUCTION Discouse he asp ofthe ner owe and and power, shaped ty ds pln we inutons ty ir conpex rast nd mesvon Ahoy ‘peak about eran kinds of Yromiege ror, might x) ome tor it ¢Eealeefenion rowoning ancien of acceped noes ef fees nd Siscpinespexite prccne f vaso and te prsnce of rites and thei poregtves depends pon paver that mone and exe throug i Cour inl to regarding Languages neon, posal, esti th Gren of knowledge td ites, Foca fers tary ene in ne ‘th the modem poacher ‘Concern about the status of knowleds ae of towed and is altonship to language i inane lid tte flo hore nd piso. Selene nowy aos dippers t grogres at by col ebevaion ad tetova ts i ty ttpumens. hw encoilow iad prottes «Ke of yrs daouns om he mmdern pol of ew, aking pschonalja form of trea exc Sh cenclasions ae echoed in vitally evry fll of Knog; One lang eos fm rts, iin po by rin cos el though cour, cor Moll sna of pissin, Rea function of the way we use languege, oe + Realy Meet 8 "om epic queons sed by tho Duman sines and even te aaa si seep nto yeh ars a aati fren comm dati raf oma, engi Sea cin te stn odin span aw by hf Fre they no langng Is aye pone en, alvaye Inu ee and iesngy. Langues Rchagd Weer pe seman. fi teal aeem bt ‘2 social one. founded on dialogus, not linguistics, Rittorie is synony- ‘oust mening, for ening i nus ad sore ot a wards tems nee nba ein, on saa le ‘som tr 1 tum pons I promines—ad te hare espn @ ‘even the eco aeration Sach licen concars of lone Now Rictories Inccamining its om idokgin opertions, tori ooking etal at Chron nd ovn exclu As thie worcy aa omen ard ex sa ate Senile pie ons ey tv eo hw er co an gender ake lnguge te. Tis work pull ter Cortempo- Igy ery tha avin th epsemis oats of Thetore, ice women's srs ed ts filo oly in tt bg vs an of serail nis, Woo ws ne of he As oily tesa nae eo woes cee he efi Sas tose of ae aes ot woe ey wit ngage hrm ase to Sstespet, se ste tas Se fit seus emotes sw ce seking might Se He. Laer westiisonary wees flowing WooIs GENERAL INTRODUCTION 5 read, have explilily searched. for lenguage and rhatois specie co women, Hétne caer yecectns an dorture faninine tot Gra ts sonsually expressive Mids. See ttbvce tem the nour of female sexoaity. tthe ste dine, characterise Pine ro Aftcan Ameriean language mg stoic have begun 16 be ene Reg snonins ef hetoccs of cole, Gora Anza proses the mest searching runege, perhaps. 0 susie! Peto] odes n tat she envisions; and ents caer on across inguaic aswell ax cultural and iological borders. Forte Sear ua ofl) hee Bagoisti resoues is crvish bo oer sense of self and ko Jar ahilty to commonieate a complex cukral viewpoint to diverse aodienses “Fhe epsesoogia! and idsologcaerienason of str stan ells 004 “aqlopont Rhetoric as sveys been concemed wit political action and = sere pf epowledge, Te history ofthese the story of «Long stugale (OUT Jeet te selaonships bobween discourse and knowledge, cormmuciction ad

    You might also like