Topical Analysis

Jacob Sykes

Rhetorical Theory (SPCH 456)

University of Nebraska at Kearney

 2

The way we communicate with each other is constantly evolving, and today that pace is

only increasing. In the midst of a new digital age, rhetoric and its usage have become a relevant

issue when discussing internet communication. In this paper, I will discuss several of the

questions in discussion amongst rhetoricians, and how those answers have changed over time.

First, I will discuss the question “What is symbolic motivation?” Then, I will define the public

sphere and how it has affected the world across the years. Finally, I will discuss how power is

produced through rhetoric, and how it affects the public sphere. By looking at these three aspects

of rhetoric, I aim to gain a more holistic view of how rhetoric has shaped our world in the past,

and how it can be used to change it in the future.

The first discussion to be had is answering the question of what symbolic motivation is.

To begin, it is important to define what a symbol is. According to Rhetorical Theory: An

Introduction, “Symbols are letters, images, or gestures that represent, or stand for, something

else.” (Borchers & Hundley, 2018, p.10). The authors elaborate on this point in chapter seven of

their textbook, delving into Kenneth Burke’s views on symbolism. They discuss how symbols

such as names can be biased or inaccurate, and how symbols can convey negatives: a concept

which Burke believes has its origins in language (Borchers & Hundley, 2018, p.174-175).

By understanding symbols, it is much easier to then understand how they motivate us.

Symbolic motivation can be an effect that words have on an individual. If I were to listen to a

compelling speech about saving the environment, and later bike to school instead of driving, I

would be symbolically motivated. Symbolic motivation can take a more subtle approach as well.

Take, for instance, a name for an organization. As Borchers and Hundley tell us in their textbook,

names such as pro-life and pro-choice have implicit messages: in this case, labeling their

opponents as anti-life or anti-choice (2018, p.174-175). Symbolic motivation can be the

 3

motivation that comes from such implicit messages. If an individual is motivated to become

pro-choice because they do not wish to be labeled as against choice, they have been motivated by

a symbol.

Such symbolic motivations have changed over time, as have the authors and philosophies

surrounding them. Kenneth Burke, for instance, was one of the first to truly discuss symbols and

how they affect us in depth in his work Definition of Man (1963). His work, however, found a

more inclusive evolution in Condit’s Post‐Burke: Transcending the sub‐stance of dramatism

(1992). Another evolution in symbolic motivation is found in technology. Fifteen years ago,

symbolic motivation by video call would have been impossible. Thirty years ago, the difference

between communication through a text message and communication through a call did not exist

to be analyzed. Despite the simplicity of its concept, symbolic motivation is constantly finding

new mediums.

Similarly, the public sphere spans across mediums, interacting with each one in different

and unique ways. The public sphere is a concept originated by Jürgen Habermas, and is

explained by him as “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion

can be formed.” (1974, p.49). He tells us that this sphere is, by definition, open to anyone, and is

often influenced heavily by the media. That said, the public sphere is created through the public

itself, coming together through whatever means possible, to form a collective opinion.

In addition, the public sphere is foundational to how individuals view the world around

them and operate in it. Take, for instance, the act of voting. By listening to and making input into

the public sphere, individuals are better informed on what candidates they might wish to vote for.

On the other side of that coin, the public sphere might also be used to disseminate

misinformation, skewing debate and voting towards unfit individuals. In either case, the public
 4

sphere acts as a facilitator for public decision making, which in turn determines the leaders of a

nation. Indeed, even without a formal vote, the public sphere still facilitates the creation of

organizations, the carrying out of protests, and the foundations of culture.

The public sphere has undergone a striking amount of change over time, especially within

the past two hundred years or so. Take, for instance, the evolution of the press. The newspaper,

initially a product for the upper class, became an all-accessible medium through which

individuals received information over the course of decades (Kaplan, 2015). The public sphere

transformed from expecting heavy partisanship from the paper, to expecting unbiased reports of

factual events (Kaplan, 2015). Due to both of these changes, the public sphere grew more

informed over the years, in tandem with the evolution of an important medium.

Yet, the public sphere has become nearly unrecognizable in contrast to the peak of the

newspaper’s success. Borchers and Hundley describe a dynamic shift in the public sphere in their

textbook, from oral communication, to print, to film, to television and the internet, each step has

brought new qualities to the public sphere (2018, p.117-119). With writing, the public sphere

expanded to include the input of writers not physically present, and print allowed a single writer

to broaden their influence across several copies of the same material. Film added a visual

element to recordings. Radio and television let a person be heard across the world all at once,

broadening one’s influence on the public sphere to nation-wide levels. Today, yet another

revolution has come to the public sphere, in the form of social media and the internet. The

internet has allowed a true, ever-evolving public opinion to exist within, and even between

nations. Whereas previously, the public sphere could be influenced on a national level, but not

interacted with by all, the internet allows anybody to participate, fitting Habermas’s criteria of

being accessible to all (1974, p.49). Indeed, Christian Fuchs, the chair Professor of Media
 5

Systems and Media Organisation at Paderborn University in Germany (Paderborn University,

n.d.), describes the “digital public sphere” as a dimension of the broader public sphere (Fuchs,

2021, p.13). Fuchs urges the world to keep the digital public sphere an unbiased area, warning

against its “political colonization”, and telling us that “Public service media lose their

independence and critical character when governments are able to directly influence the

appointment of boards, the hiring and firing of workers, and the produced content.” (Fuchs,

2021, p.22). His fear is one I share: that the digital public sphere will be co-opted and molded by

and for an unjust cause.

The final issue to be addressed in this paper is the relationship between rhetoric and

power, with some of the most prominent rhetoricians on this topic being Michel Foucault and

Michael Karlberg. Foucault discusses how power, freedom and domination are reproduced

through rhetoric by discussing who is allowed to speak, or listened to when they do (Foucault,

2005, p.342). Actions such as prohibiting certain words and excluding individuals from

conversation are acts of power carried out through rhetoric and its restriction. Additionally,

Foucault posits that truth holds power, with a society’s perceptions of truth being the means by

which they distinguish what is true and false, and therefore a core part of how they make

decisions (Foucault, 2005, p.344). Borchers and Hundley’s textbook spends several pages

describing Foucault’s philosophies, and tell their readers that Focualt believed “power is

omnipresent, and everyone is involved in power relationships at all times.” (Borchers &

Hundley, 2018, p.276).

Moving onwards, when Karlberg discusses power, he looks at how it is discussed and the

consequences of that discussion. For instance, Karlberg juxtaposes the view of “power as

domination” against the view of “power as capacity”. In short, he describes to his readers that
 6

oftentimes, the western world views power as power over another person, or as domination,

while the alternate view exists that power is an ability to accomplish something, or capacity

(Karlberg, 2005, p.2-5). Ultimately, he moves the conversation to identifying a more

comprehensive way of understanding power, refusing to confine it to domination or capacity.

Rather, Karlberg places different types of power on two axes: equality to inequality, and

adversarialism to mutualism (2005, p.13).

Of course, such philosophies are most important when they are applied. Foucault's views

come into relevance constantly, helping us to understand both how powerful language is, and

how power can be derived from choosing what people are and are not able to say. Furthermore,

the idea that power is omnipresent can inform our day to day decisions, allowing us to

understand better how power exchanges can be present in our interactions. As for Karlberg, his

understanding of power allows us to look at power from multiple angles. If an individual only

ever looks at power as power over another individual, their conscious uses of power will only

ever push someone below them. On the other hand, if a social worker does not understand how

power can be dominant, then they fail to understand the dynamics of an abusive relationship.

All of the questions answered in this paper can be relevant in this way. Whether it’s

understanding how symbolic motivation operates, the evolution of the public sphere, or power

and its relationship to rhetoric, each one allows us to be more critical of the world around us, and

understand what goes on within it. A voter may be less susceptible to the symbolic motivation in

a politician’s speech by learning how it operates. An advocate may be able to get their message

out by knowing the nature of the public sphere. A speaker may refuse to be silenced, knowing

the power that rhetoric holds. Throughout writing this paper, I have learned how truly influential

rhetoric can be. I believe the world needs to know the same.
 7

References

Borchers, T. A., & Hundley, H. L. (2018). Rhetorical theory: An introduction. Waveland Press,

Inc.

Burke, K. (1963). Definition of man. The Hudson Review, 16(4), 491.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3848123

Condit, C. M. (1992). Post‐Burke: Transcending the sub‐stance of dramatism. Quarterly

Journal of Speech, 78(3), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639209384002

Foucault, M. (2005). The discourse on language. Truth, 315–335.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470776407.ch20

Fuchs, C. (2021, 3 22). The Digital Commons and the Digital Public Sphere: How to Advance

Digital Democracy Today. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 16(1)

:9-26. doi: 10.16997/wpcc.917

Habermas, J., Lennox, S., & Lennox, F. (1974). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article

(1964). New German Critique, 3, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/487737

Kaplan, R. L. (2015). Press, Paper, and the Public Sphere. Media History, 21(1), 42–54.

https://doi-org.unk.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/13688804.2014.955841

Karlberg, M. (2005). The power of discourse and the discourse of power: Pursuing peace through

discourse intervention. International Journal of Peace Studies, 10(1), 1–25.

Paderborn University. (n.d.). Prof. dr. Christian Fuchs. Paderborn University.

https://www.uni-paderborn.de/en/person/21863