When I first saw the word, “rhetoric,” I wondered, “Why the heck is there an ‘h’
in the word?”
H in Rhetoric—reminds me that the concept of rhetoric, to use the vernacular of the
2000s, is “hecka” misunderstood, potentially even by you.
Why is that?
To answer this question, and to help reduce the misunderstanding, we’ll go through a
few definitions and a very brief history lesson, ending with some thoughts on rhetoric from
philosophers—and my approach of how to view rhetoric.
In Greek, the word, “rhetor,” means a master or teacher of rhetoric—an ancient
Greek orator.
That gives us a clue that rhetoric relates to speaking in public.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “rhetoric” as, and I’m summarizing: speaking or writing
effectively, or skillfully, based on the teachings of ancient scholars, primarily for persuasive
purposes.
You’ll notice this definition adds two aspects: rhetoric can include writing (not just public
speaking, as was the case 2,500 years ago) and it is used for a purpose, which Merriam-Webster
suggests is persuasion.
You’ll find definitions extend the purpose beyond persuasion to inform or motivate.
This seems fairly clear, so where is the misunderstanding?
For that, let’s look further down Merriam Webster’s definition to the “also” part:
“insincere or grandiloquent language.”
I had to look that one up.
With words like “lofty,” “pompous,” and “bombastic,” “grandiloquent language”
is definitely not positive.
For the sake of consistency, let’s check a few more: the Oxford Learners Dictionary,
where the negativity continues with a single definition: “(Formal, often disapproving)
speech or writing that is intended to influence people, but is not completely honest or sincere.”
Glance at their examples: All negative.
One more: Vocabulary.com.
While only half of their four examples are negative (“high-flown style; excessive use
of verbal ornamentation”—that’s a mouthful!
And “loud and confused and empty talk”), their little quiz on the right gives three
relatively negative answers—including “grandiloquence.”
So, let’s check the synonyms—again, thanks to Merriam-Webster.
If the trend towards a mixture of neutral, or positive, to negative continues, we should
expect to see a blend here, too.
Unfortunately, that is definitely not the case: every one of the fifteen synonyms, with
the possible exception of “jazz” or “verbiage,” is negative—come on!
“Drivel?”
Really?
The reason for this cynical view of rhetoric can be traced back to about 2400 BCE when
the Sophists entered the scene.
This is our brief history lesson—and it is brief.
Please forgive me for skipping over a whole lot of what happened in Ancient Greece; I’m
just focusing on the basics.
In Greek, sophos refers to a wise man with the verb, sophizo, meaning “to instruct”
or “to make learn.”
The Sophists, then, were teachers who instructed others in a variety of subjects, including
the art of persuasive speaking.
However, their services were quite pricey, so only the wealthy could benefit.
The Sophists were accused of focusing on elocution and style to the detriment of content--and
were even accused of being unethical by philosophers like Plato, Cicero, and Aristotle—hopefully,
you’ve heard of at least one of these philosophers.
The Sophists believed that the best orator should prevail, regardless of what the “truth”
actually was.
They were the ones who gave “rhetoric” a bad name.
It’s no surprise, then, that the definition of “sophistry,” according to Vocabulary.com,
is a “deliberately invalid argument in the hopes of deceiving”—this is the word that
justifies the negative connotation, not “rhetoric.”
This meant that those in power, who could read and write and afford to pay those high
prices for the Sophists’ instruction in the art of rhetoric, became the better speakers
who, in turn, could win arguments and succeed.
For those who believed in truth, the term, “rhetoric,” became tainted, and further
strengthened the power structure between the “haves” and the “have nots.”
Let’s extend the history lesson to what we talk about today.
Remember those three philosophers I mentioned earlier?
Plato, Cicero, and Aristotle?
Their definitions of rhetoric did not carry the negative connotations:
Plato called rhetoric “the art of enhancing the soul” or “winning the soul by discourse”
and should be used to convey truth.
Cicero believed rhetoric was speech designed to persuade, claiming it is “one great art
comprised of five lesser arts.”
But, many of us in the Communication field cite Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric.
If we look at his classic book, Rhetoric, written in 350 B.C.E.—and the one I’m
using is translated by W. Rhys Roberts—he takes a long time to explain the subject,
finally distilling it to one sentence: “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty
of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”
Aristotle further identified three kinds of modes of persuasion, later referred to as
ethos, pathos, and logos, often referred to as the “rhetorical triangle.”
With a better understanding of what rhetoric is and the historical underpinnings and philosophers,
I hope you accept my interpretation that, regardless of the theorist, “rhetoric”
can be viewed as a tool.
And I’m sure I’m not the only one with this view.
Consider a chainsaw, which vocabulary.com defines as a power tool.
But this tool can be used skillfully or clumsily.
It can be used to build structures or create beautiful art.
And, unfortunately, it can be used to harm or worse, as those chainsaw-wielding murderers
in horror movies have shown us.
Rhetoric is the same way.
It can be used skillfully—for good or for bad.
Either way, it’s to our benefit to understand how it can be used and how we can use it ourselves,
which is why there are many ways to analyze rhetoric—not just from the teachings of
the ancient Greeks, which focused primarily on public speaking.
Now, not only does rhetorical criticism analyze oral and written communication, it has expanded
even further to analyze stories, social movements, and beyond.
Keep studying this often-misunderstood concept and you’ll improve as a rhetorician, both
in terms of your use of it in your communication and evaluating others’ use of it.
And, whenever you offer your opinion of someone else’s rhetoric, please use an adjective
before the word: Is it “empty” rhetoric, “impressive,” “fiery,” “unethical,”
or something else.
And don’t forget, if it’s a really unethical or empty use of rhetoric, you also have the
option of using the phrase, “mere sophistry.”
We don’t want to perpetuate the myth that rhetoric is always bad.
Who knows?
Maybe we can remove the “hecka misunderstood” aspect of that letter “h,” so that the
“h” only reminds us that the meaning of rhetoric has a history.