Rhetoric As A Craft

Think of the millions of snowflakes that fall during the winter. Now think about how every single snowflake that falls is different. Millions of these microscopic beauties, yet no two are the same. There are no copies. There can be similarities, and I’m sure that there are many of these within different flakes. But none are exactly the same. This is an exceptional trait, and one with hidden value. This vast distinction between individuals is what makes the snow so amazing and beautiful. This phenomenon of nature describes the phenomenon of writing that is rhetoric. Rhetoric has that same trait that allows it to grow and become a beautiful thing that can have all of these individual and personal differences for each person.

            Most people don’t understand rhetoric or have a difficult time describing it. At the beginning of the semester, this is a category that I fell into. I would say that I enjoyed rhetoric, and when asked about it, I would say that “it’s hard to explain” or “it’s basically a complex version of argument.” However, after reading all of these different essays on rhetoric, I think that I cannot simply say “argument.” Rhetoric is a complex topic, not for the faint of heart. Rhetoric changes based off how you perceive the world and how you interact with other people. It is different for each person based on their experiences and way of thinking. So, how can we truly define rhetoric? How can we create one broad definition about such a personalized writing structure? The simple answer is that we can’t. To give one simple answer for a complex and fluid ideology suggests that the values it upholds and the people who participate in them are also not only simple, but uniform. People are complicated, which I believe to be the reason that rhetoric is so complicated. To determine rhetoric’s value, we can study other writer’s interpretations and definitions. However, the true definition of rhetoric comes from the self; it is defined to a person by their own life experiences, thoughts, and feelings. We can only create our own definition.

            There are steps we can take to ensure that rhetoric as a concept is understood by analyzing “example” definitions. These come from what I refer to as “the greats.” Aristotle stated that “rhetoric [is] an ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion. This is the function of no other art, for each of the others is instructive and persuasive about its own subject… rhetoric seems to be able to observe the persuasive about “the given,” so to speak.” This is perhaps the most famous definition of rhetoric. In this definition, Aristotle himself makes the argument that rhetoric is fluid and must be adaptable to different “cases.” Yes, it is a means of persuasion. That much is clear to the people who dabble in this form of writing. However, there is a much larger picture to look at. The overall meaning of this definition can be construed as something very vague. For instance, what is “the given?” I think that this muddied meaning contributes to my own argument. By creating a vague definition, Aristotle leaves room for different interpretations, and therefore different meanings based on how people experience and think through life. Similarly, Lanham, when analyzing the Quintilian Question, presents the argument that there is weak and strong rhetoric, and that strong rhetoric recognizes the consequences of what people say and do. This is based off of Lanham’s specific argument about the Quintilian Question and the way that he views it, and therefore recognizes the importance of rhetoric’s quality of changing with different people.

            Another way to analyze rhetoric is to ask about the necessity. I believe we need rhetoric to fully function as a society. Rhetoric builds skills such as communication and listening, and provides a deeper understanding of other people’s arguments. For example, Burke argues that rhetoric applies to demagoguery. Burke argues that demagoguery, which is caused by rhetoric and the way that politicians appeal to preexisting communities, is a dangerous but smart way to “fast-track” your own opinion. Cavarero argues a similar topic and explains that rhetoric is vastly important in political gatherings in order to keep the peace between different groupings and to keep the individual within the group. Lastly, Coates, when writing his works, suggests that rhetoric can change the narrative in which we see people of color. These arguments not only use their own rhetoric to get their point across but are very individualized to these three distinct writers. Each of these authors wrote about something that they are passionate about and have a good amount of knowledge of. Their writing and argument are based off of their own personal experiences and way of thinking. Someone else would write a completely different argument about the same topic. That is the importance of rhetoric. Because it is so individualized, it is an excellent tool in getting across your own personal message and doing it in a persuasive way that helps the people surrounding you understand your argument. I have a vastly different perception of the world and a different life experience than anyone else, so my viewpoint on these topics and on rhetoric will be different. However, just because rhetoric is ever-changing, it is still a necessity to many of the writers of the world. It is how we connect with people and their arguments, and it is how we start to develop our own argument or counterargument. It sets a precedent for how we interact with and understand a piece of writing.

            Another large question surrounding rhetoric is what it does to people. I believe that it depends on how you use it, but it usually makes us better. Like in Burke’s essay on demagoguery, it can easily be used to twist and manipulate people into blindly following you. That is obviously not what we want out of a society or government, but rhetoric makes it possible. However, rhetoric can also make us loving and understanding. Blankenship’s book about rhetorical empathy reflects this. Blankenship argues that rhetoric should be used empathetically – people should stop and think about the circumstances that other people have that condition their thinking and try to understand where they come from instead of immediately going to war when their opinions clash with our own. This was my favorite reading that we did in class because I think it highlighted the lack of empathy that our society has, especially when it comes to politics. I ended up writing about this empathy a lot this year, mostly because it seems so simple in theory, but ends up being something that people completely ignore in the heat of the moment. We could argue about gun control all day and never be willing to understand the reasons that we disagree. This is the part where rhetoric plays a large part and can help us to be better people. We have already established that rhetoric is fluid and personal, meaning it looks different for every person defining it. However, as a form of persuasion, there comes a universal stipulation that requires we acknowledge the opposite opinion in a persuasive paper. Blankenship ultimately uses her own rhetoric to create a scenario in which rhetoric becomes the building blocks of our society. With her argument, she creates a narrative in which disagreeing people use rhetoric to culminate a functional society; or rather, how they should. This works because rhetoric deals with how different people see things. Because it is a fluid structure, rhetoric is what makes empathy possible and what creates individuality within groups. A mode of persuasion or communication is only effective when there is an understanding between the two, and that understanding is either an acceptance of the difference in opinion or an appeal to a similar community (like in demagoguery). Basically, this understanding can only happen when rhetoric is involved, and when the individual ways of thinking and life experiences are an inspiration of the argument presented. Ideally, rhetoric will make people better; but it will also emphasize who they are.

            Rhetoric is a complex structure. It has ideas that should always be upheld, like being for persuasion, developing people and their understanding of argument, and emphasizing the individuality of each person engaging in the discussion at hand. But the specific details of rhetoric will be different. The whole point of rhetoric is to be fluid; your argument is based on your own personal thoughts, feelings, perspectives, and perceptions. The way that people use rhetoric and what they will use it for will always be different.

            Growing up, we often heard the phrase “be yourself, for there’s no one else quite like you.” You can find someone who is like you, but you will never find an exact copy of yourself. People are like snowflakes; there are no two that are exactly the same. The same way that rhetoric relates to the concept of snow, they relate to the concept of humanity. Humans are complex, as is rhetoric. Every single person is different, and therefore rhetoric will be different for anyone who employs it. There is no one definitive definition for rhetoric because it depends so much on humans. Rhetoric is fluid, not solid. Rhetoric is special in the way that each and every individual person is. The best we can do to define rhetoric is to establish its basic parameters, and define it based off your own personal experiences, thoughts, and feelings.

            Based on my own preexisting experiences and thoughts, rhetoric is a craft. It requires the same amount of creativity and technique that music, dance, theater, and visual arts do. Every performing and visual art requires a high level of thought but also a feeling. The greatest performances and pieces of art are the ones that have a strong emotion clearly present or represented. Writing is the same way.

            When people ask me why I enjoy writing so much, I say it is because of the manipulation through ink on a page. Words are powerful – powerful enough to affect people’s emotions, thoughts, even the way they live. Only an artform possesses that strong of a quality. I have always believed that writing is artistic, and the consensus I have come to about rhetoric’s fluidity only further proves that. Art forms require fluidity, just as rhetoric does. They require a deeper understanding and a connection based on your life experiences and feelings, just as rhetoric does. They require certain techniques, just as rhetoric does.

            I think the best technique from rhetoric is the different appeals to pathos, logos, and especially ethos. The emotions are where much of your personal feelings, thoughts, and experiences come through. I view pathos in writing as adding humanity and personality into a piece of writing, getting the reader to relate and empathize with my argument. Logos, however, requires more methodical strategies, and appeals to the logic of a person (usually presented as facts). Ethos refers to the communities that you are appealing to and therefore hopefully gaining support and traction for your argument. However, I believe that there is no effective persuasive writing without the incorporation of all three of these ancient philosophical techniques. I believe this amalgamation is what creates rhetoric, and what creates the individuality and fluidity of rhetoric. It is what makes it distinctly different for every single person. It is the reason that it requires a deeper understanding and a connection. It is what makes a piece of writing a piece of art. Art is something special in the world, and that includes rhetoric and writing. It promotes higher levels of thinking, and, with rhetoric’s attribute of persuasion, deeper connections and understanding of a text.

            To clarify, I resound with Plato’s famous quote; “Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.” My personal definition of rhetoric stems from the belief that rhetoric should possess the ability to manipulate the emotions, thoughts, and opinions within a person. Rhetoric cannot be broadly defined. It is not a universal, solid structure. It is a fluid concept that changes with the different perceptions and ideas found around the country throughout all sorts of different people. It changes and creates different meanings because it is based on individuality.