Three-time unsuccessful candidate for
the U.S. presidency in the 1800's, Garrett Smith, said, "I am a plain man and
I care and know comparatively little about rhetoric." Some of you might share the
same sentiments about rhetoric. Interestingly, while rhetoric dates back
to ancient Greece--in fact, everything we know about rhetoric comes from the
Greeks--many of us have no idea what classical rhetoric really is. And that's
what we will focus on today: a very brief overview of classical rhetoric. Volumes have been written on the subject, but we will concentrate on Sophists and sophistry,
Aristotle's definition of rhetoric, and modes of rhetorical proof, briefly covering both artistic and inartistic modes of proof. To understand sophistry, and rhetoric will start with a brief history lesson. In 5th century B.C., you could have
made a living as a sophist. A Sophist was the type of teacher in
both ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire who specialized in philosophy and
rhetoric, traveling around the country making public displays to attract
students. Sophists claimed that they were teaching excellence or virtue to the
nobility and politicians and those desiring to be politicians. Sophists,
however, were condemned by Aristotle, Plato, and others for two primary reasons: The first (horror of horrors) was that Sophists actually charged for their teachings. This meant that only the rich can afford to be educated in the important topics of philosophy and rhetoric-- a completely opposite view from Socrates, for example. This was a bigger issue than it appears today. In ancient Greece, there were no attorneys, so you had to represent yourself in court. Consider: if only the rich had the skills of persuasion, then, if you were poor, you were doomed to lose. The rich get richer and have more power,
while the poor would get poorer and become even more powerless. Secondly, Sophists were accused of often
using the tools of rhetoric and poetry to manipulate others by trading on
emotions and neglecting facts. In fact, some Sophists claimed that they could find the answer to any questions-- they could basically win every argument. Another way of saying this is that Sophists taught and were known for their ability to
make the weaker or worse argument the stronger or better argument. Philosophers like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle were appalled by this as they
believe quite the contrary: the skilled use of rhetoric was essential to the
discovery of truth because it provided the means of ordering and clarifying arguments.
They denounced Sophists as greedy instructors, using language and
rhetoric to deceive rather than being concerned with truth and justice. Sophists
were intent on seeking power. In fact, Plato was quoted as saying, "Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men,"
-- not a very positive view, and that's why the term sophistry today has
a negative connotation. If you look up "sophistry" at dictionary.com, you will find two definitions--both equally damning. First: "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning," and, second, "a false argument, sophisim." While in ancient Greece, Sophists were very
popular, well paid, and widely respected for their skills and talent, they were
also widely criticized, and that connotation has remained with us over
the years. You can hear this in the warning of U.S. president, John Adams:
"Abuse of words has been the greatest instrument of sophistry and chicanery of
party faction and division of society." So you probably don't want to be accused
of being a Sophist or of using an argument
that is described as "mere sophistry." Regardless, rhetoric evolved as an important art, one that provided the orator, or the speaker, with ways to persuade an audience to accept an orator's argument. Remember how frequently the word "rhetoric" was used in the discussion of the Sophists? Rhetoric, itself, is not a bad word.
Rhetoric is a tool and, just as with any tool, it can be used for good or bad purposes. Many considered the father of rhetoric
to be Aristotle, who was a student of Plato and a teacher of Alexander the Great.
Even the etymology of his name is instructive: "Aristotle" means "the best purpose."
Aristotle has been called one of the greatest philosophers of all time.
He literally wrote the book on rhetoric-- actually his book titled, The Rhetoric, is, in fact,
three volumes published in 4th century B.C . Aristotle views rhetoric as a human art or skill. He defines rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." A simple way to think of this is to ask yourself how you can prove something to be true.
What skills and techniques can you use to persuade someone? You use written, spoken, and
visual language--you use rhetoric. According to Aristotle, every speech must
contain both artistic and inartistic proofs. Inartistic proofs are things that exist--they are there. In the words of Aristotle, "of all the modes of persuasion, some belong strictly to the art of rhetoric and some do not. By the
latter (and he's talking about inartistic proofs), I mean such things that are not supplied by the speaker but are there at the outset--witnesses, evidence
given under torture, written contracts, etc. By the former (and here is talking about
artistic proofs) I mean such as we ourselves construct by means of the
principles of rhetoric. The one kind has merely to be used, the other has to be invented."
Most scholars focus on three artistic proofs: ethos, pathos, and logos,
but Aristotle also considered the five canons of rhetoric has developed by
first century Roman philosopher Marcus Cicero as contributing to artistic proofs.
"Inventio" or invention--the creative process of developing and refining your
argument. "Dispositio" or arrangement, organization: the process of arranging
and organizing your arguments for maximum impact. "Elocutio" or style: the
process of determining how you present your arguments using figures of speech
and other rhetorical techniques. This is very much related to language.
"Memoria" or memory, which is the process of learning and memorizing your speech
so that you can deliver it without using notes. Additionally, this canon referred
to memorizing information that could be used in an impromptu speech, such as
famous quotations, literary references, and other facts, And "Actio" or the process
of practicing how you deliver your speech using gestures, posture, facial expressions as well as pronunciation and tone of voice. But let's get back to the artistic proofs
of ethos, pathos, and logos. Briefly, ethos is considered the
personal appeals of the speaker. The simplest translation is credibility
although, as we will discuss in a moment, ethos is much more than that.
Pathos relates to tapping into or stirring the emotions of the audience--the emotional
appeals. And logos is the use of evidence and reasoning to communicate the message.
It refers to the structure of argument-- focusing on the message. Now remember the inartistic proofs, such as facts, statistics and testimony? They can be used to create
artistic proofs. It is how we use them which creates the specific proof, and the
proofs are often blended together. They are interwoven. In the fourth century B.C.,
Aristotle identified five inartistic proofs: laws, contracts, witnesses, tortures,
and oaths. Some believe that, if Aristotle were alive today, he would likely have
replaced tortures with photographs and added statistical surveys, experiments,
and government documents. Statistics, for example, are facts--inartistic proofs . "One
out of every two marriages in the United States ends in divorce." It is sterile
information. Now use this statistic--this inartistic proof, in a speech. You can
use this statistic to build credibility or ethos by saying, "The U.S. Census has
been reporting for some time that 50% of all marriages end in divorce." Showing that you've done research and
can cite credible sources contributes to your audience's perception of you as
credible. It can also be used to gain pathos by appealing to emotions: "Turn and look at the person sitting next to you. One of the two of you will likely get a
divorce." And it can be used for logos by using reasoning: "Because one out of every
two marriages here in the United States ends in divorce, it is imperative we reform
the court system to be fair to both men and women." And the same statistic can be
blended together to contribute to all three, building ethos, pathos, and logos:
"The U.S. Census reports that half of all marriages end in divorce. That means that
one out of every two marriages are not successful. It could be yours, it could be the person sitting next to
you. And, if you are a woman, your chances of a fair settlement are far lower than
if you are a man. Therefore we must reform our court system." Aristotle said that every speech must
have all three artistic proofs, and they must be in balance with each other, and
that's why you may also see these three proofs displayed as the rhetorical triangle.
If a speech is more heavily weighted with pathos and logos, you will
end up with a speech that is emotionally arousing but nothing substantial for the
audience to remember. Aa speech focused on logos, however, that does not get the
audience involved is very boring. Some scholars believe that Aristotle felt the
most important of all three of these modes of proof was ethos. If we don't
trust the speaker, we won't accept the premise of the speech--indeed we may not
even listen to it. Poor ethos and the other two modes, logos and pathos, are
useless. According to Aristotle, ethos is more than just credibility. He defined ethos as a demonstration of the speaker's intelligence, integrity, and goodwill. Ethos is an attribute conferred
by the audience on the speaker. As such, these are all perceived intelligence, perceived integrity, and perceived goodwill. One
speaker may be perceived as having good ethos by one person, no ethos by another,
and poor ethos by a third. With ethos, you're asking yourself, "How can I get this audience to believe in me?" Intelligence refers to authoritativeness.
Does the speaker appear intelligent,informed, knowledgeable, and
credible? Oftentimes this is described as "shared values between the speaker and
the audience" Audiences determine intelligence by the overlap between
their own beliefs and the speaker's ideas. Many scholars have defined this shared
values as intelligenc as, "My idea of an agreeable speaker is one who agrees with me." Another word for integrity is character or trustworthiness. This refers to a speaker's image as a good and honest person . It is related to fairness and consistency. Author C.S. Lewis was quoted as saying, "Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching." The third dimension of ethos, goodwill,
addresses whether the audience believes that a speaker, or the source of a message, has the audience's best interest at heart. It has been described as a positive
judgment of the speaker's intention toward the audience. Aristotle thought it
was possible for speaker to demonstrate extraordinary intelligence and sterling
character, yet not have the listener's best
interests at heart. All three of these dimensions, then,
contribute to the audience's assessment of a speaker's ethos. Aristotle also
discussed how ethos is communicated in a speech. Remember: in the times of the Greeks,
"rhetoric" referred primarily to public speaking. There was no television, radio, etc,. and oral communication was the way messages were primarily communicated. Today, however, we have many different ways to communicate with others, and the concept of ethos applies
to these methods as well. Ethos can be communicated to an audience
intrinsically or extrinsically. Intrinsic ethos is contained in the speech text. Think about it: If the words you are using to build your credibility. Say you were able to transcribe what you were telling a potential employer in an
interview about your experience. If you can point to the manuscript and say,
"There: that's where I told her I was qualified," You were pointing to intrinsic ethos. Extrinsic ethos results from the qualities of the speaker him or herself. This refers to the speaker's appearance, occupation, gender, dynamic presentation
style--ncluding vocal quality--humor, and posture. It is what the speaker brings to the communication event, not what the speaker says. In general, being well organized,
using personal examples, wearing clothing appropriate for the
occasion and the audience, and the like will help create a sense of ethos. Additionally, when you cite sources and use the quotations of others, you can gain secondary credibility--your ethos is enhanced because of the ethos of those
you include in your presentation. Pathos refers to the emotional appeals. When you are using pathos, you are appealing to the audience's
emotions in your effort to persuade . You ask yourself,
"How can I get the audience emotionally involved?" By using imagery, description, personal and audience-related examples, asking
rhetorical questions, having the audience create a scene in their minds--all of them
are techniques to create pathos. All you have to do is watch a commercial or two during the Olympics televised broadcast to see pathos in action: Appeal to patriotism is very strong, but
you'll also see appeals to the American work ethic, Nostalgia, which is an appeal to
tradition, and, of course, plenty of sex appeal. And I'm sure you'll find other appeals as well, such as snob appeal, fear, bandwagon-- the list just goes on. When you are using logos,
you are creating a sense of reasoning in the audience. Logos allows your audience to make the logical connections in the speech. With logos, you are asking yourself, "How can I get this audience to see
the reasonableness of this speech?" --that the speech makes sense. Using reasoning patterns that are
logical to the audience allows them to understand how you reached your
conclusions. This also allows the audience to reach the same conclusions
along with you. Two types of logical proof
are exposition and argumentation When you are using the logical proof of exposition, you are proving your point by definitions
and examples: You are using evidence. This type of proof is used to clarify, explain, or analyze the topic. In contrast, argumentation is an argument in
its formal sense: reasoning. When you study argumentation, you will learn about
inductive and deductive arguments, syllogisms and enthymemes. And, of course, to be logica,l you must make sure you use appropriate and valid evidence, as well as avoiding committing fallacies or mistakes in reasoning Processing time: Why does sophistry have such a negative connotation? What is the difference between Aristotle's artistic and inartistic proofs? Which of Aristotle's three modes of proof do you think is the most important? And, How can you increase the likelihood that your audience will perceive you as having good ethos? The ancient Greeks have taught us much about persuasion that is still important to know about today. Now that you have a better
understanding of classical rhetoric, perhaps you can use it ethically to persuade rather than unethically to manipulate.
