For teachers to understand how to help teach students rhetoric, it is important that they understand its origins and definitions. If you were to look up the word “rhetoric” in Webster’s dictionary it would be defined as “the art of persuasion.” This definition still held true in 2500 but what was different was the belief on whether or not it should be practiced by the common man. Some people believe that the word “rhetoric” applies to the act of deceiving the public into believing what you believe. This was one of Plato’s fears during the classical rhetoric era. He feared that people would learn the art of rhetoric and use it to further their own personal agendas. I have noticed in class discussions that we tend to quickly argue and disagree entirely with Plato’s belief. While it is true that what he was essentially calling for was to limit the publics ability to speak for themselves and have an effect. But, what I find fascinating is the fact that what he feared holds some truth. While rhetoric is involved in every aspect of our lives, and a necessity, it is often used by people who are uneducated in their field. Having the knowledge of rhetoric appears to me to be a double edged sword. So where is the compromise? This is assuming that their is one.
Alex,
The same may be true for audiences, according to Aristotle, who said, “‘there are people whom one cannot instruct,'” because “‘not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction'” (Herrick 73). An awareness of the relationship between the writer/speaker and the reader/audience then is essential.
As you ponder the question about a compromise of some kind to moderate the mis-use of rhetoric, what do you think could be done?
COL McDonald