livemagUK.com

As I think about the nature of rhetoric and how it can be seen, I am drawn back to last semester. When we began Rhetorical Traditions 1 I was asked this same question. Because of this you might say this should be an easy Eportfoilio post for me; however, after a semester of studying the development and characteristics of rhetoric, I still cannot produce a comprehensive definition. This is not a surprise. Some of the greatest thinkers in history have scuffled over different definitions of rhetoric. It would be quite unlikely for a young English major to discover rhetoric’s elusive theory of everything. No, I will not try to offer a master definition. Rather, I want to focus on what I believe to be the essential aspect of true rhetoric. Without this aspect, rhetoric would flop superfluously in our world. Aristotle said that rhetoric was “the faculty of determining in any given occasion the available means of persuasion.” I take that definition and manipulate it slightly. I would say that rhetoric is the art/techne of crafting arguments with the intention to persuade. I like this line of defining because it points us to the core of rhetoric, persuasion. Imagine a world where no one ever changed. The opinions and beliefs that they developed early on defined them for the rest of the lives. Without change there can be no growth. Imagine with me a world that wouldn’t grow. No progress could be made. No hope for advancement found in this world. Yes, people could learn and grow from experiences, but experiences are extremely scarce compared to the vast amount of change that awakens in the depth of persuasion. Without this change causing persuasion, the world we live in would be a horrid home.  Thus, we see how important persuasion is in rhetoric; consequently, the definition of rhetoric must always include the skeleton of persuasion.