Last class I very vaguely defined Rhetoric as something that existed in all forms of communication, from numbers, to body language, to street signs. This is all in fact true, however it doesn’t completely define rhetoric. This is one of Herrick’s definitions of rhetoric, that stood out to me as supporting what I already knew, as well as being admirably concise: “Every time we express emotions and thoughts to others with the goal of influence, we are engaged in rhetoric.” (Herrick, 6) They key words here being “with the goal of influence.” I think for something to be rhetorical it has to be a conscious act; for example, if you sneezed loudly while someone was talking, simply because you couldn’t hold it in, that’s not a rhetorical act. However if you coughed while someone was talking, because you wanted those around you that you thought what was being said was B.S. then that would be a very rhetorical act indeed. So that’s what I would change about my definition of rhetoric, that it exists in all conscious forms of communication, from architecture to novel writing, when you wish to persuade or affect, rhetoric is there.

(IN CLASS EDIT)

I’m going to try and reflect some more sitting here in class, thinking about how my definition of rhetoric has changed over time. In very general terms, since I started learning about rhetoric, my definition has expanded and become more flexible, because as we discussed in class, there are many definitions of rhetoric, and it seems like Herrick changes his mind about what rhetoric is and what it means over the very first chapter of his book! Early on he gives that general definition that I referenced earlier in this post, but then he goes on to list all of these components of rhetoric! Does Rhetoric have to “address the audience,” or “reveal human motives,” every time? Does a work need every single component to be qualified as rhetoric? I don’t think so, but I also think that it most certainly can include all of those things. That’s what I mean when I say my definition is more flexible, it accepts one or all of the components that Herrick talks about as being sufficient to make a work rhetorical.