Redefining Rhetoric

If you ask Google to define the term “rhetoric,” two very different, very interesting definitions arise. The first meaning discusses rhetoric as the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. Right. This one makes sense. This is what rhetoric should be. This is the idea that the founders of such persuasive speaking wanted – rhetoric as an innovative way to convince the masses.  

The second though takes a starkly different approach, defining rhetoric as language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. The last part strikes me the most…“lacking in sincerity or meaningful content,” as if being rhetorical is essentially the same thing as being dishonest.

That, to me, is what is wrong with speeches, and for that matter, all forms of debate, today.

Last night in Jacksonville, Florida, Republicans Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney debated over illegal immigration. In the debate Gingrich discussed a political ad that suggested an anti-immigrant label for Romney. To this Romney said, “I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico. My wife’s father was born in Wales. They came to this country. The idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. It’s simply the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized American politics for too long.”

I find it almost comical that Romney dislikes the way that American politics are being defined by rhetoric, today, when in reality American politics and other such conglomerates are what have redefined rhetoric in the first place.

Why is it that rhetoric today is becoming synonymous with a lack of sincerity or over-the-top tendencies? Those are not the principles in which rhetoric was based on. We, as a society, should move away from this and towards the effective art that is rhetoric. We must stop convincing ourselves that rhetoric means ridiculousness.

We must redefine the term.

Romance and Rhetoric

The ability to persuade or impress an audience by one’s words is a tactful talent. Given this, I’d say that using rhetoric effectively is an art form and is a skill that most people lack…especially here at Penn State.

It seems to me that wherever I go on campus, I can always hear people talking loudly. Students are always arguing or telling stories; always trying to prove a point – always trying to make themselves the hero of their tale. That being said, college students are horrible at speaking their opinions, persuasively. They could use some rhetoric in their lives. Even if it were just to tell a detailed story about their weekend, they could benefit from the gifts of successful persuasion. 

This thought came to me yesterday when waiting in line for food. The boy in front of me was talking, very loudly I might add, to his friend about how he needed to breakup with what was apparently his very “needy” girlfriend. I tried my hardest to mind my own business as the boy began to reason to his friend why he had no choice but to end his relationship with her, but the ridiculousness of his reasoning took hold of me, and annoyed me to the core.  

To put it concisely, he noted that she was Anglo-Saxon. (This fact bothered him an excruciating amount.) She used Ragu when she made pasta, an apparent bad sign. This poor girl also apparently changed him; he was such a nice boy when he met her. He’s awesome, he said. He’s one of kind. She’s not. She’s annoying. She was the reason for his miserable first semester. His choices had nothing to do with it, of course. Just her. This lovely boy also said that he hated spending money on her, because when he did, he was not spending money on himself. Because of her, he’s not dating for the rest of his college career.

What struck me most about his argument was that he said nothing persuasively. He ultimately pointed out her flaws and blamed her for all his misfortune. He made general statements, and never discussed anything further than his initial jab at her. How is that a valid way to discuss something? How is that a valid way to convince the listener?

This style of speaking can be seen in politics today, too. Insult the opponent. Draw attention away from the self. Degrade the other person until the attention is not on you at all. That’s how people often win over the audience, and that’s not right.

I have a problem with this in all regards of society. So, I remark that rhetoric should be instilled in all the masses of the world. Everyone should embark on the journey of proper persuasion and learn the ways of rhetoric - breakups of the world would be a lot less painful if so. 

Welcome!

Welcome to my Rhetoric and Civic Life blog for the Spring 2012 semester.