Rhetoric of Rhetorical Questions

Before entering this class and learning the proper way to define “rhetoric,” the word instantly made me think of the phase a “rhetorical question.” In my lifetime, I’ve uttered, “That was a rhetorical question,” when someone answers an obvious question, far too many times. This utterance is commonplace in vocabulary of many people today, but the meaning contrasts the real definition of rhetoric completely. Is it possible to speak rhetorically, but not with rhetoric?

Kind of.

A rhetorical question can be defined as a question that doesn’t need an answer. But how does this relate to rhetoric? I researched a little and I found that there is a relation, which positions rhetorical questions within the ideology of rhetoric itself.

When speeches are made, often questions are posed in order for the audience to answer the question to themselves. Speakers do this to gain appeal and have the audience on their side, as the answer in their mind persuades them subconsciously to agree with the speaker. Thus, the rhetorical question really is meant to be answered - just not aloud. Over time this idea of “answering to oneself” developed into the sarcastic, overstated question that it is today.  But it stems from proper rhetoric…

A rhetorical question really is a form of rhetoric. It is a tool in helping the speaker persuade his/her point. When a person thinks of the answer to a question to himself or herself they become engaged in the speech at hand, whether they are aware of it or no. So, though rhetorical questions have definitions completely contrast to the term rhetoric, the two really do go hand in hand. It is a tool of the trade.

In the commercial below this is demonstrated. Geico states obvious questions, yet in the end it adds to their persuasion, as the viewer attributes the obvious answer to the money-saving qualities of Geico. 

Rhetoric Like You

Recently, I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal explaining why singer and recent Grammy winner, Adele’s song “Someone Like You” has the ability to make people cry. The article talks about how the arrangement of the song forces listeners to feel certain emotions. In compliance with this ideal, the Saturday Night Live cast did a sketch in which various members burst into tears upon hearing the song. Essentially, this song makes you feel.

Personally, I attribute the emotions and connections people have to this song with successful rhetoric. Adele’s voice and lyrics, alongside with the composition of the music creates an unconscious argument that persuades listeners; it captures them.

The song uses classic rhetoric techniques by employing ethos, pathos, and logos.  The lyrics elicit pathos as they draw on emotions common to all people. Heartbreak is universal and because of this all people can relate to the song. The emotions of the song become something that the listener can understand. With that, the song also emphasizes ethos. Ethos is often described as the guiding beliefs of a community. Within this mindset, finding love is a form of ethos, and by Adele telling a story of being in love and the troubles within love, the listener understands the ethics in the song. As the listener understands the song, logos is also seen, as the song is a logical progression of emotions. Without being outwardly forward, ethos, pathos, and logos is all subliminally seen.

Adele is not the only artist to tell a story that makes the masses fall in love with it. Rhetoric in music can constantly be seen. Often, in order for songs to be successful, the artist needs to convince the consumers that their song is something they can relate to, thus the song itself has to make a subtle argument. Adele’s work is a primal example of this, winning six Grammys last weekend, proving that many can relate to her music. Simply, she has the crowds convinced, without them even knowing it.  

Lack of Rhetoric at the Super Bowl

To be completely honest, I watch the Super Bowl primarily for the commercials, this past Super Bowl offering up some interesting ones. Juxtapose this with our class discussions of rhetorical commercials and naturally I began to think of such football-influenced ads in the realm of rhetoric.

That being said, a commercial that utilizes rhetoric should convince the viewer of a meaning within the persuasion. Ethos, logos, and pathos are employed to deliver this goal, with the end result of having convinced the viewer to endorse the product.

Yet, while thinking of the commercials with this in mind, one particular commercial seemed to both fail at this and also achieve greatly. With that, we look to David Beckham and his H&M commercial that all my female friends loved, without question.

The commercial succeeded in making the product known, certainly. It was in black and white and the only words heard were within the music playing. This allowed for the product to speak for itself. The entire commercial panned Beckham’s body, only. This was all the rhetoric at work. No ethos. No logos. The only pathos being that of the jealousy and desire people have for David Beckham. 

Essentially it was selling a product for men, to women. I understand that men want to be David Beckham and girlfriends want their boyfriends to look like him, so they might buy the product. But is society so engulfed to not realize the practicality of this. Do we really think that by purchasing underwear, we will become a star soccer player? Is the “rhetoric” of this commercial really working? I hope not.

Still, I’m sure H&M sales have increased. They succeed in that, but to me, society has fallen victim. There is no emotion behind the ad. It shows how “sex sells” and because of this the so-called rhetoric fails.  

140 Characters or Less

This week, as I read through chapter 5 in the Rhetoric and Civil textbook, I came across the idea that rhetoric is utilized in text messaging. If that is true, I began thinking, in what other condensed diction can rhetoric also be found. With that in mind, I looked to Twitter.

Personally, I am an avid Twitter user. This social media outlet has become a way for many Americans to speak directly to the public, while presenting their own thoughts and ideas. That being said, politicians, celebrities, and the average person alike, all use Twitter to present rhetoric - whether they realize it or not. Though the sentences are shortened to fit the "140 characters or less" constraints, a coherent thought is presented, a side to an issue is proposed, and a way of convincing the masses is opened up. 

People have become citizens of the internet and by "tweeting" one's thoughts, rhetoric is shown. Often, tweets are in response to issues in the world today. This ideal represents "kairos," as Twitter allows for advantageous timing and contributing comments to current issues.

The problem, though, is Twitter is a very, very condensed form of speaking. It can be shorter than a well versed text message, thus rhetoric is limited. It allows for one's opinions to be read, but limits the possibility to expand upon them - the effective argument is weakened. Yet, does that mean rhetoric is not in existence on this website? No. I believe, that the act of putting the idea out there for the world to read, presents rhetoric. Strategically responding and reposting the words of others, allows for a basis of an argument to be established. 

Thus Twitter is a rhetoric tool. It's an online debate, as the public is allowed to respond back, something that is encouraged. It allows for ideas to be formed and new thoughts to reach those who don't follow politics or news. The world and its ideas are right at our fingertips.

Yes, Twitter is limited, but it is a growing way to develop an argument. 

I Believe In Handicapped Parking