Analysis of Ancient and Modern Rhetoric - Essay Example

Introduction Rhetoric is an art of either writing or speaking effectively (Burke, 2). Rhetoric has two schools of thought. It is generally accepted that an excellent rhetoric speaker has the ability to pull and attract masses (Burke 2). But it should also be realized that one has to have the ability to pull and engage masses or the audience in this speaking or writing (Michelini 11). Ancient Rhetoric Different writers and scholars have written about rhetoric. It should be realized that there are old schools of thought about rhetoric that have been viewed differently by modern time scholars (Farnsworth 23). Ancient scholars viewed rhetoric as an art that involved pulling of masses through eloquent speaking. Most of the good and eloquent speakers were involved in politics and public lecture. Aristotle considered rhetoric as a counterpart of politics and logic. The ancient Western education system relied on training people to be good public speakers. People were also trained on how to capture and move audience. These were accompanied by technically crafted arguments which would convince a set audience to move their thoughts towards a certain direction. Aristotle mentioned a number of persuasive appeals which move on audience. These were ethos, logos and pathos. These were very useful in crafting, discovering, understanding and building argument for a set group audience (Farnsworth 33). Modern Rhetoric Unlike their predecessors, scholars and writers in the twentieth century tried to view rhetoric on different perspectives (Lloyd 32). There were critics and theorists whose ideas were heavily influenced on both sides by Sigmund Freud, Karl Max and Friedrich Nietzsche. Kenneth Burke was one of the theorists in the twentieth century. Burke read works of his predecessors who were critics, writes or thinkers. Of great importance to the works of Burke was that he refused to be restricted to certain standards and schools of thought set by his predecessors (Lawson 22). He sharply disagreed with Marxists who had dominated his era. Burke tried to view rhetoric in terms of symbols, which was essential to his career. He felt that rhetoric was supposed to help individuals to understand each other better (Lawson 29). This aspect of Burke’s view was significant due to the fact that he supposed this approach to the scrutiny of rhetoric could help individuals comprehend the causes of conflict. Burke further seeks to understand the positive and negative aspects of individuals co-operating. Problems in a human being were a result of the relationship between a human and symbols. He explained that most problems were a result of human beings being used by symbols. Burke proposed that when we blamed our intention on others, we relied on ratios which he described as the ‘dramatistic pentad’ (Michelini, 23). Burke considered communication as a critical method of action. The “dramatism” approach seeks to enable one explain his/her actions in relation to language as a primary mode of action. In one of his books, Burke defined mankind as a “symbol using animal” (Farnsworth 22). Burke tried to look at man as a failure if all the items he used in his day to day life were removed. He tried to identify some of these items, such as books, maps, atlases, magazines, which form the day to day life of man. These items are what shaped man’s view of what the world is. Without books, maps, magazines and atlases etc. the world would be seen as a less knowledgeable place. Burke argued that each system had its own rhetoric language. Lloyd Bitzer had a different view on rhetoric. He saw rhetoric as a response to a given time and situation. Good rhetoric not only involves eloquent speaking and writing but also one is expected to speak well on any topic given to him/her (Farnsworth 3). According to Bitzer, in any given rhetorical discourse there must be a previous rhetorical situation. This given rhetorical situation sets direction on what should be done at any given situation. Many circumstances exist but not all of them may be defined critically as rhetorical. Speech may never rectify problems but the action taken after is what will rectify given problems. Bitzer focused on the aspect of time in speech. With this focus he tried to focus on three aspects that may form rhetorical situation. First of all, Bitzer talked about the existence of problems which occur in all nations but could not be changed or rectified by human touch. Among these problems is death. Bitzer looked at these problems from the point of persuasion which involved the action of positive modification. Bitzer viewed these problems as aspects which could not be avoided but one could change the minds and views of these problems. The second point of Bitzer’s argument focused on his audience. Bitzer viewed his audience as the agent of change (Farnsworth 18). This could only be achieved by the audience getting the positive desired effects from the speaker. Bitzer argued that rhetoric discourse was supposed to promote this positive change in mind of audience. The world could be changed by people who had effectively got the views off the speaker thereby being active as good change mediators. Finally, Bitzer came up with the third aspect which he referred to as constraint. He viewed constraints as agent of resistance during the performance of people’s desire to bring change. These agents of constraints constituted our day to day encounters, such as the events we engage in, the objects we use in our day to day life and the relationship we have with our environment. All these were found to limit the judgment and actions of the agents of change. Kony Video In Kony video as of 2012, we get to see how rhetoric has played a pivotal role in moving the world to have a different view on the atrocities committed by the form of militia group in Uganda. In this film we get to see the use of instruments, voice and visual artistic expression to impact a true picture of the happenings in Uganda. The directors of this video viewed their audience as the potential agents of change. The video was made in such a way that it would capture the minds of their audience (Bitzer, 30). As we also view in this video, Bitzer `s first argument would not hold water as according to the direction of this video the problem is viewed as one that could be changed. Many positive responses have been seen worldwide. The responses have been positive to a very large extent but, according to Bitzer, constraints are always there. These constraints and limitations have limited these responses to sympathy and mere rhetoric (Burke, 34). According to Vatz, one has the power to choose and decide events which are of value to him/her. The directors of video chose whatever they thought was of value to be presented to their audience. In this case we see a conflict with Bitzer’s idea, since Bitzer insisted that one could only be driven by the power existing during a certain situation. Summary The world has slowly evolved in a communication society. Communication is central to all our day to day events. Rhetoric plays a key role in all our day to day lives (Farnsworth 57). The marketing of goods and services involves moving of an audience towards that direction. Learning in all educational institutions involves rhetoric. Over ancient times many theorists and intellectuals have argued on the scale of rhetoric (Michelini 25). As the world progresses, the scope of rhetoric is seen to broaden day by day. Many problems are being addressed through rhetorical discussion. Among ancient Greeks rhetoric was viewed as an effective political tool but over the years we have seen its definition expand to even greater roles in the society. Sophists argued that an excellent rhetoric speaker is able to talk credibly on any topic (Lawson 29). This essence supports the fact that rhetoric cannot only be used in political inclination but in a variety of ways in the modern world. It is largely agreed that rhetoric has a greater role to play in the current world and it should not be viewed in negative expressions but it is the agent of change in our society. Conclusion Plato sharply contrasted with the Sophists’ notion of persuasion existing as an independent aspect away from dialect (Michelini 42). Plato saw Sophists as people who simply flattered their audience. Plato advocated for rhetoric being truthful and aimed at educating and adding positive values to the desired audience. Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, argued that rhetoric and dialect could not be separated. He viewed both of them as being inseparable and, according to him, rhetoric was to follow the art of dialect. We see an agreement between Plato and Aristotle that dialect is actually an art of persuasion (Michelini 55). In summary, Aristotle came up with three elements that characterized rhetoric, namely, ethos, which was seen as the credibility of the speaker to move masses; pathos, which was seen as the effective use of speech to change the audience perception; and logos, which was seen as the use of subjective reasoning to craft on argument. Works Cited Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Siloam, 1969. Print. Farnsworth, Ward. Farnsworth’s Classical English Rhetoric. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2010. Print. Lawson, Hugh. The Art of Rhetoric. Amazon: Penguin Classics, 1996. Print Michelini, Ann. Plato as Author: The Rhetoric of Philosophy. New York: Brill Academic Pub, 2003. Print. Read More