Rhetoric Has Never Seemed More Overwhelming

Whew! Williams certainly gives his readers a lot of information to process. I have to say for starters that I found the history involved in the development of rhetoric itself to be interesting. I had never really considered the major connection between rhetoric and philosophy, or the many different definitions, purported origins, and uses of rhetoric. I have to confess, when I signed up for this course I didn’t give much in depth thought to the word “rhetoric.” I just thought, “Oh, a course that will teach me how to teach writing.” It’s an eye-opener to be introduced to how much history is behind that one word.

That being said….all of the history was a bit much for my poor concentration at times. I recognized familiar names, but found myself searching for the word “rhetoric” while reading about their battles, marriages and political takeovers. I can see how their personal and political history is tied to their influence in rhetoric or their use of it, but I felt too overloaded with information to see that connection at times, or to keep my focus on it.

For me, the connections were clearer with the three Sophists that were discussed than some of the later important figures. I was intrigued by these key points for each:

Protagorus – “Any argument for the relativity of truth and fact runs the risk of implicitly encouraging unscrupulous and unethical behavior” (11). I think when a lot of us think of rhetoric as used for persuasive methods we think of politicians (and what the hell, I’ll say it – corruption!). It makes you think about how dangerous words can be when used to sway the masses.

Gorgias – “He would argue a point vigorously in his demonstrations and then argue the opposite point just as vigorously…” (14). Reading this took me back to Elbow a little bit and when he suggested we play devil’s advocate with our writing. I think it’s a good strategy to use anytime you are delivering a speech or paper that involves a specific argument or point of view. By coming up with the arguments you might receive against it, you could discover some flaws in your own argument or questions you may have to prepare yourself to answer.

Isocrates – “Formal training can help those with natural aptitude and practical experience, but it can do little for those without ability…” (15). This quote brings up the whole ‘natural ability vs. acquired ability’ debate. Can someone who practices and practices writing poetry be as good or better than someone who has a natural gift for it but may not apply themselves?

Even though Peter Ramus boiled down rhetoric to style and delivery, it still seems a rather broad and controversial topic to me, particularly after absorbing this reading.

My questions are: After learning all the history that is behind rhetoric, what do you think is a good way to chisel it down and explain it to writers in a basic way? Do you personally feel that rhetoric is an art or a science….or both?