Rhetoric

The field of rhetoric includes a long, complex history and tradition, including the classical rhetoric of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian all the way to the present day. An attempt to define rhetoric can be just as complex as its history, as caution must be taken to avoid a definition that is too restrictive. Perhaps the simplest and most accurate definition of rhetoric is that it is a form of communication that includes both the art and practice of effective speaking and writing, often with the intent of persuasion. This wide-ranging field produces rich areas of research to be cultivated by communication scholars. In this entry, how rhetoric shapes reality, as well as the intent behind rhetoric, is examined, followed by a discussion of rhetorical criticism and methods of rhetorical examination.

It is important to recognize that rhetoric helps constitute our reality. In other words, rhetoric operates as constitutive of reality, of identities, and of knowledge. All rhetoric exhorts individuals to be something rather than another. Directing one’s attention one way rather than another is a value judgment. Language is not a neutral way to evaluate people, events, and worldviews, but instead acts to create the world around us. Only by recognizing this function of language is it possible to move to a deeper understanding of how a text functions.

The study of rhetoric should not focus on the intent of a rhetor; for example, did the speaker mean to do x, y, or z? Figuring out the intentionality of a speaker cannot be definitively proven. Take the example of someone at a party stating, “My glass is empty.” As Robert L. Scott noted, multiple different interpretations exist for what “my glass is empty” could be intended to mean. Intent then not only becomes unknowable, but asks a wrong question altogether. Instead, rhetorical analysis focuses on symbol use, persuasion, and constitutive elements of discourse.