|
An
Explanation of Rhetoric, Propaganda, and Your Writing in College
On the local news the other day, I heard an interview with a woman on
the
street about one of the presidential candidates. She complained,
“Why doesn’t he just tell us the truth? All he gives us is
political rhetoric.” The
“r”-word, as it is commonly used, has
some highly negative connotations: of hollowness, calculation, even
deceit. And, indeed, the ancient art and science of
argumentation and discourse is often used unethically, its power
harnessed to
persuade an audience to accept an idea or to take an action that is not
in its best interest or not based on solid evidence.
Yet, in truth, rhetoric, assuming that truth is not stable or
monolithic, is the most effective means used to get diverse, disputing
factions closer to accepting common truths, using words and
non-violent actions. “Look,
Buddy, if you aren’t willing to talk this through, I’m going to have to
clock you on the head.” I would argue that, without
rhetoric, democracy would screech to a halt, leaving us with
nothing but brute force or war to resolve our differences.
Rhetoric serves as a guide for those who disagree to find the
most logical conclusion, based upon mutual assumptions and solid
evidence.
We are “rhetors” when we communicate using any of the tools available
to us to convince others of what we think or believe, and, if asked, we
might identify ourselves as “rhetoricians” when we study the way
rhetoric works. We are all rhetors sometimes and often we are
rhetoricians. Even animals use their own brands of rhetoric, I
suppose. For example, when the hungry dog stands by her food bowl
and whines asking us to we feed her, she is a rhetor. We are
persuaded to feed her because a) we have been made aware she needs food
and b) she has appealed to our sense of responsibility for her by
whining. (What if when she grew hungry she growled and menaced or
simply took a bite out of our legs instead? Would she get what
she wanted?) Perhaps, she is also a rhetorician for she has learned
what approach is most effective in helping her accomplish her purpose
when she is addressing her audience, us. We reason with her by
offering her a reward if she does as we ask her to do. One author
recently noted that dogs are the most successful social parasite in
human history, finding millions of comfortable homes by persuading us
that they love us and thus deserve our support. Rex, a parasite
with rhetorical skills? Could it be true?
In all seriousness, human beings have achieved dominance on the planet
(and indeed the
luxury of being able to provide for dogs) thanks to our spoken,
written, and iconographic communication, for it enables us, more than
any other creature, to exploit our environment and each other.
While this effect like all things has both positives and negatives
depending on how you look at it, we
could never have developed our sophisticated technology, for example,
without being able to describe to the next generation how to make
things. Some genius might have thought of stone tools and even
made one, but the advance might have ended there. Likewise, we could
never have formed tribes, communities, societies, science, nations,
economies, religions, or the global village without talking to each
other.
In Western Culture during the Golden Age of Greece, the study of
rhetoric began along with the concept of democracy, or government by
the people. Power was no longer located solely in one’s ability
to overpower one’s opponent with force or outhunt him or even outfarm
him; it now rested in one’s ability to craft effective arguments that
could sway the people toward one position or another, ideally by
arriving at and then effectively communicating the most logical
conclusions. Debate developed as a process of arriving at such
conclusions in a systematic way and it allowed civilization to thrive,
for it enabled a relative peace to be established, with most disputes
within communities to be settled without bloodshed.
Rhetoric thus begins when those who disagree with one another put down
their swords and agree to seek a mutually satisfactory resolution to
what divides them. It begins with the assumption that both sides
have a basis for their differing positions and that for the debate to
get anywhere the two sides have to acknowledge one another, listen to
one another, and adjust any argument to appeal to the other side.
Even when two rhetors appear to have unresolvable differences, they can
usually find some basic premise that they both hold in common and they
can build from there toward a common answer to the issue that seperates
them. In healthy debate, both sides assume that a conclusion that
emerges from rational discussion can be true for both parties.
Rhetoricians in their study of how rhetoric can be used to reach
logical, shared conclusions discovered at the very beginning, however,
how
rhetoric can be used to distort the facts and cloud the debate with
emotion. We tend to be susceptible to weak logic and can be
persuaded by all sorts of weak arguments that distract us from the
pursuit of the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.
These weaknesses are called logical fallacies, and they are the reason
rhetoric has negative connotations. Understanding logical
fallacies is at the heart of critical reading, for if one does not
understand them one can fall victim to them.
Logical fallacies are also often what makes propaganda effective.
Propaganda I will define as any form of mass communication designed by
a
faction that is attempting to manipulate the perceptions of others for
its own agenda, often without real interest in the
other group's perspectives or in the truth. Propaganda has the
capacity to bring peaceful people to war, even genocide, if that is the
intention of the propagandists. For a horrifying example of this
look at the Nazi propaganda machine that propelled the Gernan people
toward the commission of the Holocaust. We are never immune to
logical fallacies or to propaganda. We must remain vigilant by
thinking critically and thus preserve the liberty to think and act
reasonably.
Rhetoric, in the good sense, is in the marrow of good academic writing,
the kind that you will do in college, where your success will be
determined on your ability to reach sound conclusions based on solid
evidence and then communicate them to a skeptical audience.
Since in academia, ideas are in direct competition for the assent of
others and some ideas will receive it
from their audiences while others will not,
audiences come to share
points of view on the strengths of the arguments they are
presented. Recognize
that even the most convincing
arguments for answers to complex questions are not likely to remain so
for
very long.
In no matter which discipline you work, you can take pleasure in what
you write, in the strength of
your thinking, and in your contribution to
the ever-evolving human
conversation. A good essay should show us your
mind reveling in the human
trait of inquiry, in finding conclusions and
supporting them with
evidence, and in anticipating the skepticism of a chosen
audience. Academic writing
should not ever have to be without joy. Remember that.
Let's begin with the premise that good writing of the joyous kind
involves more work, more
finesse, and more intelligence than deciding what
content to pour into a
5-paragraph mould; it is about making intelligent
rhetorical choices. Learning
how to make these choices and how others make them
is a never-ending process as you endeavor to develop a more complex
understanding of writing,
critical thinking, and the arts of persuasion.
|
|
