SPCH 1315 Homework 1

As unkind as legend may be to the memory of Corax, Aristotle takes him seriously enough to criticize his approach to probability in some detail. The topic of probability, grounded as it was in a quite pragmatic situation, nevertheless suggested to later sophists that objective truth may always be difficult if not impossible to find. What we take to be the truth, the meaning we find in things, is often the product of our own symbolizing. Reality is often the projection of our own interpretations, expectations, and fantasies. This idea continues to resonate in contemporary philosophical disputes about the relationship between discourse and reality and the limitations of scientific investigation.

A second major contribution of Corax was that he developed a four-part pattern for the arrangement of forensic speeches:

1. Introduction, in which speakers conciliate listeners and establish identification with them;

2. Narration, in which speakers tell their stories of disputed events clearly and vividly in order to convey an impression of reality:

3. Argument, in which speakers interpret the meaning of these events, imputing good and bad motives as appropriate, and presenting proofs to support their interpretations;

4. Conclusion or peroration, in which speakers summarize the main points of the cases, paint the consequences of favor- able or unfavorable decisions by the juries, and plead for favorable verdicts.

Corax seems to have been an astute, practical observer. He left ideas of lasting value behind him, especially this notion that speeches should have a strategic pattern of development. You will find much in your text about the importance of effective form and how to achieve it in various speech situations. 

Gorgias

Gorgias, an orator who could hold crowds spellbound with his eloquence, brought the new art of public discourse from Sicily to Athens, where both he and it quickly became the rage. Gorgias remains interesting to us for two reasons: first, his skepticism about truth and knowledge, and second, his emphasis on verbal artistry.

As a skeptic, Gorgias followed in the tradition of Corax, who found truth to be elusive and who taught orators to create instead the appearance of truth. For Gorgias, the uncertain nature of truth in land disputes was a metaphor for the status of truth in general; truth was at best, he thought, a shadow, an appearance, an illusion. Gorgias argued (1 ) that truth, if it exists, is divine and infinite, outside place and time. But (2), if truth does exist in this way, then it is impossible for humans to know it, for we exist within space and time. So (3), if we cannot know truth, then we cannot possibly communicate about it.

It is interesting to observe the parallels between Gorgias and modern philosophers such as the Existentialists, who emphasize the meaninglessness of our lives unless and until we create the meaning. But unlike the despair in which such thinking appears to end, Gorgias saw positive, even heroic implications. He felt that through words, people can create a community of values, ideals, and purposes. Against a background of nothingness, Gorgias insists on the human power to build reality through the resources of language. Words become the torches we hold up against the darkness that surrounds our lives. Gorgias went on to examine the power of words, and founded that branch of rhetorical study known as style, presented in more detail in Chapter 10 of your text.

Gorgias's approach to word power raises serious questions. If there is no objective reality against which we can test the accuracy and honesty of many words, then language may be used to deceive us. Contemporary scholars have identified certain forms of linguistic power to which we may be especially vulnerable. Such words may command us by their connection with our values, as in "Progress demands that we go forward with this plan”. Other powerful words seem licensed by our political faith to give fateful orders; for example, "We must be willing to die to defend freedom and the American way." Still others associate with natural experiences that move all humans, such as, "This plan will carry us out of the darkness of today into the light of tomorrow." Words undeniably have the heroic potential Gorgias portrayed, but they also can betray us. As students of public communication, we must learn how to identify the one form of usage and guard against the other. And for this recognition we owe a considerable debt to Gorgias.

Protagoras

Protagoras follows in the skeptical tradition of Corax and Gorgias. If truth is unknowable and meaning is but a construction of our own symbols, then, concluded Protagoras, "Man is the Measure of all Things." This memorable statement summarizes the sophistic point of view while it celebrates our capacity to create a world of values and judgments. Therefore, it also heralds the philosophical and ethical tradition of humanism, which places humanity at the moral center of the universe. Humanists concentrate on how to improve peoples' lives and how to enhance and enlarge their moral and spiritual natures.

Protagoras had to confront a serious problem: If truth is humanmade through communication, then truth must also be an uncertain, precarious product. It must change with time and circumstance and be subject to errors of prejudice and logic. If this is so, how can we have any confidence that the truth we are accepting at the moment is justified? To answer this troubling question, Protagoras suggested the discipline of debate, which tests all claims to truth against competing claims in open encounters before audiences qualified to decide which is superior and inferior. Since debate reveals errors of information, logic, and argument, then debate can help improve our thinking. Truth claims that can survive such rigorous challenge are most worthy of our trust. Thus skepticism had found its method, its means of dealing with the problem of redefining truth as a human invention. For Protagoras, no truth claim was sacred, above the possible indignity of refutation. 

Protagoras had his critics, both in public and in intellectual life. Many suggested that he was a heretic, since he encouraged, or at least tolerated, debates about the divinity of the gods. Socrates charged that Protagoras emphasized winning debates over any truth-values they might have. But the sophists answered that the prevailing point of view in disputes was the truth, and that debate disciplined the process by which truth was discovered.

Despite such criticisms, the students of Protagoras enjoyed many benefits from his instruction. He made education exciting, filled with conflict and color. On a deeper level, he taught students the virtues of caution and tolerance. If truth was human- made and fallible, then one must be very careful before committing to a side in conflict. If people often differ in their perceptions of issues, and "right" and "wrong" are products of a point of view, then one should be more broad-minded in understanding the commitments of others. Those educated in the tradition of Protagoras recognize that truth is elusive--you cannot capture it like fireflies in a bottle. Right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, rarely line up on opposing sides, and choices are often not simple and easy. Rather, contending sides usually have their own versions of truth and morality. The difficulty of choosing between them is that we must reject and lose the values and virtues of the one even as we endorse the values and virtues of the other.

One problem with the skeptical attitude toward truth is that it can discourage us from making any deep commitment to a point of view. We can develop the disease of indecision. Another problem is that debate can lead us to see only two sides of an issue, those that are most clearly in conflict. This two-valued orientation can cause us to ignore or overlook other actions that might bridge the opposing sides and gain the advantages of both. For example, in the debates between industrialists and environmentalists, what may be needed is an option that would emphasize protecting the environment as an industry, devising technology to counteract the ravages of humankind. If we are too emersed in the debate perspective, we might miss that kind of creative option.

Despite such problems, the ideas of Protagoras have enriched our culture. The discipline of debate is built into our democratic political systems and into all intellectual systems that value inquiry and discourage blind conformity to ideas. Protagoras taught us to discipline verbal conflict so that it might become productive and helped us manage the responsibilities of freedom.

Thrasymachus

Different sophists reacted in different ways to the central insight that truth outside any human agency is essentially unknowable. In contrast to Protagoras, who sought to perfect the human way of constructing truth, Thrasymachus framed an ethical response.

If humans cannot enjoy divine truth, they should emphasize personal power. Powerful people, thought Thrasymachus, enjoy lives of influence and fulfillment.

In pursuit of power, Thrasymachus offered his students practical instruction. Rather than focus on the content of speeches, he emphasized the impression speakers make in their presentation. He especially stressed the importance of a pleasing rhythm in vocal patterns, suggesting also that those who sound confident and knowledgeable, whose voices are commanding, and whose gestures are dramatic, usually succeed before audiences. He also emphasized stirring and engaging the emotions of listeners, an important key to rhetorical power. While such techniques are often criticized, ethically sound, well-conceived messages often seek to move listeners, in addition to courting their rational consent. Speakers must often overcome a certain inertia in listeners: even when audience members are convinced, they may not wish to act. At that moment, lessons drawn from the tradition of Thrasymachus may be quite useful.

Thrasymachus also contributed to the growing interest in style. He may have explored the concept of what we now call the trope, that is, a powerful figure of speech that can give distinction and originality to the spoken word. Tropes like the metaphor ("Her words flamed with feeling") or the synecdoche ("'The tongue is more powerful than the arm") can make ideas more memorable and influential. Modern literary and rhetorical scholars have extended and deepened the concept of the trope. For example, Kenneth Burke has identified certain "master tropes" as major ways of presenting subjects." The metaphor "flamed" in the above example gives us a unique perspective on how the speaker spoke by using new and surprising language instead of an expected word. By using parts to represent the whole, the synecdoche "tongue" and "arm" illustrate a complex idea, the comparative strength of eloquence and of physical force in most situations. More than devices of decoration and impressiveness, Burke noted, such tropes are the mold of our creativity. Thrasymachus had discovered a very rich concept for exploration as he sought to enhance the power of speakers.

Isocrates

While Thrasymachus sought personal' power in place of truth, Isocrates found a loftier alternative. Isocrates wished to build an ideal society among the Greek peoples he loved. He wanted his students to think not so much of personal gain as of the

contribution they might make to civilization through the wisdom and selflessness of their words. His attitude toward the civic power of speech is indicated eloquently in the following quotation:

Because there has been implanted in us the power to persuade each other and to make clear to each other whatever we desire, not only have we escaped the life of the wild beasts, but we have come together and founded cities and made laws and invented arts; and, generally speaking, there is no institution devised by man which the power of speech has not helped us to establish ."

It followed that those who spoke well would be the natural leaders of society.

In pursuit of his civic vision, Isocrates built the most influential school of his day, one that became the prototype for many practices in the modern university. For example, he screened his students carefully with respect to natural ability. Because speaking before the Athenian courts and assemblies was so stressful, Isocrates also required that his students demonstrate courage and vocal strength. He expected them to stay with him for three or four years of intense training. They would get a liberal arts education, which included acknowledge of Greek culture as well as theories of writing and speaking. He required students to write themes applying the principles they had learned, and he criticized them closely, from the ideas they developed to the wording they used. He also worked with them on presentational skills, drilling them until the idea of addressing the difficult Greek audiences would hold no terror for them. Finally, he would take them into the marketplace to present "recital" speeches before live audiences. No doubt some stumbled over this last barrier, but others would sleep into leadership positions in the state. Then Isocrates could watch with pride as his prize students helped enact his vision of a greater Greece. Old Man Eloquent, he was called. He knew that the Greece of his day was a miracle, and that it was worth spending one's life to make a contribution to its quality. That was his answer to the tragic condition described by the sophists. 

The Sophists in Overview

The five sophists we have considered can all be viewed in response to the central idea that humans make their own truth.

Corax recognized that probability, not absolute truth, must be the goal of the speaker in an uncertain world and showed how forensic speeches should be artfully arranged. Gorgias emphasized our creative, even heroic, capacity to create a world of meaningful values and goals. He emphasized the importance of words as tools to build a universe of shared meaning. Protagoras confronted a problem central to the sophistic position: in a world of relativistic

truth, how can we know whom to trust, or whose version of truth to accept? His answer was the discipline of debate, deliberately confronting contending claims to see how well they stood up

under the ordeal of verbal conflict.

Thrasymachus believed that if all truth was transitory and changing, then humans could enjoy only the power of their own abilities with words and the success they might achieve. He emphasized presentational skills and impressive language that could arouse the emotions of listeners. Isocrates emphasized communal over individual values, teaching the power of speech so that his students might become leaders of the Greek world. Of the five considered, he was the greatest educator, leaving a heritage of excellence to challenge all teachers who would follow. His influence can be seen in the idea of the modern university, especially in its emphasis on liberal arts education as the foundation of all knowledge.

Through the work of these and other sophists, a body of knowledge on public communication began to accumulate. It was in need, however, of some master intellect who would organize it, fill in its empty places, and shape its overall meaning. That master

intellect was Aristotle, and his treatise is called On Rhetoric.

Aristotle's Ideas on Public Communication

Aristotle wrote the Rhetoric around the middle of the fourth century B.C. near the end of the Golden Age. Thus he had the advantage of all the theoretical work that had been done during

the century before and was in an ideal position to complete, integrate, refine, and place in perspective those ideas about human communication.

It would be a mistake, however, to think of the Rhetoric merely as an advanced expression of the work of the sophists. Aristotle began, with a premise fundamentally different from that of

sophistic rhetoric. He was not especially concerned with the existence or nonexistence of ideal truth, nor was he interested in public communication's work in constructing the meaning of life.

Rather, Aristotle had the mind of a scientist, asking questions such as "What can we learn by observing life around us?" It is this spirit of inquiry and curiosity that breathes through the

Rhetoric. And by the quality of his perceptions and interpretations, Aristotle lifted the study of communication until it became the serious subject for learning and research that it remains today.

Definition of Rhetoric

Rather than focusing on problems such as how to organize a speech or make a more effective presentation, Aristotle starts with the nature of the mind as it encounters problems of communication. "Let Rhetoric," he wrote, "[be defined as] the ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion." With this definition Aristotle posed a considerable intellectual challenge for public communicators. The capacity to see the available means of persuasion in each case may imply:

1. that speakers must understand the nature of persuasion, including all techniques, processes, or proofs that might advance it;

2. that speakers must understand their own cultures, including the myths, legends, faith, or prejudices that can affect specific controversies;

3. that speakers must understand the general needs and susceptibilities that persuasion can satisfy;

4. that speakers must understand the immediate pressures, fears, dreams, and hopes that motivate particular audiences who must decide specific cases;

5. that speakers must know the extent to which they enjoy the trust, respect, and liking of their listeners;

6. that speakers must know all the details of cases, and the range of possible strategies that might be used both for and against different positions on them;

7. that speakers must understand their own strengths and weaknesses as communicators, recognizing which techniques, proofs, arguments, or appeals are suitable in light of these abilities and limitations;

8. that speakers must understand the strengths and limitations of the communication media of their time. For example, in our contemporary culture, should political candidates with limited budgets buy large amounts of radio time or small amounts of television time to present their messages? Should candidates choose to speak on radio or television, or should they emphasize written messages in newspaper ads? Such questions would have been "Greek" to Aristotle, but nevertheless come up when we consider the enduring and expanding applications of his definition.

Aristotle's definition not only implied the wide range of rhetorical knowledge needed but also suggested the many ways public communicators could improve their abilities, from learning more about the times in which they lived to developing the strength and variety of their voices and gestures. The definition anticipates the position that the Roman speaker and writer Cicero would strike some three centuries later in his classic treatise De Oratore. There Cicero describes ideal speakers as those who are broadly conversant with the knowledge and culture of their times as well as adept in the arts of oratory.

Finally, Aristotle's definition leads to the study of rhetoric as a critical as well as a productive study. The critic can ask how well certain speakers apply the available means of persuasion in particular cases. All in all, the definition suggests that the study of public speaking should aim at developing an educated sensitivity to what is possible and not possible in specific communication situations.

Forms of Rhetorical Expression

As Aristotle studied the public communication around him, certain major forms of rhetorical expression seemed obvious to him. His classification system, exhaustive for his time, is still useful today, despite the many changes since his era. Aristotle described three basic forms of public communication: forensic speaking, which was used in the courts; deliberative speaking, which was used in the assembly; and epideictic speaking, which was used during ceremonies. All of these forms are related to the presentation of time.

Forensic Speaking. The speaking that took place in the Athenian courts sought to reconstruct the past in search of justice. As we learned from the sophists, speakers would "tell the story"

as they saw it, relating events that might influence the jury's decision. They supported their narratives with evidence, proofs, and arguments designed to make the jury believe them. They would also expound on the characters of those involved in the disputes. For example, to support charges of wrong-doing, speakers would depict the accused as persons capable of committing such crimes. To support pleas of innocence, defendants would reveal their own characters in a sympathetic light, making it seem improbable that such fine citizens could have committed the alleged deeds. Because actual events often could not be recovered in any objective way, all the jury had to go on were these subjective stories, which offered sharply opposed accounts of what had happened.

As speakers struggled to convince juries, Aristotle observed that they often used a form of reasoning he called the enthymeme (or rhetorical syllogism). The enthymeme applied deductive logic in the dusty world of passionate, contending persuasions. Put in its simplest form, the enthymeme starts with a major premise, some general belief or conclusion, even prejudice, that the jury already accepts, such as, "People always want more of a good

thing" or "You can't trust Macedonians". The first of these examples demonstrates what Aristotle called a universal topic of argument, a belief held presumably by all persons. The second example demonstrates a specific or special topic of argument, held only by the people within the culture represented by the jury. Speakers, Aristotle observed, sometimes don't even have to mention or reinforce the major premise. They can simply assume that it exists already, embedded in the minds of their listeners and ready to be activated in support of an argument.

The second step of an enthymeme was to establish the minor premise, some specific statement or claim that relates to the major premise. In the examples offered, a speaker might say, "Hector saw the gold and wanted it" or "Hector is a Macedonian." Usually the minor remise would be stated and often would be the point of dispute. Was the gold actually there, and, if

so, did Hector see it? Were there other things on Hector's mind besides gold? Was he indeed a Macedonian, and if so, were there trustworthy Macedonians one might mention that would form exceptions to the prejudice and weaken its force? There was good reason to dispute the minor premise, for if it stood, and if the major premise was accepted without question, then the conclusion must follow: "Hector stole the gold" or "You can't trust Hector." Aristotle saw correctly that the enthymeme is typically the center of contention in forensic rhetoric.

Deliberative Speaking. Speaking that occurs in the assembly the legislature, town meeting, or executive board room-seeks to mold the future. Deliberative speaking is a creative form that

encourages control of our lives through careful planning. For example, the question "How can we sustain and rebuild the world's forests?" could prompt deliberative speaking to design a useful plan.

We noted that the reasoning used in forensic speaking is largely deductive, drawing conclusions from the connections between general and specific premises. In contrast, the reasoning used in deliberative speaking is mainly inductive; that is, people make decisions about which plans to adopt largely by considering what has already worked. Inductive reasoning surveys a range of relevant previous experiences and draws conclusions on the basis

of that information. This is why Aristotle identified the example as the technique most essential to deliberative speaking. If you wished to recommend a worldwide reforestation plan, you might

cite similar plans in West Virginia, Montana, and Oregon. These examples would serve as models from which you could draw both caution and encouragement.

It is clear, Aristotle remarked in a slightly cynical spirit, that when people reconstruct the events of the past they can indulge in the luxury of moral judgments. But when they think of

designing the future, they emphasize instead the twin criteria of expediency and practicality. "Will the plan work? and "Can we afford it?" are the kinds of questions deliberative speakers ask. Nevertheless, Aristotle thought, deliberative speaking deserved more honor and attention than it had received in his day. The past has already moved on, but we can control the future.

C eremonial Speaking. Possibly the least satisfying part of Aristotle's Rhetoric is his treatment of epideictic speaking that takes place during public ceremonies. He remarks rather sourly that the function of such speaking is to exhibit the orator's skill. He mentions no other social significance for it.

Now, in the spirit of Protagoras, let us consider a sharply opposing view, the possibility that ceremonial speaking may actually be the most vital of these forms. We begin by considering the importance of social ceremonies, especially of historic moments such as Pericles' Funeral Oration or Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or even, occasionally, of our own presidential inaugural addresses. The business of these significant rituals, we maintain, is that they define the social fabric, the vital values, dreams, and myths that create a sense of community. Such speaking spans time as it seeks to describe the ongoing community. Thus Pericles explained-for all time to come-what it meant to be an Athenian. Lincoln defined the American political dream of government "of the people, by the people, for the people, leaving his own deep imprint on our values and redefining the spirit of the American Constitution for succeeding generations. The transcendent importance of such speaking is that it can establish the master premises by which people live, evaluate the past, and map their futures. Therefore, ceremonial speaking can provide the foundation for deductive argument in forensic and deliberative speaking and in this sense can be the most important form of public address. Without successful ceremonial speaking, the people remain divided, and there is no sense of shared heritage to light

the way into the future.

As we noted earlier, Aristotle somehow missed this deeper significance of ceremonial utterance. Perhaps it was because the sophists, many of whom were not Athenians and were therefore banned from speaking in the assembly, often concentrated on this form and excelled in it. Isocrates especially, whose excellent school was in direct competition with Aristotle's, developed masterful model ceremonial speeches. Whatever the reason for this unusual and atypical insensitivity, Aristotle did identify the technique most characteristic of such speaking. It was, he said, the image, the ability to paint vivid pictures of vice and virtue, heroism and villainy so colorfully that they remain etched in the minds of listeners. We know now that these images are more than just verbal pictorial art; rather, they are moral pictures that help bring home the nature of the social contract. Just as the Statue of Liberty expresses the idea of liberty in concrete form, they are icons that can give to vital abstractions the sense of living reality.

Aristotle's Forms as Functions. There is one other important point we should not miss about Aristotle's classification of the forms of speaking. While for him these remained separate kinds

of speech, it is easy to see how the forms often work together within a single speech as integrated functions. Thus we may judge the past, direct the future, and celebrate social identity, all within the same speech. Enthymeme, example, and image can reinforce one another. As you listen to speeches in class, be alert for these interacting forensic, deliberative, and ceremonial elements.

A Theory of Proofs

What is it that strengthens enthymemes, validates examples, and authenticates images when they are under attack? What makes a speech credible? Aristotle found answers to these questions in his theory of proofs, which you will find explained in greater detail in Chapter 14 of your text. Here we will simply introduce an important contribution of the Rhetoric.

Logos (substantive proof). One important way to make claims credible is to support them with logical and substantive proofs, based on factual evidence and expert testimony. Logos was the

source of proof preferred by Aristotle, because he wished to, encourage public address as a rational enterprise among thinking, people. Such proof, he said, originates in the speech itself.

Ethos (personal proof). A second vital form of proof, ethos, originates in the perceived character of the speaker. Is the speaker, someone who is trustworthy, knowledgeable, and likeable? If so,

the speaker's word may be enough to prove the point. Though logicians often classify such proof as a fallacy (argument adhominem), Aristotle recognized that the character of the speaker is a legitimate concern. In our time, when the facts are often complex and hard to determine for ourselves, and when television brings speakers "up close and personal" for our inspection, the

importance of ethos has been magnified several times.

Pathos (emotional proof). The third form of proof, pathos, grows out of the feelings of listeners. Aristotle discusses at some length how speakers can engage people's emotions successfully, developing in effect a practical psychology. Thus he refined and developed the line of thinking we encountered in Thrasymachus. Contemporary scholars have explored the emotional depths of audiences in great detail. To accommodate their findings we suggest in Chapter 14 a division between proofs that activate personal emotions (such as anger, fear, and shame) and those that tap into group or social emotions (patriotic feelings connected with legends, traditions,

faiths of the culture). We call the latter mythos, maintaining the parallelism of Aristotle's classification.

The range and breadth of Aristotle's observations on the natureof proof remain valid and will be useful as long as humans themselves remain essentially unchanged.

Beyond Aristotle

This brief account only begins to suggest the depth and wisdom of Aristotle's Rhetoric. For example, his emphasis on the consideration of listeners in the design of persuasion pointed up

the importance of audience analysis and adaptation, long before Donald C. Bryant's memorable description of rhetoric as the "adjustment of ideas to people and of people to ideas." The influence of the Rhetoric has spread across the centuries.

An immediate impact was that Aristotle's work set the agenda of contributions by the Roman rhetoricians. For example, Cicero's description of rhetoric as "an art made up of five great arts" seems a logical extension of the Rhetoric. Cicero identified these arts as (1) invention, the discovery and selection of ideas, themes, and lines of argument for a speech; (2) arrangement, placing these ideas in the most advantageous order; (3) style, expressing these

ideas in the most effective language; (4) memory, filing these ideas away in the mind according to a system so that they can be easily recalled; and (5) delivery, bringing the ideas to life before

audiences. Cicero's approach would remain the dominant theme of rhetorical education for many centuries. Additionally, the Roman educator Quintilian was influenced by Aristotle's account of ethos, such that he even defined the orator (in the sexist language of his time) as

"a good man skilled in speaking.

Beyond the Roman period, we can only sketch some of the

exciting developments that would follow in the spirit of Aristotle. We could devote a chapter, for example, to the story of how Christianity, under the guidance of St. Augustine, took over these pagan ideas, which began in such an atmosphere of scepticism about divine truth, and put them to work for the conversion of souls and the propagation of the new faith. In the Middle Ages we could show how the study of rhetoric joined grammar and logic to form the center of liberal arts education. And we cannot even begin to suggest the revolution in human communication that would come with the Renaissance and on into the modern era. All

we can say is that with the help of many theorists, practitioners, and educators, especially during the Greek period, humanity had ventured a long way from the campfire. But we still must use words to light fires against the darkness that somehow always threatens our extinction.

Plato's Challenge

Before leaving the classical era, we must consider an ethical challenge to rhetoric posed by Aristotle's teacher, Plato. It is said that the young Plato was an attractive, popular person who seemed destined to play an important part in political life. His early dialogue, Gorgias, may represent a personal struggle between a political career and the life of a philosopher. In that dialogue, the private life of the philosopher wins out over the public life of the politician, and in the process Plato comes to some depressing conclusions about public communication. The only reason Plato can see for wanting to be a politician is that one might make some contribution to public life by elevating the souls and minds of people. But, Plato observed, people in general don't want to be improved. They prefer speakers who flatter them, who make them comfortable in their ignorance, and who articulate their prejudices and desires. Plato also believed that people are generally incapable of making good, farsighted decisions, espe-

cially when they must give up some short-term advantage. They even resent and reject those who try to make them confront such decisions. Therefore, politicians must be either quite cynical or quite limited, perhaps both. They must be willing to play the role of panderer, not teacher, and must be able to sleep well at night after uttering words that reinforce evil attitudes or invite unwise decisions.

These considerations led Plato to assume an undemocratic, elitist posture. Freedom of speech for him was inconceivable. Its sole result would be simply to unleash the great beast (which is how he pictured public opinion). According to Plato, people must be controlled, not liberated. Words like "liberty" and "equality, which have become almost sacred in the Western tradition, would have repelled him. Power must be reserved for the few, the enlightened philosopher-kings, not distributed among the people. With this dark vision, Plato had no choice but to reject a public life and public communication itself.

Later in his life, Plato revisited the subject of rhetoric in his dialogue, Phaedrus, and his views seem to have moderated. In the later dialogue Plato concedes that there can be a more noble speech when it is informed by philosophy and when it tries to lead people gradually toward knowledge. Plato compares this process to an ideal love relationship, in which the lover seeks to lift the beloved toward a better life. The speaker must be content with small gains, for the process of evolving toward divine knowledge must be slow indeed. But at least rhetoric has a positive role to play and is pictured in a cooperative not adversarial relationship with philosophy. At the heart of rhetoric, Plato says, is an understanding of people, of what they know and are capable of knowing, and of how to move them successfully from the one state

to the other.

Despite the beauty of the Phaedrus and the loveliness of its vision, there remain some serious problems. For one thing, Plato continues to place people in a rigid class structure in which some are clearly superior and others inferior. The dream of equality that later would inspire Lincoln at Gettysburg remains foreign to him. Moreover, despite the cooperative roles he finds for philosophy and rhetoric, the former remains superior to the latter: first one must find the truth (philosophy), then communicate it to others (rhetoric). This introduced a kind of class snobbery into the tradition of knowledge as well. Moreover, such a view may be deluded as well as arrogant, because it suggests that philosophers may not be susceptible to rhetoric themselves as they seek knowledge. Many contemporary scholars would dispute that

assumption.

Despite such limitations, Plato does leave us with a formidable ethical challenge. Can we build a credo for public communication that captures the ideal of loving speech painted in the Phaedrus without the troubling elitism of that vision? Can we-in our own practice-combine both rhetorical skills and ethical sensitivity? Can we, for example, respect the responsibility and right of listeners to form their own judgments in light of the evidence and conclusions we put before them? And can we remember that our public speaking participates in creating that symbolic environment in which we all must live, and especially remember our personal responsibility not to pollute that environment with ill-informed and exploitive speech? These are questions we should remember as we develop our knowledge and proficiency in public speaking.

Terms to Know

forensic speech

deliberative speech

ceremonial speech

communication symbol

language

rhetorical theory

style

debate

two-valued orientation

trope

enthymeme

major premise

universal topic of argument

special topic of argument

minor premise

conclusion

example

epideictic speaking

master premises

image

logos

ethos

pathos

mythos

Discussion

1. What are the limitations and advantages of our tendency to live among groups? Can we reconcile this impulse with our political emphasis on individualism?

2. What would be the effect of requiring today's citizens to present their own cases in court? Would you favor such a system?

3. National Issues Forums, an organization allied with the Kettering Foundation, promotes a return to the "town meeting” concept of democratic self-government, encouraging more direct participation in the formation of public policy. Some politicians have advocated a nationwide system of electronic town meetings to encourage similar participation. Do you favor more direct participation by citizens in government? Does the representative system we have developed serve our needs adequately?

4. Explain the charisma enjoyed by the words "progress," "freedom" and "the American way."

Can you think of other words or phrases that enjoy unusual persuasive appeal? How do we

guard against abuses of such power?

5. Observe a congressional policy debate on the C-Span network and note the process by which defects in logic and evidence are uncovered. Do the speakers feature criteria of expediency and

practicality? Do they emphasize inductive reasoning and the use of example? Which of the contending sides prevails, in your opinion, and why? Does the debate reveal the truth? On the

basis of your study, do you agree with Aristotle's analysis of deliberative speaking?

6. Thrasymachus thought speakers gained power by emphasizing presentational skills and impressive languge over content. Do you agree? Might this rule vary from situation to situation?

Explain.

7. Study a ceremonial speech celebrating some event, either local or national. Can you detect the process of building social meaning? Does the speaker promote certain master premises?

What images does the speaker depict?

8. Think of our most recent national election. Would Plato's critique of public communication apply to what you saw and heard during the campaign? How might we improve the

quality of campaign discourse?

Application

1. Study a recent controversy and form an inventory of "the available means of persuasion"

on the opposing sides. Use the eight kinds of knowledge implied by Aristotle's definition of rhetoric as a checklist. Assume you must give a speech favoring one of these sides to an uncommitted audience. Which of these "available means" would you use, why, and how?

Present your inventory and your speech plan in class.

2. As the early Greeks learned, arguments over land ownership and use can become quite heated and complicated. Attend land-use hearings in your community and observe the disputes

that arise. Does the topic of probability play a major role in the opposed arguments? Do other rhetorical elements, such as enthymemes, examples, or images, play a role in the arguments? Report your observations in class.

Notes

1. Both Chinese and Egyptian sages in even more distant times had written "wisdom books" containing practical advice about when to speak and when to be silent. For a discussion of such books, of which The Maxims of Plahholpe is an example, see Michael V. Fox, "Ancient

Egyptian Rhetoric," Rhelorica 1 (1983): 9-22. Also see Robert T. Oliver, "The Rhetorical Tradition in China: Confucius and Mencius" Today's Speech 17 (1969): 3-8; and Beatrice K. Reynolds, "Lao Tzu: Persuasion Through Inaction and Non-Speaking," Today's Speech 17 (1969): 23-25. Despite such earlier books of advice, it was the Greeks who elevated the subject to one of central intellectual and educational importance.

2. Book 2.24 of On Rhetoric, trans. George A. Kennedy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 210.

3. See the discussion in John Poulakos, "Rhetoric, the Sophists, and the Possible," communication Monographs 51 (1984): 215-26.

4. Bromley Smith in his essay, "Corax and Probability, "QuarterlyJournal of Speech Education 7 (1921): 13-42, concludes that Corax probably named five parts of the oration. However, George Kennedy mentions four such parts (On Rhetoric, pp. 257-58). Here we follow Kennedy's interpretation, although this does little to change the substance of the overall pattern Corax apparently identified.

5. See the discussion by Bruce E. Gronbeck, "Gorgias on Rhetoric and

Poetic: A Rehabilitation," Southern Speech Communicalion Journal 38

(1972): 27-38.

6. Richard Weaver, "Ultimate Terms in Contemporary Rhetoric," in The Ethics of Rheloric (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1953), pp. 211-32.

7. Michael Calvin McGee, "The Ideograph: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology," Quarlerly Journal of Speech 66 (1980): 1-16. 

8. Michael Osborn, "Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The LightDark Family," Quarlerly Journal of Speech 53 (1967): 115-26.

9. Edward Schiappa has pointed out that there was no consciousness of a tension between "truth" and "victory" until Plato invented the term "rhetoric" after the time of Protagoras, thereby also creating a sense of opposition between rhetoric and philosophy; see "Rhelorike:

What's in a Name? Toward a Revised History of Early Greek Rhetorical Theory," " Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): 3.

10. Kenneth Burke, A Grammar of Motives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), pp. 503-17. 11. Antidosis. 254. Isocrales, trans. George Norlin (New York:Putnam, 1929), 11:327.

12. Here we follow the Kennedy translation, op. cit., of Book 1.2,P. 36.

13. Garry Wills, "The Words that Remade America: Lincoln at Gettysburg," The Atlantic 269 (June 1992): 57-79.

14. See his "Rhetoric: It's Functions and Its Scope," Quarterly Jour.

nal of Speech 39 (1953): 401-24.