Just this morning while watching a news program, the talking heads were critiquing a politician's view as "empty rhetoric." They felt that his message had no real content, no value, yet the politician was successful. Is it the politician's fault that he knows what his constituents want to hear, and relying on ethos (but more likely pathos) delivers a message he has crafted to be well-received? On one level, the politician may be "abusing" rhetoric--turning it into the "foul and ugly" craft Plato describes. But our reading in Herrick points out the importance of looking at rhetoric as more than one-sided. He cites Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca who believe that
"audience has the major role in determining the quality of argument and the behavior of orators." That is to say, an ignorant or noncritical audience can be one cause of weak or unethical rhetoric, while a well-informed and critically minded audience demands that the rhetoric addressed to it be well reasoned and honestly presented (10).So, although we may dislike the politician, if he is unchallenged and the audience is either ignorant, accepting, or indifferent, it should be held as responsible for the poor content as the rhetor. The audience, therefore, must have an active role in determining the content of the message, and, in the case of a politician, direction in which it wishes to be led or how it wishes to be represented.
This idea of responsibility and rhetoric may be a little too narrow-minded considering the vast amount of information we flew through this week, but I've always thought that the creator, the rhetor was the one in control of the message. Clearly he or she is the one who selects many aspects of a message, but the audience has (or should have) a much larger role than I would have thought. Rhetoric is clearly not a solitary endeavor.
Deb,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post, and I really appreciate the insight you shared on audience. In borrowing from Lev Vygotsky and Bahktin (I hope I have my refs right), I view all rhetorical situations as social in nature----as dialogic and not monologic. Even a "speech" is dialogic in that there was forethought in the speech to audience values and objections---so the dialogue, though not actually an orally expressed conversation between the speaker and the audience, occurred as part of the speaker’s own prep. I think this is also true in writing. So, in that way, the audience helped shape the speech (or document), too. To me, a speech without consideration of audience is as empty as a painting without paint.
Cris
This post illustrates to me why one of the primary goals of education in America should not be jumping through standardized test hoops, it should be developing a skeptical and engaged and rhetorically-aware citizenry. It seems more and more apparent to me that politicians, especially on the federal level, have far higher rhetorical skills (with advice from legions of cronies and instant polling data) than their audiences, and they create messages most people are incapable of deciphering and challenging. It literally takes a doctorate degree in rhetoric to sort this kind of stuff out. The vast gap between speaker and audience today seems at near sophist level of abuse, while the audience sheep seem generally content to let their pathos buttons be pushed without much kick back. This is a form of intellectual despotism that only can be countered, at least in my mind, through improved education and a much higher developed ideal of an American "citizen," not as someone who blindly follows the government's direction, showing "patriotism," but as someone who questions and challenges all rhetoric coming from those in power as well as those who want to be in power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brett in that most people do not know the history and workings of rhetoric. It certainly is taking me a PhD in technical communication and rhetoric to learn a deeper understanding than simple audience awareness. And I feel like we are just scratching the surface. I believe that Plato would look at our politicians much the way that he looked in his politicians: not knowing or comprehending the art of rhetoric yet still using [read: mixing up] the techne. In our readings this week, I found comical the part about the politician being completely honest and upfront with what he or she would like to do, stands for, is seeking in regards to the agendas of others, and regarding the very real possibilities that some of these things simply may not come to fruition. But I do think it would be tremendously refreshing to hear… and not just in jest. From Deb's post, I'm letting my mind open up a little more to that idea of responsibility in both the creator of the message and the receiver of the message, here, wondering how each actually develops the situation or creates the atmosphere for types of rhetoric like the transparent politician above.
ReplyDelete"Empty rhetoric" seems to be a favored term of the talking heads on television today. And may have some basis in Plato's hatred and abuse of rhetoric, despite Plato himself being a master of rhetoric.
ReplyDelete