After three weeks of reading what rhetoric should be, could be, is and isn't-I choose to accept what Bernard Lamy says about humans and communication: "The process of communicating-of transmitting the sense of what one wants to say to another-is viewed as a physical process of sympathetic kinesthesia in which vibrations in the soul of the speaker are transmitted by sounds that produce like vibrations in the soul of the hearer (Conley, 174).
Augustine certainly recognized centuries earlier there had to be that connection with an audience. While the Greeks valued rhetoric as a device to maintain a burgeoning burocracy, Augustine valued rhetoric as a device to win converts to Christianity. Rhetoric was again the effective tool of instruction. Preachers were taught to connect with their audience using the same principles that Cicero recognized as being effect: "to teach, to delight, and to persuade." While the focus of bombastic oratory was diminished, eloquence was still valued. In the arena of religious conversion, the status of the speaker was still held in high esteem. While eloquence was equated to the inspired orator, the focus was shifting from what sounds well to what tells and explains well. No longer was the audience elite and educated-spreading the Word and gaining converts was paramount. Therefore, the style had to adapt to that of persuasion through education.
With the advent of the printing press, religious and political ideas were spread as never before. The sixteen and seventeenth centuries were defined by religious and political bloodshed on a massive scale,and the classical texts of rhetoric offered guidance during this time.
Despite the continuing debates surrounding the mechanics of rhetoric, from the ancient Greeks to the Jesuits to the philosophy of Bacon, Descates and Hobbes, the struggle remained as it had since ancient times; bringing order out of chaos.
Human nature does not change. Rhetoric addresses this issue and provides the arena for resolution. Within this arena are spun off new ideas of how to address mankind's chronic bad behavior. During the rise of humanism, education, philosophy, religion, science, and politics all reflected this approach to problem solving, while rhetoric provided the stability for discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find that rhetoric which indeed provides a certain amount of stability for discussion is also a weapon of mass destruction when used to promote mankind's chronic bad behavior. With the focus shifting from argument to persuasion we can see that the ideal orator set up by Cicero is an unattainable ideal among every orator. There will always be those who use it to only promote their own agendas. Take, for example, reformers who argued against tradition. While they may have had the best intentions in revealing the abuses of power, they still forwarded their own agenda and view of Christianity to the exclusion of every other known form of worship out there. While in the beginning, this was good, it eventually led to destruction. I'm thinking in particular about the burnings and execution of heretics (and both Catholics and Protestants are guilty here) on the basis of them not accepting "truth" or the "certainty" that a few elite have attained through rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteLook out nuclear missiles and bombs. There's a new weapon of mass destruction in town.
What better example exists of the lasting value of rhetoric than its acceptance and promotion by Christians (who would have sacked the pagan ideals with glee if they did not actually work)? Rhetoric (as first conceived by the Greeks) persists because of its expediency to a purpose - anyone can make use of it to promote an agenda as Augustine promotes Christianity and Erasmus argues for free will. The key is that while new figures continually update and mark rhetoric to suit their needs and ideals, its utility is unquestioned.
ReplyDelete