Rhetoric

In the U.S. colleges, the most commonly taught conception of rhetoric is Western rhetoric.  Its roots come from ancient Greece, from philosophers such as Socrates and Aristotle.  The Western approach to rhetoric emphasizes individual agency and persuasion.  This emphasis on the individual can provide some benefits when it comes to the ownership of information, but there are downsides:

• Acknowleding External Authority Through Citation: the Western emphasis on individual ownership of ideas means that we credit those who have provided useful information in the past, and this can allow thoughtful voices greater reach.  The downside, however, is that speakers still choose whom to credit — which is why women and minorities have often been excluded from academic discourse.

• "Stealing" Ideas Through Plagiarism Is Forbidden:  Again, this should protect individuals who are provide the best information by punishing those who falsely claim to be the originators of new ideas.  However, this can also be weaponized as a means to silence others or profit from their work, such as when musicians are sued for "copyright violations" simply because a new song uses a common chord used in another's music.

Unfortunately, an overemphasis on persuasion can lead to several dysfunctional habits of communication, and I worry that writing courses don't always help students understand the importance of listening to and understanding points of view they disagree with.  As Sarah Allen writes in Beyond Argument:

Now, is this the fault of Western rhetoric?  I think that's part of the issue.  Concepts such as ethos, pathos, and logos place their emphasis on how the individual communicates an idea and whether the methods of communication are effective rather than whether the information in the message is accurate.  For many traditional writing assignments, little room is allowed for admitting uncertainty — anything that undermines the student's stated position must be excluded in order for a persuasive paper to earn a top grade.

I have issues with this approach.  Now, I want to emphasize that every instructor has their own style of teaching — an emphasis on persuasion can be done in a responsible way that emphasizes accuracy over "being right," and there are many instructors who don't emphasize persuasion at all.  Fundamentally, I feel that every writer has an obligation to accept and admit the limitations of knowledge — not simply as individuals, but as a society.  There are simply some things we do not know and cannot know — and history has taught us that many of the most certain beliefs of the past have been overturned as new knowledge comes to light.  We no longer believe in phlogiston, or the miasma theory of spontaneous generation — and social shifts have demonstrated that intellect and personal ability are not determined through stereotypes about race and gender.

History has also taught us that certainty for the sake of certainty can be very damaging.  Physicians were once convinced that handwashing had no effect whatsoever on the spread of illness — and the medical community refused to accept the direct findings of Ignaz Semmelweis that clean hands and sterile instruments reduced mortality on obstetric wards.  And why was Semmelweis ignored?  As Paola Pollanda writes, "the senior staff of the hospital did not accept his conclusions and got offended that he suggested they were the cause of puerperal fever."  This inability to accept error and change perspectives meant that women and infants in hospitals continued to needlessly die for decades.

Although Western rhetoric is clearly not an explanation for all the problems of the world, it does reinforce damaging habits of communication that allow misinformation and false credit to flourish:

• Acknowledgement Goes to the Already Famous: The focus on giving credit to a specific person can easily dilute or ignore the contributions of other researchers.  Among a number of research groups, new ideas and research produced by younger scholars may be appropriated by more senior or more well-known scholars.  Some researchers may refuse to share credit, or they may actively work to undermine other researchers — in other cases, outside researchers might simply focus on the "brightest star" from a group of collaborators.  Margaret Rossiter's conception of the Matilda Effect describes how this effect routinely excludes the contributions of women from the history of science, while Robert K. Merton's Matthew Effect describes how this excludes junior researchers.  These effects can be easily seen for researchers of color, given the long history of ignoring their contributions to academic fields.

• Clickbait: Many individuals and organizations will exaggerate or mislead in order in order to attract and influence audiences rather than share accurate information.  In these instances, it's clearly more about the reach of the message rather than the accuracy of information.

• Refusal to Correct False Assumptions: As Stacy Abrams writes, "Admitting mistakes is a fundamental skill too few of us learn. In part, this is because we’ve been taught it’s wrong to be wrong."  Rather than admit shortcomings in understanding, many individuals and organizations will double-down in an attempt to persuade others to their view of reality.

• Formation of Echo Chambers: Because individuals focus on promoting ideas rather than learning ideas, static communities form around individuals who already share a set of beliefs.  These communities frequently reinforce each other's ideas while ignoring any who disagree, and this prevents the consideration of information that may be more accurate.

• Filter Bubbles: Online platforms focus on catering to individuals, and this often means reinforcing the echo chambers.  Many online users seek out information that reinforces their preconceptions rather than engage with information that may challenge their core beliefs — they want to share articles with titles they already agree with before they've even read them, thus building upon the problems of clickbait and echo chambers.

So what do we do?  Give up on Western rhetoric?  No, I don't think so.  I think we need to teach it because it is helpful for persuasion when the information is accurate, and students need to be aware of how it can be misused.  Tanner Jones gives a guide for how rhetorical concepts can be used to spot fake news, and John R. Edlund (writing as guitarsophist) suggests ways to expand our concepts of ethos and pathos to address a "post-truth society."

Back to Rhetoric