Rhetoric and How Is Has Been Altered

¶ … rhetoric and how is has been altered ever since Aristotle's days. The major emphasis is laid on comparing the two forms of rhetoric and seeing how it has changed over time. There is discussion on the use of rhetoric in daily life, politics and the media.

Rhetoric

Rhetoric is basically the art of speaking or language that has long been helping writers and speakers. The main purpose behind the use of rhetoric is to motivate or persuade people. Many a times people confuse informing and persuasion. Rhetoric has been used for informing people and just mere informative talk; however the main reason behind using it is to persuade persons. The skill of rhetoric has been used a lot in the Western culture and has played a central role in it. Sadly enough, rhetoric hasn't remained what Aristotle initially proposed it to be. In simple words, it could be that the over use of rhetoric has gone to give it a bad name. It isn't looked as a skill anymore by most of the people. Rather, it is seen as a cover for deception or hiding what is righteously true. The reason behind these perceptions is because of the media, economy and politics today.

Today we see the use of rhetoric so much that we have gone to question its credibility? Credibility. This is one of the major tools in rhetoric. Surely, in the time of Aristotle, rhetoric would have been something used for the general good of the people. Things aren't quite similar to what rhetoric used to be in Aristotle's time.

It has evolved in a good way because now humans are learning how to communicate with each other in a more skillful way. In other words, speech is not just direct and without any art. Use of rhetoric and skillful speech as per say is surely visible

Aristotle's View

Aristotle characterized rhetoric as the skill of the most readily available tool of persuasion. In his perception, rhetoric was something that was quite crucial in a decent social and political life. "It appears," Aristotle says, that although "rhetoric is an offshoot of the study of dialectic; it also involves a practical understanding of ethics in connection with politics." (Translated by Roberts, Barnes, 1356a 25-30) Thus, it should be seen that when Aristotle talked about the use of rhetoric's, he meant that rhetoric should be used ethically and morally as well.

Aristotle's rhetoric's meant that when a person uses retroact, he should be able to understand what he is doing and he should be clever enough to do it as well. (Rorty) Apart from being clever and intellectual, the person himself should be able to calculate and understand it. The reasoning the use of rhetoric that he presents should be in a proper direction. Aristotle stated that the virtue of the argument has to be for the right thing and the right time. This greatly contrasts with what rhetoric is being used for now a days. In other words, a good amount of persuasions can be also used and is widely being used for something that is bad or morally in correct. Wrong or misleading things are being put in a positive light just due to the use of rhetoric. Aristotle backed up and supported the use of rhetoric so a person would fight for and persuade people for what was right.

Aristotle believed that a person who is to become a public figure should be able to evaluate an argument and be able to stand up for what his right. He should find the right words and the right argument and thus make his statements and his ideas public. Aristotle stated that a man who has wisdom he should have all the habits as well that make him eligible to use rhetoric as a tool for persuasion. In other words, Aristotle thought that if a politician would want to stand up for something, he should have the right understanding of that issue first. After having an understanding of the issue, he should be able to know which the right way for the argument is. In other words, his persuasion and debate should be virtuous, correct and generally beneficial for the entire population. (Rorty)

The book that Aristotle wrote about Rhetoric explains different means of using rhetoric and the tools that a person can use. Rhetoric itself has a lot of definitions and it can be used in different circumstance as well. The three major rhetorical devices as mentioned by Aristotle are ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos is when someone relies on the use of credibility or mention of a source that is known to be credible. Aristotle believed that when a person made use of Ethos, he told the people and thus made them believe that that person was worthy of trust. Aristotle stated that the general population would believe a good man more than they believe a bad man. In other words, if a person is known to have good character, thus his speech and his words would be more persuading as compared to any one else's. (Aristotle, 3-13) Secondly, Pathos is when someone relies on the use of emotions and psychology of the audience. Lastly, logos is the use of reasoning and logic. Another part of Aristotle three book series introduces the different elements of style in rhetoric. He talks about word choice, tone, sentence structure, and use of metaphors. (Vickers, 19)

All in all, a major difference between Aristotle's rhetoric and the rhetoric used now is that back then it was a skill that not many people posses. It was either seen in religious leaders or persons in politics with the ability to tell a man right from wrong. It other words, rhetoric's was a tool used to inform people and to persuade them about something that they didn't know of. If the persons in an area were going on towards a wrong direction, Aristotle talked about the use of rhetoric in order to steer him in the right direction. For example, it is not the function of medicine simply to make a man quite healthy, but to put him as far as may be on the road to health; it is possible to give excellent treatment even to those who can never enjoy sound health (Aristotle, 1355 b) The analogy that art stole gave of a doctor to someone who uses rhetoric shows that it was made initially to guide people towards what is right. Thus a major difference between rhetoric back in Aristotle's days and rhetoric now is the connotation that it has.

Use of rhetoric in Politics

When Aristotle talked about a leader, the characteristics that came to mind were virtue noble base and vice. Praise," he observed, "is the expression in words of the eminence of a person's good qualities, and therefore we must display one's actions as a product of such qualities" (Aristotle, 9.28-30). This quote of Aristotle can be used to describe the plethora of good traits and attributes that a politician claims that he has. Which means that someone who is good person and is of good character will actually go on do something good as well? It is the actions of the doing the act part is what our politicians usually forget. (Reynolds, 2) "To praise a person is in one respect akin to urging a course of action" (Aristotle, I. 9.36). Here is where the entire problem starts. This becomes an issue because many a time's a president or a politician will say something that is not acceptable by the entire community. For the president, that action is the right way to go, but for some persons into the community it is wrong. Thus, this praise and blame technique or Epideictic has been used by many presidents in their speeches. For instance, a study done by Casey revealed that speeches president Ronald Reagan used to give were quite closely related and accepted the norms of the society back then. For instance, the military eulogies that Reagan gave were to "legitimate political authority" and "to subvert the public's capacity for effective dissent against war" (John)

Not many would remember Reagan's speeches or his use of politics. However, the current president of the United States, President Obama does use rhetoric quite a lot in his speeches. This could be said because his speeches are quite impressive and quite persuasive as well. As mentioned earlier, use of rhetoric is an art and it should be used very smartly. Obama resorts to use to of resorts to Rawlsian ideas (Gedick 891) and as well religious ideas. The 2004 speech that the present delivered to the Democratic Nation Convention, he mentioned religion and God quite a lot. Some of the things that President Obama said were

"Worship an awesome God," (Obama)

"God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that these are better days ahead," (Obama)

A speech hat the president delivered in 2006, talked about secularism a religion. The debate tat the president put up is as follows:

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square . . . . [I]ndeed, the majority of great reformers in American history were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo- Christian tradition." (Obama)

This shows that the link to religion and spirit is one of the aspects of pathos that the President uses in the form of rhetoric. The link to religion and sprit might have put on an impression on those who were of the Judeo or the Christen religion. That is one part of the entire population of the country. However, this sort of rhetoric would not have been welcome by the populations who aren't very inclined towards religion. A big population of the country doesn't belong to either Christianity or Judaism. Thus this rhetorical device didn't target them and thus it wouldn't have persuaded them. When Aristotle talked about use of rhetoric, he meant it to be used in a wise way. As mentioned before, a politician should make use of this device in a very practical and a clever way. The talk about a civil religion that Obama was trying to portray is surely something that wouldn't suit the current climate of the country. (Fontana) This is due to him increasing diversity in religion that is present in the Country. (Gedicks, 898)RE However, the secret to Obama's political success also in the fact that on other occasions he has touched upon other religions. The key to his persuasion holds importance in the fact that they showed the Muslims, the Hindus and persons of other religions that they can put their trust in him. Thus using religion and the mere idea of civil religion, Obama made use of rhetoric in his speeches.

If we step away from America, then we see that Rhetoric is something that is used in many other presidential campaigns. An example of presidential rhetoric where images, expressions and statements were taken to the extreme occurred in Ukraine in 2004. Both the candidates were made to seem so absurd to be even standing up for the election let alone winning. The controversies and the games that the people of the country had to either ultimately decided between democratic elections or the authorities regime that ruled before. (Pavlyuk) This election campaign was desired as a dirty and a very informative war. For instance, the information was twisted and turned and edited far away from the normal truth

Use of rhetoric in politics itself has been ongoing not only for presidential campaign but also to justify a point or justify an act that the government is doing. There was quite some use of rhetoric by the mass media when Russia was waging a war on terrorism. The success of the 1999 military campaign in Chechnya was substituted by proper guerilla warfare that was targeting citizens of the country. Even though quite obviously, the military and the war itself were damaging the civilians, the mass media came to the rescue of the people. The rescue in this sense was the media was an important t part of the conflict. It fought with the perception, the sympathies and the minds of the audience. (Simons) Even though the terrorism given by the people was a Russian problem, the way the country and the military handled it was not right. The international community criticized the country for not handling the situation properly. Russia itself gave the definition of terrorist and terrorism with politics and emotions dominating the definition. It other words, the way the media portrayed the way, it not only clouded the understanding but subconsciously went on to alter the mindset of the people. A major thing that the media did was it attempted to normalize the Russian war on terror globally. (Simons) Thus, here the media used double standards and took advantage of the lack of understanding on the war on terror. A way that the media does that it invokes a state of crisis. In other words, it presents the situation to be so dire and so problematic that government intervention is seen rather heroic as opposed to being brutal. (Dagenais & Raboy,5) The government itself created a situation, went on to deal with in a negative manner and now the media is justifying it merely by showing the government in a positive light.

Use of rhetoric in media

If we look around us then the use of rhetorical devices is present everywhere. From advertisements on billboards and newspaper to promotional films online. The entire advertising industry is full of rhetorical devices in one form or another. The use of rhetoric today has been overused and actually misused so much that when people appear to be learned or knowledgeable about something, they are questioned to be using too much rhetoric. In other words, these people might actually have knowledge. That knowledge could be truthful and unbiased and totally credible, but because rhetoric has a negative connotation, no one would believe that person. Not everyone stays safe from the trap of the rhetorical devices. The reason why so many product sales go high after a rhetorical commercial is because people actually fall for the stuff. When during a hand wash commercial, the phrase "doctors say" or "experts say" come in, people actually think that doctors and experts believe in that kind of stuff.

The media's major aim today is to alter the public's way of thinking. If any piece of entertainment or advertisement per say is not successful in doing say, it is said that is not a successful piece of media. (Kock, 103)

Now many would think why there is the use of persuasion or rhetoric per say in the media and why is it so important to alter the way the public thinks. This brings us towards social sciences and how the ruling powers want the masses to have a certain mindset. Anyone who doesn't fall in the trap or argues about its credibly, will therefore disrupt the structure of the society. Thus, this is what the capitalists and those who are ruling really want. If looked at it from a general perspective then there is no theory about how pubic communication should be in order to fulfill its role in the society today. (Kock, 104)

If seeing directly, then media provides the only link between the people and the politics that actually taking palace. Thus it up to the media to develop a sense of trust between them and the viewer. (Norris) Those who are watching a news channel put their trust and confidence in the people such that they won't tell them misleading information. The best of rhetoric is seen when the media puts up a commercial or a promotional film in order to attain donations. There they would pictures and videos that would appeal to the heart. There is use of words that cause a person and motivate him or her to want to donate. In other words, the way a message or a cause is presented is so heartwarming that the person automatically falls into the trap. Many would think that fine media and advertising is using rhetoric to persuade people and change their mind. They are presenting their product or their message in such a way that they alter the mindset of those who are watching. Why is it such a problem?

As it is mentioned earlier, rhetoric is being misused now. Truth is being distorted and credibility is being challenged. Media is framing and staging things into being something that they actually aren't. Let's take the example of the promotional film for the use of attaining charity. What is the guarantee that all that the media is saying and is portraying is actually the truth? How do we know that the facts, the pictures, or the videos aren't staged? The viewers or the public in general can never say that these persons are hired actors or actually real people in distress. Due to this distortion of the facts and reality, use of rhetoric has now earned a negative connotation. Anyone who goes to appeal to emotions, credibility or even logic, many people don't fall for the trap. Let alone falling for the trap, persons now think about it and actually challenge the claim that a certain advertisement is making.

Use of rhetoric in business

The use of rhetoric in business has already been touched upon by mentioning promotional or advertisement films. The major aim of businesses is to attract customers and have their product, service or idea sell more than the other. Total Quality Management is a technique that is used to attract more and more customer. Total Quality Management is when business goes and gives customer the best quality products in the lowest cost available. Even though that is what the initial plan is, the use of rhetoric is actually used to distort the reality of TQM. (Zbaracki) A rhetorical TWM is basically when a certain organization or company gives excess of TQM. They make the person believe and give them ideas that are far away from reality and they go on to promise not even good but the best quality out there. This sort of rhetorical can work for some however in the long run it might be detrimental to the organization. For instance, an example if taken of a shampoo that shows a girl with amazing and flawless hair. Now the naive customer will go on to think that if she gets that shampoo, her hair will be like that as well. Surely, because of the false rhetoric, the product would get an increase amount of sales at one time. However, with time, when results are far away and the quality is far away from what was promised, the sales of the product will drop. DiMaggio and Powell state that mimetic processes that actually confirm to certain institutions are powerful and more persuasive than the models of perfect quality given by the use of rhetoric. (70) This in turn shows that not all business rely on the use of false rhetoric rather they go for an approach that the common customer can relate to and actually believe. Here it is shown that the use of rhetoric has to be very well though off and smart.