Sophistry Then and Now: Aristotle vs. Kenneth Burke

Introduction: Sophistry in Ancient and Modern Context

Athenians in ancient Greece loved public speech. Sophists — people with skills in oratory — were awarded trophies and accorded great respect. They were associated with wisdom, and sophistry was taken to mean the ability to use language or rhetoric to persuade people to accept one's point of view. Athenians admired the sophists' skill for their ability to influence court rulings and assemblies, but the same was not true of critics such as Plato and Aristotle. In his famous dialogue Gorgias, for instance, Plato denounced the sophists, arguing that they focused on persuading and moving the masses at the expense of truth.

For Plato and Aristotle, the sophists were not interested in advancing laborious, rational arguments that led to the discovery of truth; rather, they were only after using their linguistic prowess to win immediate approval. In ancient Greece, therefore, sophistry was more about manipulation and less about truth and justice — more about winning arguments for argument's sake. Modern sophistry is, however, less about winning arguments purely for the sake of persuasion; rather, it is more about building communities and inducing cooperation. This paper examines sophistry in ancient Greece as analyzed by Aristotle, and compares it with that of modern theorist Kenneth Burke to explore how the two differ in their approaches to rhetoric and persuasion.

Aristotle's View of Persuasion and Sophistry

Aristotle, unlike his teacher Plato, viewed the use of communication and persuasion from both a positive and a negative perspective. He argued that to some extent, language or rhetoric could make truth and justice prevail, especially if the orator used regular, accessible terms that could be easily understood by the masses. According to him, truth could prevail if people were willing to discuss both sides of an issue and evaluate different points of view. Rhetoric, therefore, provided a means for persuasive defense. He put forth the argument that:

"if it is a disgrace to a man when he cannot defend himself in a bodily way, it would be odd not to think him disgraced when he cannot defend himself with reason" (Reinard, 1997, n.p.).

Rhetoric was, therefore, supposed to be used as a means of obtaining justice and discovering truth. However, the sophists were not using it for this purpose. In Book III of the Rhetoric, Aristotle observes that the sophists preferred to use strange, compound words of ambiguous meaning so as to mislead their hearers (Morella, n.d.). In fact, the sophists themselves admitted that they were not out to teach people how to use the art of persuasion to obtain justice or truth; rather, their focus was on how language or rhetoric could be used to win arguments. As Perloff (2003) points out, the sophists were out to "rock the foundation of the educational establishment by giving people practical knowledge rather than highfalutin truth" (p. 21). This is why the sophists fell out with philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, who felt that sophism "was a fraud; the probability it handled was not genuine, but spurious, and had a place in no art" (Morella, n.d., n.p.).

According to Aristotle, persuasion was not supposed to be based on rhetoric alone, but on art — one's ability to use artistic proofs (legitimate evidence including contracts, laws, and witnesses) and non-artistic proofs (logos, pathos, and ethos) to convince people to accept a given point of view (Reinard, 1997). As long as sophists relied not on these proofs but on their linguistic prowess alone to persuade people, their practice amounted to nothing but fraud.

Aristotle's teachings thus paint a negative image of sophistry in ancient Greece — one based on arguing for the sake of winning arguments and gaining immediate approval, rather than on discovering truth and obtaining justice so as to resolve the social problems facing society.

Conclusion

Sophistry is the use of language or rhetoric to persuade people to accept a particular point of view. It dates back to the 5th century BCE in ancient Greece, with influential theorists such as Gorgias, Protagoras, and Socrates, who paved the way for modern theorists such as Kenneth Burke. Sophistry in ancient Greece was about using language to win arguments for the sake of winning and earning immediate approval. Modern sophistry, however, recognizes that language has other roles to play in society beyond persuasion. It emphasizes the concept of identification, whereby the speaker engages with his audience not as objects to be manipulated through words, but as active participants in the construction of identity and meaning, with the capacity to contribute to the resolution of social issues. Modern sophistry, therefore, is more about winning arguments not for the sake of winning, but for the sake of finding solutions to the social exigencies facing society.

References

Brock, T. C., & Green, M. C. (2005). Domains of persuasion: An introduction. In T. Brock & M. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1–16). Sage Publications.

Hansen, G. (n.d.). Kenneth Burke's rhetorical theory within the construction of the ethnography on speaking. [University]. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/2207/27%281%29+50-59.pdf?sequence=1

Morella, G. L. (n.d.). The sophist legacy of Protagoras has a mean streak to political correctness at all costs — especially the truth. [University]. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m101.htm

Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Plato. (2008). Gorgias [E-book]. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1672/1672-h/1672-h.htm

Reinard, J. C. (1997). The development of the field of communication: Our roots. Student webpage for Introduction to Communication Research. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jreinard/bookweb/history.htm