Newsgroups: bit.listserv.rhetoric
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:52:34 CST
From:         Victor Harnack <U23194@UICVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Definitions of rhetoric

I have been reading without commenting long enough, I guess.  I want to
add some ideas to Harold Annen's comments regarding the way that the rhetor's
intent influences the concept of rhetoric.  We cannot deal with "rhetoric"
with adding one or more qualifiers to the concept.  Aristotle's defini-
tions are far too limiting for anybody today.  We know that there is
more to the rhetorical alphabet than <d>eliberative <e>pideictic and
the f-word.  Let's look at the matter from the perspective of the critic,
rather than the rhetorical theorist.  Some critics wish to examine artifacts
in order to find "meanings", discover "themes" or "fantasies", identify
"archetypal metaphors" -- in short, discover what is "in" the artifact
(or at least in the experience of encountering the artifact) independently
of the intent of the artifact's creator.  Hermeneutics, semiotics,
and deconstruction are some of the rhetorical disciplines thus produced.
These disciplines may be the logical extension of what Herbert Wichelns
discussed, several eons ago, under the heading of the "literary" criticism
of oratory.  (N.B.  I am not suggesting that the OBJECT of the criticism is
what Wichelns had in mind when he talked about "permanence" and "beauty".)

On the other hand, critics may study what people do when they encounter
symbols (created or "natural", intended or accidental).  To some of the
disciplines listed above, we would add anthropology, sociology, geography,
plus a few more from the study of communication.

Finally, critics may be interested in the behavior of rhetors who INTEND
some modification of their auditors' behavior as a consequence of their
symbolic activity.  The critic may be interested in examining how
the rhetor performs the ontology of the auditor (in which case the critic
is effectively studying the nature of the "people" by examing the artifacts
which seem to capture public assent).  The critic may also wish to examine
the rhetor's choices in light of the rhetor's intent.  Such a critic
is closest to Aristotle's position because s/he is concerned with the
relationship between the rhetor's choices and the auditors' responses.
Personally, I am much more interested in the first of these two kinds
of critical activity.  The very last is the neo-Aristotelian activity
that bothers so many contemporary rhetorical theorists.

Now, I don't know how anybody could put up one definition that would
encompass all these kinds of rhetorical perspectives.  I think that
they are all proper concerns of rhetoricians, but, certainly, no one
rhetorical critic could handle more than one sub-set of one of the main 3
approaches.  I suppose one could refer to the three approaches as
Artifact-focussed rhetoric, Auditor-response-focussed rhetoric and
Rhetor-focussed rhetoric.  But I don't like the feel of any of those
labels.  (They are manifestly not definitions.)
                                     \        /         _
Happy holidays,                       \      /   o    /   \
Victor Harnack <U23194@UICVM.BITNET>   \    /        |
Dept. Performing Arts                   \  /     |   |
U of Illinois at Chgo                    \/      |    \ _ /
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU