Scope calls for the rebuilding of the temple in this 1860 woodcut by
Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld. Scholars have debated the scope of rhetoric since ancient times. Although some have limited rhetoric to the specific realm of
political discourse, to many modern scholars it encompasses every aspect of culture. Contemporary studies of rhetoric address a much more diverse range of domains than was the case in ancient times. While classical rhetoric trained speakers to be effective persuaders in public forums and in institutions such as courtrooms and assemblies, contemporary rhetoric investigates human discourse
writ large. Rhetoricians have studied the discourses of a wide variety of domains, including the natural and social sciences, fine art, religion, journalism, digital media, fiction, history,
cartography, and architecture, along with the more traditional domains of politics and the law. Because the ancient Greeks valued public political participation, rhetoric emerged as an important curriculum for those desiring to influence politics. Rhetoric is still associated with its political origins. However, even the original instructors of
Western speech—the
Sophists—disputed this limited view of rhetoric. According to Sophists like
Gorgias, a successful rhetorician could speak convincingly on a topic in any field, regardless of their experience in that field. This suggested rhetoric could be a means of communicating any expertise, not just politics. In his
Encomium to Helen, Gorgias even applied rhetoric to fiction by seeking, for his amusement, to prove the blamelessness of the mythical
Helen of Troy in starting the
Trojan War.
Plato defined the scope of rhetoric by discarding any connotation of religious ritual or magical incantation. He takes the term for the persuasion achieved by rhetoric, psychagogia, in its literal sense, "leading the soul" through words. He criticized the Sophists for using rhetoric to deceive rather than to discover truth. In
Gorgias, one of his
Socratic Dialogues, Plato defines rhetoric as the persuasion of ignorant masses within the courts and assemblies. Rhetoric, in Plato's opinion, is merely a form of flattery and functions similarly to
culinary arts, which mask the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good. Plato considered any speech of lengthy
prose aimed at flattery as within the scope of rhetoric. Some scholars, however, contest the idea that Plato despised rhetoric and instead view his dialogues as a dramatization of complex rhetorical principles. Socrates explained the relationship between rhetoric in flattery when he maintained that a rhetorician who teaches anyone how to persuade people in an assembly to do what they want, without knowledge of what is just or unjust, engages in a kind of flattery (
kolakeia) that constitutes an image (
eidolon) of a part of the art of politics. Aristotle both redeemed rhetoric from Plato and narrowed its focus by defining three genres of rhetoric—
deliberative,
forensic or judicial, and
epideictic. Yet, even as he provided order to existing rhetorical theories, Aristotle generalized the definition of rhetoric to be the ability to identify the appropriate means of persuasion in a given situation based upon the art of rhetoric (
technê). This made rhetoric applicable to all fields, not just politics. Aristotle viewed the
enthymeme based upon
logic (especially, based upon the syllogism) as the basis of rhetoric. Aristotle also outlined generic constraints that focused the rhetorical art squarely within the domain of public political practice. He restricted rhetoric to the domain of the
contingent or probable: those matters that admit multiple legitimate opinions or arguments. Since the time of Aristotle, logic has changed. For example,
modal logic has undergone a major development that also modifies rhetoric. The contemporary
neo-Aristotelian and neo-Sophistic positions on rhetoric mirror the division between the Sophists and Aristotle. Neo-Aristotelians generally study rhetoric as political discourse, while the neo-Sophistic view contends that rhetoric cannot be so limited. Rhetorical scholar
Michael Leff characterizes the conflict between these positions as viewing rhetoric as a "thing contained" versus a "container". The neo-Aristotelian view threatens the study of rhetoric by restraining it to such a limited field, ignoring many critical applications of rhetorical theory, criticism, and practice. Simultaneously, the neo-Sophists threaten to expand rhetoric beyond a point of coherent theoretical value. In more recent years, people studying rhetoric have tended to enlarge its object domain beyond speech.
Kenneth Burke asserted humans use rhetoric to resolve conflicts by identifying shared characteristics and interests in symbols. People engage in
identification, either to assign themselves or another to a group. This definition of
rhetoric as identification broadens the scope from strategic and overt political persuasion to the more implicit tactics of identification found in an immense range of sources. Burke focused on the interplay of identification and division, maintaining that identification compensates for an original division by preventing a strict separation between objects, people, and spaces. This is achieved by assigning to them common properties through linguistic symbols. People engage in rhetoric any time they speak or produce meaning. Even in the field of
science, via practices which were once viewed as being merely the objective testing and reporting of knowledge, scientists persuade their audience to accept their findings by sufficiently demonstrating that their study or experiment was conducted reliably and resulted in sufficient evidence to support their conclusions. The vast scope of rhetoric is difficult to define. Political discourse remains the paradigmatic example for studying and theorizing specific techniques and conceptions of persuasion or rhetoric.
Colloquially, the term has also come to mean a particular style of language usage, often with connotations of
public and exaggerated speech.
As a civic art Throughout
European History, rhetoric meant persuasion in public and political settings such as assemblies and courts. Because of its associations with democratic institutions, rhetoric is commonly said to flourish in open and democratic societies with rights of
free speech, free assembly, and political enfranchisement for some portion of the population. Those who classify rhetoric as a civic art believe that rhetoric has the power to shape communities, form the character of citizens, and greatly affect civic life. Rhetoric was viewed as a civic art by several of the ancient philosophers. Aristotle and
Isocrates were two of the first to see rhetoric in this light. In
Antidosis, Isocrates states, "We have come together and founded cities and made laws and invented arts; and, generally speaking, there is no institution devised by man which the power of speech has not helped us to establish." With this statement he argues that rhetoric is a fundamental part of civic life in every society and that it has been necessary in the foundation of all aspects of society. He further argues in
Against the Sophists that rhetoric, although it cannot be taught to just anyone, is capable of shaping the character of man. He writes, "I do think that the study of political discourse can help more than any other thing to stimulate and form such qualities of character." Aristotle, writing several years after Isocrates, supported many of his arguments and argued for rhetoric as a civic art. In the words of Aristotle, in the
Rhetoric, rhetoric is "...the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion". According to Aristotle, this art of persuasion could be used in public settings in three different ways: "A member of the assembly decides about future events, a juryman about past events: while those who merely decide on the orator's skill are observers. From this it follows that there are three divisions of oratory—(1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display". Eugene Garver, in his critique of Aristotle's
Rhetoric, confirms that Aristotle viewed rhetoric as a civic art. Garver writes, "
Rhetoric articulates a civic art of rhetoric, combining the almost incompatible properties of and appropriateness to citizens." Each of Aristotle's divisions plays a role in civic life and can be used in a different way to affect the . Because rhetoric is a public art capable of shaping opinion, some of the ancients, including
Plato found fault in it. They claimed that while it could be used to improve civic life, it could be used just as easily to deceive or manipulate. The masses were incapable of analyzing or deciding anything on their own and would therefore be swayed by the most persuasive speeches. Thus, civic life could be controlled by whoever could deliver the best speech. Plato explores the problematic moral status of rhetoric twice: in
Gorgias and in
The Phaedrus, a dialogue best-known for its commentary on love. More trusting in the power of rhetoric to support a republic, the Roman orator
Cicero argued that art required something more than eloquence. A good orator needed also to be a good person, enlightened on a variety of civic topics. In
De Oratore, modeled on Plato's dialogues, Cicero emphasized that effective rhetoric comes from a combination of
wisdom (sapientia) and
eloquence (eloquentia). According to Cicero, the ideal orator must demonstrate not only stylistic skill but also moral integrity and broad learning, thus uniting theory and practice for the betterment of the state. Influenced by Aristotelian ideas, Cicero advanced the tradition by systematizing the five canons of rhetoric—inventio (invention), dispositio (arrangement), elocutio (style), memoria (memory), and pronuntiatio (delivery)—which he saw as key to crafting persuasive discourse. In this view, a well-trained orator, who draws from philosophy, law, and other disciplines, is best able to address civic and ethical challenges, thus underscoring Cicero's vision of rhetoric as both an intellectual and ethical pursuit.
James Boyd White argues that rhetoric is capable not only of addressing issues of political interest but that it can influence culture as a whole. In his book,
When Words Lose Their Meaning, he argues that words of persuasion and identification define community and civic life. He states that words produce "the methods by which culture is maintained, criticized, and transformed". Rhetoric remains relevant as a civic art. In speeches, as well as in non-verbal forms, rhetoric continues to be used as a tool to influence communities from local to national levels.
As a political tool Political parties sometimes employ "manipulative rhetoric" to advance their party-line goals and lobbyist agendas. They use it to portray themselves as champions of compassion, freedom, and culture, all while implementing policies that appear to contradict these claims. It serves as a form of political propaganda, presented to sway and maintain public opinion in their favor, and garner a positive image, potentially at the expense of suppressing dissent or criticism. An example of this is the government's actions in freezing bank accounts and regulating internet speech, ostensibly to protect the vulnerable and preserve freedom of expression, despite contradicting values and rights. Going back to the fifth century BCE, the term rhetoric originated in Ancient Greece. During this period, a new government (democracy) had been formed and as speech was the main method of information, an effective communication strategy was needed. Sophists, a group of intellectuals from Sicily, taught the ancient Greeks the art of persuasive speech in order to be able to navigate themselves in the court and senate.
As a course of study The study of rhetoric trains students to speak and/or write effectively, and to critically understand and analyze discourse. It is concerned with how people use symbols, especially language, to reach agreement that permits coordinated effort. Rhetoric as a course of study has evolved since its ancient beginnings, and has adapted to the particular exigencies of various times, venues, and applications ranging from architecture to literature. Although the curriculum has transformed in a number of ways, it has generally emphasized the study of principles and rules of composition as a means for moving audiences. Rhetoric began as a civic art in Ancient Greece where students were trained to develop tactics of oratorical persuasion, especially in legal disputes. Rhetoric originated in a school of
pre-Socratic philosophers known as the
Sophists .
Demosthenes and
Lysias emerged as major orators during this period, and
Isocrates and
Gorgias as prominent teachers. Modern teachings continue to reference these rhetoricians and their work in discussions of classical rhetoric and persuasion. Rhetoric was taught in universities during the
Middle Ages as one of the three original
liberal arts or
trivium (along with
logic and
grammar). During the medieval period, political rhetoric declined as republican oratory died out and the emperors of Rome garnered increasing authority. With the rise of European monarchs, rhetoric shifted into courtly and religious applications.
Augustine exerted strong influence on Christian rhetoric in the Middle Ages, advocating the use of rhetoric to lead audiences to truth and understanding, especially in the church. The study of liberal arts, he believed, contributed to rhetorical study: "In the case of a keen and ardent nature, fine words will come more readily through reading and hearing the eloquent than by pursuing the rules of rhetoric." Poetry and letter writing became central to rhetorical study during the Middle Ages. After the fall of the Roman republic, poetry became a tool for rhetorical training since there were fewer opportunities for political speech. Letter writing was the primary way business was conducted both in state and church, so it became an important aspect of rhetorical education. Rhetorical education became more restrained as style and substance separated in 16th-century France, and attention turned to the scientific method. Influential scholars like
Peter Ramus argued that the processes of invention and arrangement should be elevated to the domain of philosophy, while rhetorical instruction should be chiefly concerned with the use of figures and other forms of the ornamentation of language. Scholars such as
Francis Bacon developed the study of "scientific rhetoric" which rejected the elaborate style characteristic of classical oration. This plain language carried over to
John Locke's teaching, which emphasized concrete knowledge and steered away from ornamentation in speech, further alienating rhetorical instruction—which was identified wholly with such ornamentation—from the pursuit of knowledge. In the 18th century, rhetoric assumed a more social role, leading to the creation of new education systems (predominantly in England): "
Elocution schools" in which girls and women analyzed classic literature, most notably the works of
William Shakespeare, and discussed pronunciation tactics. The study of rhetoric underwent a revival with the rise of democratic institutions during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Hugh Blair was a key early leader of this movement. In his most famous work,
Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, he advocates rhetorical study for common citizens as a resource for social success. Many American colleges and secondary schools used Blair's text throughout the 19th century to train students of rhetoric. Political rhetoric also underwent renewal in the wake of the U.S. and French revolutions. The rhetorical studies of ancient Greece and Rome were resurrected as speakers and teachers looked to
Cicero and others to inspire defenses of the new republics. Leading rhetorical theorists included
John Quincy Adams of
Harvard, who advocated the democratic advancement of rhetorical art. Harvard's founding of the
Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory sparked the growth of the study of rhetoric in colleges across the United States. Harvard's rhetoric program drew inspiration from literary sources to guide organization and style, and studies the rhetoric used in political communication to illustrate how political figures persuade audiences.
William G. Allen became the first American college professor of rhetoric, at
New-York Central College, 1850–1853. 19th century changes in the rhetoric and composition pedagogy included more focus on the student's developing skill through composition. Rhetoric professors like
A. S. Hill,
Barrett Wendell and
John Franklin Genung were prominent authors in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Debate clubs and lyceums also developed as forums in which common citizens could hear speakers and sharpen debate skills. The American lyceum in particular was seen as both an educational and social institution, featuring group discussions and guest lecturers. These programs cultivated democratic values and promoted active participation in political analysis. Throughout the 20th century, rhetoric developed as a concentrated field of study, with the establishment of rhetorical courses in high schools and universities. Courses such as
public speaking and
speech analysis apply fundamental Greek theories (such as the modes of persuasion: , , and ) and trace rhetorical development through history. Rhetoric earned a more esteemed reputation as a field of study with the emergence of
Communication Studies departments and of Rhetoric and Composition programs within English departments in universities, and in conjunction with the
linguistic turn in
Western philosophy. Rhetorical study has broadened in scope, and is especially used by the fields of marketing, politics, and literature. Another area of rhetoric is the study of cultural rhetorics, which is the communication that occurs between cultures and the study of the way members of a culture communicate with each other. These ideas can then be studied and understood by other cultures, in order to bridge gaps in modes of communication and help different cultures communicate effectively with each other. James Zappen defines cultural rhetorics as the idea that rhetoric is concerned with negotiation and listening, not persuasion, which differs from ancient definitions. Communication as studied in cultural rhetorics is focused on listening and negotiation, and has little to do with persuasion.
Canons Rhetorical education focused on five
canons. The serve as a guide to creating persuasive messages and arguments: ;
inventio (invention) : the process that leads to the development and refinement of an argument. ;
dispositio (disposition, or arrangement) : used to determine how an argument should be organized for greatest effect, usually beginning with the
exordium ;
elocutio (style) : determining how to present the arguments ;
memoria (memory) : the process of learning and memorizing the speech and persuasive messages ;
pronuntiatio (presentation) and
actio (delivery) : the gestures, pronunciation, tone, and pace used when presenting the persuasive arguments—the
Grand Style.
Memory was added much later to the original four canons.
Music During the
Renaissance rhetoric enjoyed a resurgence, and as a result nearly every author who wrote about music before the
Romantic era discussed rhetoric.
Joachim Burmeister wrote in 1601, "there is only little difference between music and the nature of oration".
Christoph Bernhard in the latter half of the century said "...until the art of music has attained such a height in our own day, that it may indeed be compared to a rhetoric, in view of the multitude of figures".
Knowledge Epistemology and rhetoric have been compared to one another for decades, but the specifications of their similarities have gone undefined. Since scholar
Robert L. Scott stated that, "rhetoric is
epistemic," rhetoricians and
philosophers alike have struggled to concretely define the expanse of implications these words hold. Those who have identified this inconsistency maintain the idea that
Scott's relation is important, but requires further study. The root of the issue lies in the ambiguous use of the term rhetoric itself, as well as the epistemological terms
knowledge,
certainty, and
truth. whereas
James Herrick writes that rhetoric assists in people's ability to form
beliefs, which are defined as
knowledge once they become widespread in a community. It is unclear whether
Scott holds that
certainty is an inherent part of establishing
knowledge, his references to the term abstract. He is not the only one, as the debate's persistence in
philosophical circles long predates his addition of rhetoric. There is an overwhelming majority that does support the concept of
certainty as a requirement for
knowledge, but it is at the definition of
certainty where parties begin to diverge. One definition maintains that
certainty is subjective and feeling-based, the other that it is a byproduct of
justification. The more commonly accepted definition of rhetoric claims it is synonymous with
persuasion. For rhetorical purposes, this definition, like many others, is too broad. The same issue presents itself with definitions that are too narrow. Rhetoricians in support of the
epistemic view of rhetoric have yet to agree in this regard. Therefore, the
Gettier Problem impedes the effectivity of the argument of Richard A. Cherwitz and James A. Hikins, who employ the
justified true belief standpoint in their argument for rhetoric as
epistemic. Celeste Condit Railsback takes a different approach, drawing from Ray E. McKerrow's system of
belief based on
validity rather than
certainty. William D. Harpine refers to the issue of unclear definitions that occurs in the theories of "rhetoric is epistemic" in his 2004 article "What Do You Mean, Rhetoric Is Epistemic?". view that one's beliefs are justified if formed by one's normal doxastic while the other focuses on the causal theory of knowledge. Both approaches manage to avoid Gettier's problems and do not rely on unclear conceptions of certainty. In “What Do You Mean, Rhetoric Is Epistemic?” (1992), William D. Harpine explores the idea that rhetoric not only communicates knowledge but helps to create it. Based on the work of Robert L. Scott, Harpine argues that knowledge is formed through persuasion, dialogue, and reasoning within communities rather than found as fixed truth. He explains how certainty is subjective, shaped by individual and cultural belief rather than by absolute objectivity. Harpine also connects to the Gettier Problem, which challenges the idea that “justified true belief” is equal to knowledge. By emphasizing communication and collaboration, Harpine closes that rhetoric functions as a social process in which people build, test, and revise what they accept as knowledge. In the discussion of rhetoric and
epistemology, comes the question of
ethics. Is it
ethical for rhetoric to present itself in the branch of
knowledge?
Scott rears this question, addressing the issue, not with ambiguity in the definitions of other terms, but against subjectivity regarding
certainty. Ultimately, according to Thomas O. Sloane, rhetoric and
epistemology exist as counterparts, working towards the same purpose of establishing
knowledge, with the common enemy of subjective
certainty. ==History and study==