The first chapter of Conley's book offers a really brief explanation of rhetoric. I think my favorite line from the chapter is on pg. 2 toward the bottom: "...having might is equated with being right." This statement offers us an insight to how the ancients viewed rhetoric and its purpose. The words art and manipulation appeared and were implied throughout the chapter making me wonder how much of rhetoric is based on these two words. Therefore, this led me to believe that rhetoric of this time was not about finding the truth, but entertaining an audience with opinion causing the audience to believe that the opinion was truth. What a mouthful of manipulation ("the art of persuasion").
I feel this chapter really allowed me to better understand the chapters about the ancients in Matsen's book. The different approaches to rhetoric by the ancients in this book gave me a visual of each situation. To actually see the rhetoric, the speech, and the audience portrayed side by side as they were was insightful. I was able to determine who I thought was 'good' and who I thought was 'bad' for lack of better terms. As I read, I found myself relating these gentlemen to my students and what I tell them about "the art of persuasion". We focus on the appeals (ethos, logos, and pathos) in all of our writing not necessarily looking for the right answer or the true answer, but how to persuade, argue, and communicate with one another. I believe Aristotle had the right theory. Plato is a bit strong for an average classroom; but really, how many times in reality does embarrassing or degrading someone cause that person to want to change? It may not be the most effective way of persuasion, but it does sometimes work.
As I read the two books, I kept thinking about Brutus and Cassius in Julius Caesar. Two totally different speeches about the same event, but which one was more effective and why? Words can give us power; and what we decide to do with that power is up to us. If we can reach the masses, then we have the control; if we have control, then we have power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your thoughts about Cassius and Brutus. It is interesting to think about how thing might have turned out differently if these two men had differently balnced abilities and even looks. The power was not only in the speaker's words, but in his physical appearance. The man with the looks and the silver tongue had more clout with the audience than just the smooth talker. Not much different than today really.
ReplyDeleteI like how you used the word "manipulation" when you described the earliest approaches to rhetoric. Not only is the speaker manipulating their words but manipulating their audience at the same time. To be honest, I don't think rhetoric has truly moved past this point for most audiences.
ReplyDeleteWasn't it Brutus and Marc Antony? Or are you refering to the "persuausion" speech Cassius uses to bring Brutus to the assasination. Sorry, I am in the midst for preping this unit (I also wrote about this in my blog).
ReplyDeleteArete is the way to go!
It's true in so many circumstances...might is right. I worry about my students' lack of questioning when it comes to rhetoric. They take so much at face value and they are at risk for the manipulation you speak of.
ReplyDelete