Classical and Modern Rhetoric

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Outline

Rhetoric is how human beings present their arguments about different events occurring in society. There are two different types of rhetoric, namely; modern rhetoric and classical rhetoric. Classical rhetoric is the traditional form of rhetoric that is mainly aimed at persuading the audience. On the other hand, modern rhetoric is the contemporary form of rhetoric that exists to reexamine provisions of classical rhetoric providing a more cooperative form of communication between a speaker and his/her audience. Some differences exist between the two types of rhetoric as well as factors that influence the level at which different people value rhetoric.

Introduction

According to (Alexander, 1999), rhetoric can be defined as the art where language is used to give persuasion on various issues. Rhetoric is taken to be among some of the very old forms of arts as it was used in learning curriculums of most western countries as early as Ancient Greece. The kind of rhetoric that was used in those ancient times is known as classical rhetoric while the kind that is being lately used is called modern rhetoric. Their main difference is time though other differences result from their different uses. These involve differences that exist and ways in which arguments are presented as well as the relationship between a speaker and his/her audience.

Characteristics of Modern and Classical Rhetoric

Classical rhetoric is the old version of modern rhetoric and it’s the form that was used in the olden days starting from Ancient Greece. Classical rhetoric is characterized by the persuasion of the public where people assembled as others addressed them, justifying their views as the correct ones. Classical rhetoric expects people to be very good at convincing the public on their stand of things. Classical rhetoric is also characterized by distinct strategies which orators used to convince their audience. When used effectively, it was believed to allow disclosure of truthful matters concerning issues that could have proved hard to understand in the first instance. Classical rhetoric has a very orderly arrangement of arguments that allows it to disclose truths, thereby clarifying issues that could not have been previously understood. It is also more focused on persuasion rather than communication. (Alexander, 1999)

On the other hand, modern rhetoric is the new form of rhetoric that has emerged with its main aim being to reexamine classical rhetoric’s issues and concepts. However, in the course of its reexamination, modern rhetoric has been found to differ from most concepts that were previously defined and represented by classical rhetoric making the two types very distinct. Modern rhetoric is characterized by distinct forms of conducting argumentations where persuasion is regarded as a means by which people try to hide the truth by convincing others. It portrays the value of persuasion in the modern world where a wide range of analyses is conducted in the political arena. Modern rhetoric is also widely used in form of modern advertisements, films as well as photography. Therefore, modern rhetoric can be expressed through various distinct forms as it goes beyond normal speech. It also allows people who are being addressed to give their perceptions about various issues.

The Changing Anatomy of Rhetoric and Some of the Major Theorists and Movements

(Mark, 2004), argues that, rhetoric has undergone some changes which have been realized in the course of its development from ancient days to current modern times. Several theorists have taken efforts to define and explain rhetoric’s developmental forms. Theorists of classical rhetoric include Aristotle, Plato, and Sophists. Sophists were a group of ancient teachers who introduced teaching in form of speech and they included Gorgias and Protagoras. This group of teachers went around various cities where they taught students through poetry, synonyms, speech, and debates. They asked students to pay for services offered to them at the end of learning sessions.

Students were noticed to increase their level of knowledge in areas covered together with their teachers which made them argue that for one to excel, some level of learning or teaching has to take place. Sophists also supported counter arguments’ theories where they argued that, for every concept presented, there have to be other concepts opposing them. Another theory that was supported by sophists was that of probability where they argued that any concept can only be proved to be effective through the way it’s presented to other people. An effective presentation is likely to make a particular group of the audience believe or support a particular issue, thereby raising the probability in which that concept is perceived to be true. As a result, sophists were known to argue against so many issues and it was therefore believed that they turned the wrong or weak arguments to look strong or correct.

According to (Mark, 2004), another theorist of classical rhetoric is Plato who first takes his time to criticize how sophists presented their arguments in the process of teaching their students. He argued that sophists gave their students very limited information and expected them to follow their line of thinking. Sophists did not provide the whole truth to their students but only provided them with what they perceived as probable. This according to Plato was misleading the students who would in turn persuade others as they were taught. Unlike the sophists, Plato believed that the best way to direct anyone or deliver information concerning any particular issue is through providing all necessary information required and then leaving the audience to decide for themselves the side they would want to support. He is also known to come up with the word rhetoric which he used to describe his knowledge theory as well as to oppose Sophists’ take on rhetoric.

Aristotle has also made very major contributions to rhetoric as he argues that, rhetoric as art should only follow dialectics. In this particular case, rhetoric is used to determine whether someone is guilty or not and to guide on the best action concerning various issues presented in court. He goes ahead to give the existing difference between dialectic and rhetoric where he says that, rhetoric should assist people to make informed decisions but should not be used to offer definitions or provide clarifications of any form of perception as that is the work of dialectics. To him, rhetoric is more of a technique available to human beings, which should be applied in decision-making. This results in a very unique definition of rhetoric where Aristotle considers it as the means through which forms of persuasion are observed. His definition gives rhetoric a different role in discovering events which according to him is equally important. Therefore, rhetoric comprises modes through which information is delivered together with their different styles as well as emotional appeals. (Mark, 2004)

There is also another different category of theorists that is concerned with issues regarding modern rhetoric among them being Kenneth Burke, Edwin Black, Lucie, Chaim, and Henry Junior. Chaim who had studied law was found to integrate rhetoric in the practice of his law career. However, he used rhetoric in its modern form which helped him present argumentations in court. He produced a book in conjunction with Lucie where they described several ways through which rhetoric can help lawyers present their views and arguments. They also insisted that modern rhetoric has a universal audience who according to them is the group of audience who are assumed to be present during the presentation of arguments.

Kenneth Burke is another theorist of modern rhetoric who integrates provisions of rhetoric in poetry. This is clearly shown in his poetry works which include motives’ rhetoric and writings where he describes modern rhetoric as a language that presents actions in form of symbols in some instances and counterstatements in others. Edwin Black offered a rather different stand where he criticized classical rhetoric, especially that describing Aristotle’s views. He argued that the new edition of Aristotle’s work otherwise known as neo- Aristotelian gives a very different opinion compared to the one originally presented by Aristotle. Edwin criticized rhetorical scholars for putting so much emphasis on the logical forms presented by Aristotle and ended up ignoring other concepts that would be used in the place of those particular logistics. According to Edwin, it would have been appropriate for rhetorical scholars to focus on other alternatives rather than presenting Aristotelian logistics as the only available and hence the best model to be followed. (Mark, 2004)

Differences between Modern Rhetoric and Classical Rhetoric

(Clayann, 2001), found that, classical rhetoric and modern rhetoric have emerged to be two different kinds of arts even though modern rhetoric has developed from classical rhetoric. Their perceived differences can be divided into four categories with the first one being the different ways through which they present human beings’ image as well as that of the society as a whole. Classical rhetoric presents human beings as very rational creatures who are in a position to acquire all the information needed in decision making thereby describing human beings as knowable. Society is also considered to be static where limited change is expected to occur and therefore the information that people are presented with is expected to be used as it is. In this case, human beings are not given chances to think outside the concepts provided to them by orators and they are recommended to present their argumentations in the context of that information on society. On the contrary, modern rhetoric is more considerate on this particular issue as the concerned theorists take their time to offer chances for people to give their views and not just insisting on the available information about the society.

Modern rhetoric argues that human beings conduct their lives in a rather fragmented society where varied information about society exists. Modern theorists also recommend that more information should be provided giving the different forms of events taking place in those societies which should then be used to convince others on various perceptions. The next category of differences is the one concerned with logical arguments. Modern rhetorical theorists tend to differ from those of classical rhetoric in the way in which they concentrate on logical argumentation while persuading people. Aristotle was one classical theorist of rhetoric with who modern theorists have greatly differed. This is because of his wide usage of logical proofs to present various concepts where he insists that, human beings should be provided with facts that represent the truth. Aristotle does not allow people to argue against those facts which he considers as going against the truth. This particular approach makes classical rhetoric appear overly rational which is contrary to the provisions of modern rhetoric. Modern rhetoric insists on the use of emotional proofs rather than the logical ones as proposed by classical rhetoric. In this particular case, human beings are expected to dwell on their feelings and emotions while convincing other people on their stand of things. This is because; their feelings are in a position to bring out a stronger argumentation than when using mere logistics and facts.

Thirdly, classical rhetoric differs from modern rhetoric in its presentation of the relationship between a speaker and his/her audience. Classical rhetoric presents this relationship in a very “undirectional” manner since orators address the public without having a specific direction. This is because; their main objective is to persuade and convince the public wholesomely rather than concentrating on specific categories of people they want to persuade as well as their views on issues in question. Therefore, classical rhetoric’s kind of relationship is manipulative since communication follows only one direction that is from the orator to the audience. However, modern rhetoric is quite different as it allows the opposite side of communication to take part thereby rendering its form of relationship to be a bit more cooperative.

This is a situation where the audience is allowed to give their views and try to convince the speaker that their perceptions are correct. Modern rhetoric is thereby found to offer an equal ground for both parties where persuasions come from both sides in an open floor kind of argumentation. In this particular case, no side can say that they have been manipulated since opportunities have been provided equally. Modern rhetoric agrees that the modern population is well versed with issues as well as factors that affect their contemporary society and should therefore be given freedom of speech. The last of the four categories of differences between modern rhetoric and classical rhetoric is where they tend to differ on the end of persuasion and beginning of communication. Classical rhetoric dwells more on persuasion since most of its presentations are the orator’s addresses to his/her audience. On the contrary, modern rhetoric dwells more on communication than persuasion as both the speaker and audience take part in communication processes. This fourth difference has a close connection with the third one as relationships existing between orators and audience is defined by the direction in which their communication takes. (Clayann, 2001)

Different Socio-Political Climates and Other Factors Relating To the Degree of Influence/Importance of Rhetoric

Characteristics of rhetoric as well as differences that exist between them show how important rhetoric is to individuals and society as a whole. However, several factors related to the degree to which rhetoric is important among them being social, economic as well as political factors. The importance of rhetoric depends on one’s age where in some instances; knowledge is believed to increase with the increase in age. For example, a college-level student would write a better essay than the one that would be written by a student in primary school.

The social class of a person also matters since the higher the class the more information one is believed to have as one is expected to have interacted with quite a wide range of categories of people who expose him/her to different information. For instance, a Chief Executive Officer is expected to present a better argumentation than a subordinate worker in his/ her company. Religion and political beliefs also form part of the factors that affect the level of importance of rhetoric to individuals as well as society. This is because, if a particular concept is against one’s religious or political beliefs, that person is likely to argue more against it to make people follow his/her belief. On the contrary, one would argue less if a particular concept aligns with his/her beliefs. (Gilbert, 1985)

Conclusion

It’s therefore evident that modern rhetoric and classical rhetoric are very important aspects in the lives of human beings which have been portrayed by their different applications. Classical rhetoric tries to give a rather more traditional use of rhetoric where human beings are denied freedom of speech. However, modern rhetoric comes in to save the situation as it provides the audience with a ground to air their views which can be explained by the diversity and developments of contemporary society. However, even with their differences, they both remain to be very essential in the day-to-day communication processes. (Robert, 2008)

References

Alexander G. (1999): Classical rhetoric and its Christian & secular tradition from ancient to modern times: UNC Press pp44-48.

Clayann G. (2001): Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates pp10-15.

Gilbert H. (1985): Greek and Roman influences on Western literature: Oxford University press US pp66-69.

Mark L. (2004): Demythologizing language difference in the academy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates pp27-31.

Robert J. (2008): Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse: Southern Illinois University Press pp57-62.

Click Here To Order Now!