What we've seen this week is a historical look in to some of the greater rhetors of the classical period and their works. In these works we see everything from the ideal (Plato) to the situational (Sophists). I would like to take this post to analyze or try to situate myself among these rhetors. It seems I share a lot of values and beliefs about what rhetoric is with Aristotle and the sophists simultaneously. Isocrates comes to mind when trying to place myself. It seems that as a great educator Isocrates was concerned with being pragmatic as well as adhering to some sort of "good" virtue. In his piece, Against the Sophists, he makes a point to say that merely teaching a man of no values how to use rhetoric does not qualify him as a rhetor (as many "bad" Sophists might have done). Instead, Isocrates pushes for an education in which those who have a natural affinity for rhetoric develop those skills and round themselves as people to most effectively use rhetoric. This view closely mirrors my own. I think that the Sophists were right in that rhetoric can be taught to just about anyone, but should it? And if it should, what separates a good rhetor from a bad rhetor? The values and principles that a person holds should be taken in to account when developing a personal rhetoric. The pragmatic side of me says anyone can learn it, but to apply it one needs some sort of ethical core that isn't corrupt or void of any affinity for the art.
In addition, the question of what types of rhetoric were involved in the 9/11 attacks is very broad. There are many classical rhetors that come to mind, specifically Gorgias. Gorgias' view of language closely parallels that of the language and rhetoric used in the 9/11 attacks. Particularly, the hate speech and slurs that came afterwards. The news and media at the time used vague, broad language to change the meaning of the situation and the people involved. Although 9/11 was very devastating, language was manipulated in such a way to apply the actions of a small radical sect of Islam to an entire nation's worth of people. This sort of distortion of language seems to be in alignment with Gorgias' views on how language and rhetoric can be picked up and used in such a way to distort and argue points just for the sake of argument.
The Romans will resonate with you, as well, although their sense of morality and good is different than our own. Interesting connection to hate speech and 9-11. Are we witnessing something remotely similar in the middle east right now? There is demonizing, but it seems to me much of that demonizing is well placed...
ReplyDeleteGorgias like many other classical rhetors believed that rhetoric should be used in a moral and ethical way. Many believed that in order to even be an orator, you had to be a good and just man, using rhetoric for the good will of the people and bringing the unjust to justice. In this case you speak of how the media manipulated language to blame an entire nation instead of the small radical sect responsible. Do you believe the media did this because they thought they were bringing justice for what happened or did they do it for their own selfish reasons?
ReplyDelete