Some thoughts on rhetoric

What do I mean by the phrase "rhetoric"?

This is itself not a rhetorical question. In their review of what rhetoric might mean for postmodern humans, John Bender and David Wellberry arrive at a fairly neutral definition: rhetoric is “an art of positionality in address” (7). Rhetoric is an art of managing the relationships between audience, speaker/writer, and topic. But rhetoric is not, at least according to Aristotle himself, “persuasion”; rather, rhetoric involves the “the detection of the persuasive aspects of each matter.” Lots to study here. How does one relate to an audience or a topic? How does a specific audience relate to a topic? How is the topic composed and what are the links between data and assertions about the topic? How might those assertions become more compelling for a specific audience?

Bender and Wellberry connect rhetoric not with some school topic (go to class and master some content and skills) but rather as part of all of our “attempts to know,” from biology to art to My Space. The trick for me is grounding rhetoric in material and ethical situations. To grow as a rhetorician (on this definition) is to think about what new knowledge one can build from one’s own position in relationship to a real audience and real data. What’s more, rhetoricians have to take responsibility for the down-stream results of the knowledge that they build.