Defining Rhetoric

I think it’s almost trite to say that the definition of rhetoric is contested. Of course it’s a point of contention—the very definition of rhetoric relies on how we use it (ie. The argument in Gorgias over true and false rhetorics). As the multitude of what-rhetoric-is statements at the beginning of Covino and Joliffe’s piece demonstrate, the rhetor is often the one who first defines rhetoric—and this, in itself, is a rhetorical act. But rather than simply saying that people all have different definitions of rhetoric that they use to their advantage, I’d say that different historical and sociopolitical climates shape how individuals come to understand and define rhetoric. Early on there are few definitions of rhetoric—granted, the profession was burgeoning and the availability of print only allows some rhetorical traditions to survive across time.

            Just as Quintilian’s notion of “a good man speaking well” bespeaks a time when the popular format of rhetoric came through declamations (RT, p. 37), so does Covino and Joliffe’s predilection for telling us what rhetoric is not (“Rhetoric is not logic,” “Rhetoric is not dialectical,” and “Rhetoric is not poetics” [pg. 8]). The former notion of rhetoric is shaped by the imperial Roman government as much as it was by Quintilian. The patronage system and power of imperialistic rule forces rhetoricians—as well as other notable professions—to define themselves in a positive light. A good man who speaks well fits the bill. Still, it’s not that simple. The definition Quintilian offers is a rhetorical response: He, as a rhetorician, is a good man—no threat to the empire and deserving of patronage. But more important is his facility as an orator. With the written word having a less prominent role at the time, speaking becomes the tool of the trade. If I were to be more crass, I’d say that Quintilian’s definition essentially says, “I’m no harm to the empire and I’ll be useful.” Similarly, George Campbell analyzes the 18th century audience to arrive at the conclusion that rhetoric is a way of manipulating people's mental faculties to evoke a particular response (45).

            Once the twentieth century arrives, the field has amassed a significant number of rhetoric definitions. In a move toward postmodernism, which began to see rhetorical acts in a multitude of places, rhetoric had to be defined in the negative. Since everything is rhetorical, what is itself not rhetoric? Logic. Dialect. Poetics. Again, rhetoric is a response to the times—the social and political pressures. What can be made of the multivariate definitions and definitions of not? Well, power is not as centralized in the current political and social ecology. The culture is different; we are less concerned with trying to define the world. Rather we try to piece what we know of the world together. Part of this pursuit to understand the world comes through the defining of certain discourse communities and our attempts to put them into conversation with one another (as mentioned in Covino & Joliffe, page 13). How the communities define rhetoric, in a sense, reflects how they define themselves politically and socially—and when looked back upon, they also give a sense of history/memory.