9/13/19
I’ve been using a broader definition of rhetoric this whole time — the manner in which someone speaks, at all, the style in which they choose to use their language (word-based or otherwise) — but if you’re looking at it from a technical academic point of view as a field of study, you understandably have to narrow it down a little. That said, defining rhetoric as the study of ‘symbolic expression’ (which, by the way, is defined as nonverbal, so this is kind of an interesting line he’s chosen to write here with real human words that you would speak in a manner that some might describe as… verbal) limits it too much, in my opinion. Language is to broad to be described as so minuscule. It is not only the words used to deliver a message, but the manner in which those words are spoken, and the medium in which both are experienced. There’s obviously more than just that, but I think you’d rather me not sit here listing out different ways in which language reaches us on a daily basis.
I think calling it an art is not necessarily correct (and also a little pretentious). It’s inherent in literally everything you see or read, whether you know it by its name or not. Sure, some people can turn it into an art form with really vivid and breathtaking speeches, but for most, it’s less impactful. Still ever-present, but less so. It’s like a pencil. It’s a tool, and everyone uses them, but some people draw with them and make phenomenal art that I could not possibly hope to recreate. I mean, sure, if I practiced long enough and devoted enough time to it I could probably learn how, but I’ve got other things to do. You have the same deal here — rhetoric is a tool everyone uses in their daily life. Sometimes you persuade people day-to-day, like you might do a pencil sketch of a dog you saw walking by your window. Some people devote hours to creating the perfect piece of art.
Calling rhetoric the art of anything specific is incorrect — if you are saying it is only the art of bullshit or only the art of speechwriting or only the art of persuasion. It is none of those things singular because, as with many tools, its definition encompasses all of the purposes for which it can be used. A pencil is for writing and also for drawing. Language is for persuasion and also for deceit.
James can say whatever he wants to about the definition of rhetoric; I’m going to take a hard pass on his attempt to pin it down to one measly aspect. I’m not going to confine my tools to one singular purpose. How am I supposed to use them like that?
