The common understanding of rhetoric today seems to be that it is “the art of bullshit”. This perception of rhetoric is one that’s seemingly carried on since the time of the anti-rhetoric skeptic Plato. At first glance, this definition seems to be open-ended enough — it works as a fun jab at the persuasive aspects of rhetoric, while also acting as a warning against falling for those very same persuasive aspects. However, the four words of this definition, taken together, end up carrying pretty negative implications. The term “the art of bullshit” and its poor connotations not only invalidate the worth of rhetoric, but they also limit its true potential.
James Herrick’s definition of rhetoric, on the other hand, leaves room for interpretation. Not only is it a truly neutral definition that allows us to imagine both positive and negative applications of rhetoric, but it also doesn’t limit those applications. Herrick’s definition of rhetoric as “the systematic study and intentional practice of effective symbolic expression.” recognizes that rhetoric lies in any mode of communication, not exclusively with words.
In class, we have described the rhetoric of art pieces (such as the Mood Sculpture here on campus), and even the rhetoric of actions (specifically the 9/11 attacks). Linguistic rhetoric can utilize multiple specific strategies to convey an idea, but in our discourse on visual rhetoric, we’ve revealed that the key with visual rhetoric is pretty strictly its symbolism or perceived symbolism. This is why referring to rhetoric in terms of “symbolic expression” is so accurate. The most basic practice in rhetoric isn’t learning how to most effectively utilize words to convey an idea, but most efficiently employ the use of symbols to communicate.
One could argue that “the art of bullshit” also allows for us to remember the importance of visual rhetoric, or any other rhetoric besides words. After all, those four words are simply describing rhetoric as an art. But trying to find the most effective way to express an idea doesn’t automatically mean you are trying to convey bullshit, or use bullshit to convey it. All bullshit may be an idea we wish to express, but not all ideas we wish to express are bullshit. So whether it be turns of phrase or sweeps of paint, it is the competent control of symbols to communicate something (not necessarily bullshit!) that makes something rhetoric.
