Rhetoric: A Rhetorical Analysis
Rhetoric. A term that seems to have a bunch of definitions, and no one can seem to officially agree on the same one. Some misunderstand the meaning as a whole, but with James Herrick’s definition of rhetoric, “I will define the art of rhetoric as the systematic study and intentional practice of effective symbolic expression,” the use of rhetoric can definitely appeal to a wider audience in many ways. More specifically, Herrick defines rhetoric as an art and something that is and can be used in more ways than just reading and writing: gestures, postures, physical movements, etc. Even the way certain things were built he claims there is an underlying message (or symbol) to the dimensions needed to create the piece. With the matter of determining effectiveness is purely subjective. A (somewhat) good example of this would be the height of the One World Trade Center. It stands at 1,776 feet tall — it is 1,776 feet tall because the July 4, 1776 was when the United States of America declared independence. Clearly, the architect behind the design intentionally did this to symbolize our strength as a nation after the horrific attacks on America on September 11, 2001. Herrick’s definition differs from Aristotle’s because Aristotle primarily focuses on the means of persuasion, rather than the act and the art of intentional practice of symbolic expressions. Back to the rhetoric of the One World Trade Center symbolism of the length of the building, the architect is not necessarily trying to persuade anyone into doing anything or believing anything — but rather a fact that is used to highlight our status as a country. I believe that the art of bullshit does not apply to Herrick’s definition as much as it would with Aristotle’s. Persuasion often is outlined with exaggerated nonsense in order to convince someone of doing something in their favor (which is the opposite of rhetoric). Aristotle would find that to be true, because he finds any available case of persuasion as a successful one. But Herrick claims that you can use symbols and gestures to describe rhetoric in a more artistic form, rather than just convincing someone of something; yet even if they are trying to convince, some can at least appreciate the art behind the process. I think labeling rhetoric as an artform is definitely reasonable, but to some may undermine the power of rhetoric/persuasion while it is actually doing the complete opposite.
