Rhetoric: Herrick v. Aristotle

James Herrick gave his definition of rhetoric when he said, “I will define the art of rhetoric as the systematic study and intentional practice of effective symbolic expression.” In regards to Mr. Herrick’s definition, I feel the idea that rhetoric is the practice of effective and intentional expression is a good, all-encompassing definition that makes it easy for people of all cultures to understand. For those who do not study writing and rhetoric, the idea of knowing how to effectively express themselves is something very easy to understand and apply in everyday life. The effectiveness of this definition is based on the understanding that some ways of communicating are better than others.

On the other hand, Aristotle defines rhetoric as the study of humanity as it applies to the way our emotions define our reality. Herrick's definition differs from Aristotle’s only in the way the definition is worded. Where Herricks says his symbolic expression, Aristotle gives a broader perspective by including the entire study of humanity as a whole to describe how rhetoric is applicable in everyday life.

In regards to the view of rhetoric as the “art of bullshit,” I feel this is a singular view of rhetoric, as a whole, due to the complexity of the term. While some appeals may be perceived as deceptive, these appeals are simply crafted to be studied and effective to persuade an audience to understand the reasoning behind a certain view or perspective. While many consider the “art of bullshit” angle to be true, rhetoric is an art that is, not necessarily, all about deception. The artful nature of the practice lies in the well-practiced skill of knowing how to persuade an audience for an intended purpose or to help them see a concept in a better light. Rhetoric is an art form used by all of humanity, therefore, there is merit in both Herrick and Aristotle’s views. However, each person views this art form from their own perspective, making it difficult to pinpoint one specific definition.