What is Rhetoric?
The art of speaking welll? THe art of persuasion? Or just empty words? How can we define rhetoric? What is ethos, pathos, and logos? Here are some short introductions to the nature of rhetoric, its history and its foundational concepts.
The Word
Etymologically, the word rhetoric finds its origins in ancient Greek, where rhêtorikê was fashioned out of earlier words such as rhêtôr (speaker) and rêma (what is said/a word). Today, it is common to think of rhetoric as the art of eloquence or the art of persuasion, meaning that this discipline offers a collection of rules and tricks destined to fashion beautiful and persuasive speeches for all occasions. In Plato’s dialogue Gorgias, the oldest surviving text making use of the concept of rhetoric, the sophist Gorgias also claims that rhetoric teaches us the “ability to persuade”. With such an understanding of rhetoric, it is easy to think that research within Rhetorical Studies is focused on evaluating speeches (whether or not the speaker has spoken eloquently or convincingly) in order to sharpen our persuasive tools.
Already Plato’s disciple Aristotle did, however, point to the problems attached to any definition of rhetoric which characterizes it as the art of persuasion. When comparing it to for instance the art of painting, which teaches us how to mix colors and achieve certain effects on the canvas, or the art of construction, offering rules on how to for instance build a sturdy foundation for a house, the art of rhetoric is not capable of offering rules that would promise a certain outcome, since every speech situation is singular. What is convincing to someone at a certain point in time might not be convincing even to that same person when we find ourselves in another situation. Here, the point is that although the building of a house or the drawing of a painting might be affected by situational circumstances, the physical world still offers a higher degree of regularity offering itself up to the formulation of stable rules that might produce a similar outcome.
Not the Art of Persuasion?
To solve this issue, that an art of persuasion is incapable of formulating rules that would guarantee a certain effect as long as the user follows them, Aristotle offered another definition of rhetoric. To him, rhetoric became the capacity to consider that which aims at persuading in a specific situation. The Greek verb that is rendered as “to consider”, theôrêsai, is connected to the word theory, implying that for Aristotle, rhetoric was not to be considered as the theory of how a speaker should persuade, but one explaining how speakers attempt to persuade an audience. When Aristotle wrote about ethos, pathos and logos, he was, therefore, offering a theoretical description of how the speakers at the agora, at court, and at the feast, tried to persuade their audiences through the use of their character, through transforming the passions of the listeners, and through the available words, tropes, and arguments, rather than offering us a collection of rules on how we should persuade in the future. Although rhetoric, since Aristotle’s time, has to a large degree been used as an art of speaking persuasively or eloquently, his limitation of rhetoric has had a great influence on how modern research in the discipline is conducted, wherein focus primarily is on trying to understand existing communication rather than prescribing how a message should be formulated in the future. This does not necessarily mean that rhetoric cannot be used as an aid when producing new persuasive messages, but it is important to acknowledge the field and limitations of rhetoric, which is why definitions such as “the art of speaking well” or “the art of persuasion” might appear misleading.
What Can Rhetoric Do?
But why are Rhetorical Studies then necessary? Are we not already aware of what we are saying, as well as why and how we are saying it? For a rhetorician, the answer to that question is no. Even though the reasons for this ‘no’ might vary, both historically and between different theoretical strands, returning to Aristotle might offer us one reason to why this is the case. In On Sophistical Refutations, Aristotle pointed out a certain inherent ambiguity and equivocity in language which is derived from the fact that the things in the world far outnumber the amount of words we have to designate them. This means that the same word must be used to designate more than one thing. And since the function of words, at least according to Aristotle, is to allow us to speak about things even when they are not physically present, the lack of words and the abundance of things creates a situation where misunderstandings concerning the object we are speaking about might occur. But, what was of even greater importance, at least in Aristotle’s opinion, was that these ambiguities could be used by those of a sophistic mindset in order to further their own agenda. This is where Aristotle saw the need of rhetoric, since its aim should be (at least in its Aristotelian form) to investigate and explain how ambiguities and equivocities might be used in the fields of politics, law, and morality. And although many rhetoricians have critiqued, reimagined, and expanded Aristotle’s understanding of language and rhetoric, most scholars in the field still to this day maintain this basic thesis: Rhetoric is needed because humans are not capable of fully grasping the functions and effects of language.
Read More about Rhetoric
To anyone who wants to understand rhetoric, its origins, but also the problems that it deals with, I recommend Aristotle’s Rhetoric as well as Plato’s dialogues Gorgias and The Phaedrus. I have also treated the nature of rhetoric in several of my own texts.
Rhetorical Concepts - An Introduction
Most people who have heard of rhetoric also know that the three most central concepts in this art are the means of persuasion or proof: ἦθος (ethos), πάθος (pathos) and λόγος (logos). In this text, these concepts will be explained and illustrated with examples.
Introduction
The three rhetorical concepts ethos, pathos and logos were coined almost 2,400 years ago by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his Rhetoric, he points out that the rhetoric textbook of his time had focused so much on side issues, such as how best to manipulate the judge in a court case, that they failed to see that it is actually ethos, pathos and logos that constitute the core of rhetoric. Aristotle believed that a speaker always has two types of persuasion at their disposal: non-artificial and artificial. The former are means of persuasion that do not primarily involve influencing and convincing through language, but rather are available even before the speech begins (e.g. witness statements, laws, contracts). In a court case concerning who is the rightful owner of something, for example, being able to present a signed purchase contract is undoubtedly strong non-artificial evidence. Artistic means of persuasion (ethos, pathos and logos) are those we use in the speech itself (or, when talking about the present day, in the text, video, image, etc.) to convince an audience. It is therefore important to point out that artistic means of persuasion, at least for Aristotle, are something that is created in and through speech. This means that the speaker does not have an ethos and the audience does not have a pathos before the speech has begun. However, this idea has been criticised by modern rhetorical theorists who argue that it is important to consider, for example, the ethos that a speaker brings to the situation (if, for example, the audience already has certain preconceived notions about the speaker).
It is important to remember that Aristotle himself explicitly states that he is not writing a rule book on how the reader should go about convincing others with their speech. The very idea that such a book could even be written seems laughable to Aristotle, as all situations are different. An argument that convinces a certain audience at a certain point in time may not necessarily convince the same group of people at a later point in time (because they may have experienced things that make the argument no longer seem credible). There is therefore no rhetorical art that provides us with ready-made tools for persuasion. What Aristotle thought he was doing instead was mapping the different ways in which the speakers in the Athenian marketplace tried to persuade, in order to then categorise and systematise these ways to better understand and formulate a theory about how persuasion works. What he found in his research was, as already mentioned, that speakers use character (ethos), encourage or calm certain emotions in the audience (pathos), and use language and arguments (logos).
Ethos
Ethos in rhetoric is therefore about how the speaker uses their character to persuade their audience. Aristotle believes that ethos is ultimately about appearing credible. The concept originally comes from the Greek word for habit or custom, and this meaning is also reflected in how Aristotle uses it: it is about presenting oneself in a way that corresponds to how the audience imagines an honest or credible person. He also explicitly points out that this is not about the audience’s preconceived notions about the speaker, but only what the speaker says in the speech and which can be interpreted as an expression of their character. Mentioning one’s experience in the field covered by the speech or illustrating one’s thoughtfulness with examples can thus be understood as an attempt to persuade using ethos.
For Aristotle, ethos consists primarily of three aspects: goodwill (εὔνοιᾰ), prudence (φρόνησις) and competence, virtue or excellence (άρετή). He believed that, in their attempts to persuade, speakers try to present themselves as benevolent towards their audience, as prudent and sensible, and as virtuous and excellent.
Pathos
Pathos is about the emotions that speech attempts to evoke in the audience. In the second book of Rhetoric, Aristotle gives a lengthy explanation of how different emotions are created, because he believes that it is emotions that ‘are the cause of changing one’s mind and making different judgements’ [1378a]. Here, for instance, we learn that anger comes from a desire for revenge against someone who, for example, has treated us badly, despised us or ridiculed us. So, if the speaker wants the audience to feel anger towards an opponent, the speaker needs to describe the situation in such a way that the listeners feel that the opponent has treated them badly, despised or ridiculed them. The speaker does this by getting the audience to imagine a situation, often through a story or a trope, that can evoke the desired emotional state.
Logos
Logos is undoubtedly the most problematic concept in the fundamental triad of rhetoric, not least because the word had a rich and multifaceted meaning in ancient Greece. In addition to meaning “word”, “speech” and “language”, logos could also be used to mean “reasoning”, “narrative”, “argument” and “thinking”, among other things. All of this comes together in Aristotle’s idea of logos as a means of proof: it is about how we use language in different ways to convince an audience. This can involve, for example, the use of tropes and figures of speech, such as how metaphors establish a certain image of what we are talking about, but also how arguments are connected and whether they are logically sound. According to Aristotle, there are two forms of argumentative evidence that belong to rhetoric: the paradigmatic example and the enthymeme. With the paradigmatic example, the speaker uses either a real or fictional example to strengthen their thesis. Aristotle illustrates this himself by strengthening the thesis that those in power should not be appointed by lot (something that was common, especially in ancient Athens) but on the basis of skill, using the comparative example that we would never let the lot decide which of the sailors should steer the ship and act as captain (instead, we choose the most knowledgeable for the task). The enthymeme, on the other hand, is a kind of argument by deduction. However, these arguments do not always have to be logically valid (like a syllogism) but only probable. Aristotle gives us an example taken from when Demades, an Athenian politician, argued that it was his opponent Demosthenes’ policies that led to all the misfortune that had befallen Athens in the war against Macedonia. This is an argument based on the premise that something that happens first (Demosthenes’ policies) is the cause of something that happens afterwards (misfortunes resulting from war). And it is, of course, possible, perhaps even probable, that the political proposals put forward by Demosthenes actually led to the misfortunes of war, but it is by no means necessary that this is the case. In order for us to be convinced, probable arguments are not enough. In this case, we must also see Demades as credible in order to trust his conclusions, and even better, we should also feel anger or rage towards Demosthenes for the argument to really appear credible.
For those who want to read more about these and other rhetorical concepts, I recommend Aristotle’s book Rhetoric, which is available in Swedish translation. I have also written a short text dealing with Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric.