Rhetoric In The 21st Century: What Is It? (Mostly What It Is Not But Everyone Thinks It Is)

Rhetoric is the art of convincing.

But what does convincing mean exactly?

Where is the boundary with other closely related notions such as figures of speech, eloquence or (if we go over to the dark side) manipulation?

Before saying what it is, let's start by saying that rhetoric is not.

1. Stylistic devices?

Rhetoric in 2024 falls victim to stereotypes.

Hearing the word “rhetoric”, the first thing that comes to mind for many people is the obsessive study of figures of speech. They expect to be bombarded with incomprehensible words such as “chiasmus”, “epanadiplosis” or “zeugma”. They expect to be confronted with words which are no longer used in the language. A one-way DeLorean drive to rediscover the archaisms of their boring-as-hell high-school literature classes…

iStock

Are they right? Partially.

Yes, rhetoric often uses figures of speech, but they are just tools. The purpose of rhetoric is by no means limited to the art of using stylistic elements. Who cares if we can distinguish metonymy from synecdoche, alliteration from assonance?

Only one thing matters to us: knowing the argumentative effects produced by these elements.

This clarification has two practical consequences:

• First, subscribers to “Rhetoric Wednesdays” will not find any articles devoted specifically to figures of speech. Instead, stylistic devices will be mentioned as just one type of tool among many, and their convincing impact explained.

• Second, we’ve chosen to keep the complexity of classifications to a minimum. Wherever possible, figures with similar argumentative effects will be grouped under the same generic designation. So, for example, all single-word analogies will be grouped under the generic term “metaphor”. That's why our approach here is so far away from the literary analysis courses you took in high school!

The only thing we're interested in learning here is not stylistic technicality, it's rhetorical effectiveness.

2. Eloquence?

At the start of the 21st century, eloquence is becoming 'sexy' again.

It's no longer confined to lawyers and law students. There are countless documentaries, films, and TV shows on the subject. Almost every university has its own debating club. In the business world, from training employees in public speaking to hosting pitch competitions, public speaking is becoming increasingly professionalized.

Eloquence and rhetoric are closely related, but they differ in several ways.

Eloquence is the art of speaking well to captivate an audience. To express oneself with a unique vocabulary, chiseled sentences, and inspired pronunciation. A sort of prerequisite for good rhetoric that helps to capture attention before trying to convince. Because, if people don't listen to us, how can we convince them?

However, great eloquence doesn't necessarily mean convincing. Comedians, storytellers and poets use mainly rhetoric to move, astonish, disorientate, make people laugh or cry. No to convince.

Rhetoric isn't just about oral expression.

For example, when the Chairman or CEO of a company sends a letter to employees to justify the decision to return to the office, or to shareholders to defend the annual report, the aim is to convince through the written word. It's the same when we write a cover letter to apply for a job. Or when we send messages on a dating app. We want to convince people that we're THE one.

BTW, it’s time for a little digression, to deconstruct a tenacious myth...

Many speech experts constantly remind us that 55% of our communication comes through our posture, gestures and facial expressions, and 38% through our voice. As a result, only 7% of the message would be communicated with words. This would mean that when we try to convince, our choice of words is almost irrelevant.

What's the point of learning rhetoric then?

These numbers come from two studies conducted by psychologist Albert Mehrabian in 1967 and his team. In fact, the study focused only on single-word verbal messages: "sweetheart", "love", "rude", "maybe", "no", etc.

Albert Mehrabian

The study found that people were much more attentive to the way each of these words were pronounced than to the words themselves. Imagine you accidentally drop your friend's cell phone, the screen breaks, and he says "I'm not mad at you at all, these things happen" but with a dark look (actually we can feel he is really angry!). This study was in no way focused on structured arguments. Generalizing it to the whole oral communication is a fraud.

 Let's stop with the nonsense once and for all!

3. Negociation?

Like rhetoric, negotiation shares the same objective: resolving disagreements.

We saw earlier that rhetoric is the art of convincing. If we think about it, there are many situations where convincing requires resolving disagreements by aligning preferences. We won't go into financial negotiations here, as they boil down to a simple exchange of figures with no argumentative dimension.

Let's take an example with an everyday situation. Your partner wants to eat out tonight, but you'd rather stay at home. Your partner explains that eating out would be a good idea because the neighbor upstairs is having a birthday party. Listening to these words, you already imagine yourself sitting on the sofa, trying to read despite the unbearable noise from the floor above… and you settle for the alternative of taking refuge in the quiet of the restaurant. Your individual preferences have aligned because your partner has presented an argument that unites both of you.

Getty Images

Through negotiation, people can also come to an agreement even if they still have different or opposing preferences.

Let's take another simple example. You find an online ad for the guitar you've been looking for, priced at $5000. In your opinion, it's worth around $3000. However, it's a rare, beautifully preserved item, and this opportunity may never come again. After negotiating with the seller through DMs, you agree to pay $4000, albeit reluctantly. The seller preferred to sell for more, and we preferred to buy for less—yet we managed to come to an agreement and finalize the sale.

https://www.thomann.de/

Initially, negotiation involves a balance of power that doesn’t exist in rhetoric. But in practice, negotiation and rhetoric are often used together.

Let's go back to the first example, where your partner convinced you to go out to eat rather than spend the evening at home. The two of you have aligned preferences, but only partially, as your partner would like to go to a Japanese restaurant while you would prefer Italian. But you hate raw fish, and no argument will convince you to eat it. So, you both agree on a fusion restaurant that offers both sushi and pizza, despite its poor rating on TripAdvisor. Rhetoric brought your preferences closer together until you reached an irreconcilable divergence of tastes. Finally, negotiation enabled us to find a solution that respected everyone's preferences.

But in the end, the evening takes a different turn. On your way to the mediocre fusion restaurant, you discover a new Lebanese restaurant your friends have been raving about.

Neither of you had considered it, but you realize it suits you both perfectly. In this ideal situation, compromise becomes consensus, and the difference between rhetoric and negotiation disappears!

4. Manipulation?

For many people, rhetoric has a very negative connotation.

Rhetoric is often seen as the art of corrupting consciences through language, an odious technique of manipulation. What are the reasons for this criticism of rhetoric? Is rhetoric truly evil?

In "Philosophy and Politics" Bertrand Russell characterizes rhetoric as: "The art of making persuasive speeches, the art of influencing the emotions and not the judgment; and unfortunately, logic and rhetoric are to each other as the brick and the arch. The brick cannot replace the arch, but the arch cannot exist without the brick."

If rhetoric influences emotions rather than judgment, this means that it manipulates to unconsciously influence a person's opinions, desires, ideas and behaviors. When a person's critical faculties are neutralized, they can no longer step back and reject what they are told. The ethical, psychological and political stakes are high.

There's no doubt that people can be manipulated.

Psychology has long highlighted the phenomenon of cognitive bias, where the brain is influenced by automatisms. More recently, neuroscience has confirmed that it is possible to influence people using subliminal stimuli—images, smells, and sounds so subtle that they are detected by the senses without our awareness, making it impossible to defend against them.

Actually, rhetoric is the solution rather than the problem.

Indeed, there are many rhetorical devices designed to awaken critical thinking. If we compare it to a martial art, rhetoric enables us to both circumvent attacks and trip up the manipulator in their own contradictions. Drawing an analogy with martial arts, the manipulator acts in the shadows like a ninja, while the art of rhetoric resembles that of an aïkidoka or karateka.

Ninjutsu - Aïkido - Karate

In "A Rhetoric of Motives," Kenneth Burke explores the idea that rhetoric is fundamentally about understanding and cooperation, and that persuasion through rhetoric involves forming attitudes and inducing actions, which can be done ethically.

Rhetoric is not manipulation, but it can be manipulative.

5. The art of convincing

As we have seen, rhetoric is not about:- mastering figures of speech- speaking with eloquence- negotiating- manipulating.

Rhetoric is the art of convincing, and it can be defined as a collection of techniques and strategies used to gain or strengthen individuals' support for various proposals or ideas presented to them.

This definition requires further clarification:

• rhetoric encompasses all forms of communication, including spoken and written, as well as verbal and non-verbal elements.

• rhetoric presupposes that the people you want to address are aware that you're trying to convince them of something.

• Adhering to an idea or proposal is not a binary process. It's quite uncommon for the person you're talking to, to “completely agree” or “completely disagree”. The degrees of conviction are infinite. Therefore, it's perfectly possible to increase someone's support for an idea on which you already agree. Let's take the example of a meeting organized by the manager of a sales team. There are many new recruits. The aim of the meeting is both to energize the new recruits and to keep the existing ones motivated.

Finally, according to Aristotle rhetoric has 3 dimensions: logos (the arguments deployed), ethos (the speaker's image) and pathos (the emotions created), aligned with 3 objectives: educate the audience, please them and make them feel emotions.

Want to convince? Educate. Please. Move.