gri34307_ch22_289-298.indd Page 289 1/28/11 4:43 PM user-f470 Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles..

22
Objective Interpretive
CHAPTER ●

Rhetorical tradition

The Rhetoric
of Aristotle

Aristotle was a student of Plato in the golden age of Greek civilization, four
centuries before the birth of Christ. He became a respected instructor at Plato’s
Academy but disagreed with his mentor over the place of public speaking in
Athenian life.
Ancient Greece was known for its traveling speech teachers called Soph-
ists. Particularly in Athens, those teachers trained aspiring lawyers and politi-
cians to participate effectively in the courts and deliberative councils. In hindsight,
they appear to have been innovative educators who offered a needed and
wanted service.1 But since their advice was underdeveloped theoretically, Plato
scoffed at the Sophists’ oratorical devices. His skepticism is mirrored today in
the negative way people use the term mere rhetoric to label the speech of tricky
lawyers, mealy-mouthed politicians, spellbinding preachers, and fast-talking
salespeople.
Aristotle, like Plato, deplored the demagoguery of speakers using their
skill to move an audience while showing a casual indifference to the truth. But
unlike Plato, he saw the tools of rhetoric as a neutral means by which the ora-
tor could either accomplish noble ends or further fraud: “. . . by using these
justly one would do the greatest good, and unjustly, the greatest harm.”2 Aris-
totle believed that truth has a moral superiority that makes it more acceptable
than falsehood. But unscrupulous opponents of the truth may fool a dull audi-
ence unless an ethical speaker uses all possible means of persuasion to coun-
ter the error. Speakers who neglect the art of rhetoric have only themselves
to blame when their hearers choose falsehood. Success requires wisdom and
eloquence.
Both the Politics and the Ethics of Aristotle are polished and well-organized
books compared with the rough prose and arrangement of his text on rhetoric.
The Rhetoric apparently consists of Aristotle’s reworked lecture notes for his
course at the academy. Despite the uneven nature of the writing, the Rhetoric is
a searching study of audience psychology. Aristotle raised rhetoric to a science
by systematically exploring the effects of the speaker, the speech, and the audi-
ence. He regarded the speaker’s use of this knowledge as an art. Quite likely,
the text your communication department uses for its public speaking classes is
basically a contemporary recasting of the audience analysis provided by Aristotle
more than two thousand years ago.

289
gri34307_ch22_289-298.indd Page 290 13/01/11 8:57 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

290 GROUP AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION

RHETORIC: MAKING PERSUASION PROBABLE

Aristotle saw the function of rhetoric as the discovery in each case of “the avail-
able means of persuasion.” He never spelled out what he meant by persuasion,
but his concern with noncoercive methods makes it clear that he ruled out force
Rhetoric of law, torture, and war. His threefold classification of speech situations accord-
Discovering all possible ing to the nature of the audience shows that he had affairs of state in mind.
means of persuasion. The first in Aristotle’s classification is courtroom (forensic) speaking, which
addresses judges who are trying to render a just decision about actions alleged to
have taken place in the past. The closing arguments presented by the prosecution
and defense in the corruption trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich are
examples of judicial rhetoric centered on guilt or innocence. The second, ceremo-
nial (epideictic) speaking, heaps praise or blame on another for the benefit of
present-day audiences. For example, Lincoln gave his famous Gettysburg Address
in order to honor “the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here.” But his
ultimate purpose was to inspire listeners to persevere in their fight to preserve the
Union. The third, political (deliberative) speaking, attempts to influence legislators
or voters who decide future policy. The 2008 presidential debates gave Barack
Obama and John McCain a chance to sway undecided voters. These different
temporal orientations could call for diverse rhetorical appeals.
Because his students were familiar with the question-and-answer style of
Socratic dialogue, Aristotle classified rhetoric as a counterpart or an offshoot of
dialectic. Dialectic is one-on-one discussion; rhetoric is one person addressing
many. Dialectic is a search for truth; rhetoric tries to demonstrate truth that’s
already been found. Dialectic answers general philosophical questions; rhetoric
addresses specific, practical ones. Dialectic deals with certainty; rhetoric deals
with probability. Aristotle saw this last distinction as particularly important:
Rhetoric is the art of discovering ways to make truth seem more probable to an
audience that isn’t completely convinced.

RHETORICAL PROOF: LOGOS, ETHOS, PATHOS

According to Aristotle, the available means of persuasion can be artistic or inar-
Inartistic proofs tistic. Inartistic or external proofs are those that the speaker doesn’t create. These
External evidence would include testimonies of witnesses or documents such as letters and con-
the speaker doesn’t tracts. Artistic or internal proofs are those that the speaker creates. There are three
create. kinds of artistic proofs: logical (logos), ethical (ethos), and emotional (pathos). Logical
proof comes from the line of argument in the speech, ethical proof is the way the
Artistic proofs
Internal proofs that
speaker’s character is revealed through the message, and emotional proof is the
contain logical, ethical, feeling the speech draws out of the hearers. Some form of logos, ethos, and pathos
or emotional appeals. is present in every public presentation, but perhaps no other modern-day speech
has brought all three appeals together as effectively as Martin Luther King, Jr.’s
“I Have a Dream,” delivered in 1963 to civil rights marchers in Washington, D.C.
In the year 2000, American public address scholars selected King’s “I Have a
Dream” as the greatest speech of the twentieth century. We’ll look at this artistic
speech throughout the rest of the chapter to illustrate Aristotle’s rhetorical theory.

Case Study: “I Have a Dream”

At the end of August 1963, a quarter of a million people assembled at the Lin-
coln Memorial in a united march on Washington. The rally capped a long, hot
gri34307_ch22_289-298.indd Page 291 13/01/11 8:57 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

CHAPTER 22: THE RHETORIC 291

summer of sit-ins protesting racial discrimination in the South. (The film Mis-
sissippi Burning portrays one of the tragic racial conflicts of that year.) Two
months before the march, President John F. Kennedy submitted a civil rights
bill to Congress that would begin to rectify the racial injustices, but its passage
was seriously in doubt. The organizers of the march hoped that it would put
pressure on Congress to outlaw segregation in the South, but they also wanted
the demonstration to raise the national consciousness about economic exploita-
tion of blacks around the country.
Martin Luther King shared the platform with a dozen other civil rights lead-
ers, each limited to a five-minute presentation. King’s successful Montgomery,
Alabama, bus boycott, freedom rides across the South, and solitary confinement
in a Birmingham jail set him apart in the eyes of demonstrators and TV viewers.
The last of the group to speak, King had a dual purpose. In the face of a Black
Muslim call for violence, he urged blacks to continue their nonviolent struggle
without hatred. He also implored white people to get involved in the quest for
freedom and equality, to be part of a dream fulfilled rather than contribute to an
unjust nightmare.
A few years after King’s assassination, I experienced the impact his speech
continued to have upon the African-American community. Teaching public
address in a volunteer street academy, I read the speech out loud to illustrate
matters of style. The students needed no written text. As I came to the last third
of the speech, they recited the eloquent “I have a dream” portion word for word
with great passion. When we finished, all of us were teary-eyed.
David Garrow, author of the Pulitzer Prize–winning biography of King,
called the speech the “rhetorical achievement of a lifetime, the clarion call that
conveyed the moral power of the movement’s cause to the millions who watched
the live national network coverage.”3 King shifted the burden of proof onto those
who opposed racial equality. Aristotle’s three rhetorical proofs can help us
understand how he made the status quo of segregation an ugly option for the
moral listener.

Logical Proof: Lines of Argument That Make Sense

Aristotle focused on two forms of logos—the enthymeme and the example. He regarded
the enthymeme as “the strongest of the proofs.”4 An enthymeme is merely an
Logos incomplete version of a formal deductive syllogism. To illustrate, logicians might
Logical proof, which create the following syllogism out of one of King’s lines of reasoning:
comes from the line of
argument in a speech. Major or general premise: All people are created equal.
Minor or specific premise: I am a person.
Conclusion: I am equal to other people.
Typical enthymemes, however, leave out a premise that is already accepted by
the audience: All people are created equal. . . . I am equal to other people. In terms of
style, the enthymeme is more artistic than a stilted syllogistic argument. But as
emeritus University of Wisconsin rhetorician Lloyd Bitzer notes, Aristotle had a
greater reason for advising the speaker to suppress the statement of a premise
that the listeners already believe.
Because they are jointly produced by the audience, enthymemes intuitively unite
speaker and audience and provide the strongest possible proof. . . . The audience
itself helps construct the proof by which it is persuaded.5
gri34307_ch22_289-298.indd Page 292 13/01/11 8:57 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

292 GROUP AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION

Enthymeme Most rhetorical analysis looks for enthymemes embedded in one or two lines
An incomplete version of of text. In the case of “I Have a Dream,” the whole speech is one giant enthymeme.
a formal deductive syl- If the logic of the speech were to be expressed as a syllogism, the reasoning
logism that is created by
leaving out a premise
would be as follows:
already accepted by the Major premise: God will reward nonviolence.
audience or by leaving Minor premise: We are pursuing our dream nonviolently.
an obvious conclusion
unstated.
Conclusion: God will grant us our dream.
King used the first two-thirds of the speech to establish the validity of the
minor premise. White listeners are reminded that blacks have been “battered by
the storms of persecution and staggered by winds of police brutality.” They have
“come fresh from narrow jail cells” and are “veterans of creative suffering.”
Blacks are urged to meet “physical force with soul force,” not to allow “creative
protest to degenerate into physical violence,” and never to “satisfy our thirst for
freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” The movement is
to continue to be nonviolent.
King used the last third of the speech to establish his conclusion; he painted
the dream in vivid color. It included King’s hope that his four children would
not be “judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
He pictured an Alabama where “little black boys and black girls will be able to
join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” And
in a swirling climax, he shared a vision of all God’s children singing, “Free at
last, free at last. Thank God Almighty we are free at last.” But he never articu-
lated the major premise. He didn’t need to.
King and his audience were already committed to the truth of the major
premise—that God would reward their commitment to nonviolence. Aristotle
stressed that audience analysis is crucial to the effective use of the enthymeme.
The centrality of the church in American black history, the religious roots of the
civil rights protest, and the crowd’s frequent response of “My Lord” suggest that
King knew his audience well. He never stated what to them was obvious, and
this strengthened rather than weakened his logical appeal.
The enthymeme uses deductive logic—moving from global principle to spe-
cific truth. Arguing by example uses inductive reasoning—drawing a final con-
clusion from specific cases. Since King mentioned few examples of discrimination,
it might appear that he failed to use all possible means of logical persuasion. But
pictures of snarling police dogs, electric cattle prods used on peaceful demonstra-
tors, and signs over drinking fountains stating “Whites only” appeared nightly
on TV news. As with the missing major premise of the enthymeme, King’s audi-
ence supplied its own vivid images.

Ethical Proof: Perceived Source Credibility

According to Aristotle, it’s not enough for a speech to contain plausible argu-
ment. The speaker must seem credible as well. Many audience impressions are
formed before the speaker even begins. As poet Ralph Waldo Emerson cautioned
more than a century ago, “Use what language you will, you can never say any-
thing but what you are.”6 Some who watched Martin Luther King on television
undoubtedly tuned him out because he was black. But surprisingly, Aristotle said
little about a speaker’s background or reputation. He was more interested in
audience perceptions that are shaped by what the speaker does or doesn’t say.
gri34307_ch22_289-298.indd Page 293 18/01/11 7:22 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

CHAPTER 22: THE RHETORIC 293

“I see our next speaker needs no introduction. . . .”

© 2010, Reprinted courtesy of Bunny Hoest

In the Rhetoric he identified three qualities that build high source credibility—
intelligence, character, and goodwill.
1. Perceived Intelligence. The quality of intelligence has more to do with
practical wisdom (phronesis) and shared values than it does with training at
Plato’s Academy. Audiences judge intelligence by the overlap between their
beliefs and the speaker’s ideas. (“My idea of an agreeable speaker is one who
agrees with me.”) King quoted the Bible, the United States Constitution, the
patriotic hymn “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee,” Shakespeare’s King Lear, and the
Negro spiritual “We Shall Overcome.” With the exception of violent terrorists
and racial bigots, it’s hard to imagine anyone with whom he didn’t establish
strong value identification.
2. Virtuous Character. Character has to do with the speaker’s image as a
good and honest person. Even though he and other blacks were victims of
“unspeakable horrors of police brutality,” King warned against a “distrust of
all white people” and against “drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.”
It would be difficult to maintain an image of the speaker as an evil racist while
he was being charitable toward his enemies and optimistic about the future.
3. Goodwill. Goodwill is a positive judgment of the speaker’s intention
toward the audience. Aristotle thought it possible for an orator to possess extraor-
dinary intelligence and sterling character yet still not have the listeners’ best
Ethos
Perceived credibility,
interest at heart. King was obviously not trying to reach “the vicious racists” of
which comes from the Alabama, but no one was given reason to think he bore them ill will. His dream
speaker’s intelligence, included “black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics.”
character, and goodwill
toward the audience, as
Although Aristotle’s comments on ethos were stated in a few brief sentences,
these personal character- no other portion of his Rhetoric has received such close scientific scrutiny. The
istics are revealed results of sophisticated testing of audience attitudes show that his three-factor
through the message. theory of source credibility stands up remarkably well.7 Listeners definitely think
gri34307_ch22_289-298.indd Page 294 13/01/11 8:57 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

294 GROUP AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION

in terms of competence (intelligence), trustworthiness (character), and care (good-

will). As Martin Luther King spoke in front of the Lincoln Memorial, most listen-
ers perceived him as strong in all three.

Emotional Proof: Striking a Responsive Chord

Recent scholarship suggests that Aristotle was quite skeptical about the emotion-
laden public oratory typical of his era.8 He preferred the reason-based discussion
characteristic of relatively small councils and executive deliberative bodies. Yet
he understood that public rhetoric, if practiced ethically, benefits society. Thus,
Aristotle set forth a theory of pathos. He offered it not to take advantage of an
audience’s destructive emotions, but as a corrective measure that could help a
speaker craft emotional appeals that inspire reasoned civic decision making. To
this end, he cataloged a series of opposite feelings, then explained the conditions
under which each mood is experienced, and finally described how the speaker
can get an audience to feel that way. Aristotle scholar and translator George
Pathos Kennedy claims that this analysis of pathos is “the earliest systematic discussion
Emotional proof, which of human psychology.”9 If Aristotle’s advice sounds familiar, it may be a sign
comes from the feelings that human nature hasn’t changed much in the last 2,300 years.
the speech draws out of
those who hear it. Anger versus Mildness. Aristotle’s discussion of anger was an early ver-
sion of Freud’s frustration–aggression hypothesis. People feel angry when they
are thwarted in their attempt to fulfill a need. Remind them of interpersonal
slights, and they’ll become irate. Show them that the offender is sorry, deserves
praise, or has great power, and the audience will calm down.
Love or Friendship versus Hatred. Consistent with present-day research on
attraction, Aristotle considered similarity the key to mutual warmth. The speaker
should point out common goals, experiences, attitudes, and desires. In the absence
of these positive forces, a common enemy can be used to create solidarity.
Fear versus Confidence. Fear comes from a mental image of potential
disaster. The speaker should paint a vivid word picture of the tragedy, showing
that its occurrence is probable. Confidence can be built up by describing the
danger as remote.
Indignation versus Pity. We all have a built-in sense of fairness. As the
producers of 60 Minutes prove weekly, it’s easy to arouse a sense of injustice by
describing an arbitrary use of power upon those who are helpless.
Admiration versus Envy. People admire moral virtue, power, wealth, and
beauty. By demonstrating that an individual has acquired life’s goods through
hard work rather than mere luck, admiration will increase.

THE FIVE CANONS OF RHETORIC

Canons of rhetoric Although the organization of Aristotle’s Rhetoric is somewhat puzzling, scholars
The principle divisions of
and practitioners synthesize his words into four distinct standards for measuring
the art of persuasion es-
tablished by ancient rhet-
the quality of a speaker: the construction of an argument (invention), ordering
oricians—invention, of material (arrangement), selection of language (style), and techniques of deliv-
arrangement, style, deliv- ery. Later writers add memory to the list of skills the accomplished speaker must
ery, and memory. master. As previewed in the introduction to this section on public rhetoric, the
gri34307_ch22_289-298.indd Page 295 13/01/11 8:57 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

CHAPTER 22: THE RHETORIC 295

five canons of rhetoric have set the agenda of public address instruction for more
than 2,000 years. Aristotle’s advice strikes most students of public speaking as
surprisingly up-to-date.
Invention. To generate effective enthymemes and examples, the speaker
draws on both specialized knowledge about the subject and general lines of
reasoning common to all kinds of speeches. Imagining the mind as a storehouse
Invention of wisdom or an informational landscape, Aristotle called these stock argu-
A speaker’s “hunt” for ments topoi, a Greek term that can be translated as “topics” or “places.” As
arguments that will be Cornell University literature professor Lane Cooper explains, “In these special
effective in a particular regions the orator hunts for arguments as a hunter hunts for game.”10 When
speech.
King argues, “We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great
vaults of opportunity of this nation,” he marshals the specific American topic
or premise that the United States is a land of opportunity. When he contends
that “many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today,
have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny,” he estab-
lishes a causal connection that draws from Aristotle’s general topics of cause/
effect and motive.
Arrangement. According to Aristotle, you should avoid complicated
schemes of organization. “There are two parts to a speech; for it is necessary first
to state the subject and then to demonstrate it.”11 The introduction should cap-
ture attention, establish your credibility, and make clear the purpose of the
speech. The conclusion should remind your listeners what you’ve said and leave
them feeling good about you and your ideas. Like speech teachers today,
Aristotle decried starting with jokes that have nothing to do with the topic,
insisting on three-point outlines, and waiting until the end of the speech to reveal
the main point.
Style. Aristotle’s treatment of style in the Rhetoric focuses on metaphor. He
believed that “to learn easily is naturally pleasant to all people” and that “met-
aphor most brings about learning.”12 Furthermore, he taught that “metaphor espe-
cially has clarity and sweetness and strangeness.”13 But for Aristotle, metaphors
were more than aids for comprehension or aesthetic appreciation. Metaphors
help an audience visualize—a “bringing-before-the-eyes” process that energizes
listeners and moves them to action.14 King was a master of metaphor:
The Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material
prosperity.
To rise from the dark and desolate valleys of segregation to the sunlit path of racial
justice.

King’s use of metaphor was not restricted to images drawn from nature. Perhaps
his most convincing imagery was an extended analogy picturing the march on
Washington as people of color going to the federal bank to cash a check written
by the Founding Fathers. America had defaulted on the promissory note and
had sent back the check marked “insufficient funds.” But the marchers refused
to believe that the bank of justice was bankrupt, that the vaults of opportunity
were empty. These persuasive images gathered listeners’ knowledge of racial
discrimination into a powerful flood of reason:
Let justice roll down like waters
and righteousness like a mighty stream.15
gri34307_ch22_289-298.indd Page 296 13/01/11 8:57 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

296 GROUP AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION

Delivery. Audiences reject delivery that seems planned or staged. Natural-

ness is persuasive; artifice just the opposite. Any form of presentation that calls
attention to itself takes away from the speaker’s proofs.
Memory. Aristotle’s students needed no reminder that good speakers are
able to draw upon a collection of ideas and phrases stored in the mind. Still,
Roman teachers of rhetoric found it necessary to stress the importance of
memory. In our present age of word processing and teleprompters, memory
seems to be a lost art. Yet the stirring I-have-a-dream litany at the end of
King’s speech departed from his prepared text and effectively pulled together
lines he had used before. Unlike King and many Athenian orators, most of us
aren’t speaking in public every day. For us, the modern equivalent of memory
is rehearsal.

ETHICAL REFLECTION: ARISTOTLE’S GOLDEN MEAN

Aristotle’s Rhetoric is the first known systematic treatise on audience analysis and
adaptation. His work therefore begs the same question discussed in the introduc-
tion to this section on public rhetoric: Is it ethical to alter a message to make it more
acceptable for a particular audience?
The way I’ve phrased the question reflects a Western bias for linking moral-
ity with behavior. Does an act produce benefit or harm? Is it right or wrong to
do a certain deed? Aristotle, however, spoke of ethics in terms of character
rather than conduct, inward disposition instead of outward behavior. He took
the Greek admiration for moderation and elevated it to a theory of virtue.
When Barry Goldwater was selected as the Republican party’s nominee for
president in 1964, he boldly stated: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no
vice . . . moderation in the pursuit of justice is not virtue.”16 Aristotle would have
strongly disagreed. He assumed virtue stands between the two vices.17 Aristotle
saw wisdom in the person who avoids excess on either side. Moderation is best;
virtue develops habits that seek to walk an intermediate path. This middle way
Golden mean is known as the golden mean. That’s because out of the four cardinal virtues—
The virtue of moderation; courage, justice, temperance, and practical wisdom—temperance is the one that
the virtuous person de- explains the three others.
velops habits that avoid
As for audience adaptation, Aristotle would have counseled against the prac-
extremes.
tice of telling people only what they want to hear, pandering to the crowd, or
“wimping out” by not stating what we really think. He would be equally against
a disregard of audience sensitivities, riding roughshod over listeners’ beliefs, or
adopting a take-no-prisoners, lay-waste-the-town rhetorical belligerence. The
golden mean would lie in winsome straight talk, gentle assertiveness, and appro-
priate adaptation.
Whether the issue is truth-telling, self-disclosure, or risk-taking when mak-
ing decisions, Aristotle’s golden mean suggests other middle-way communica-
tion practices:
Extreme Golden Mean Extreme
Lies Truthful statements Brutal honesty
Secrecy Transparency Soul-baring
Cowardice Courage Recklessness
gri34307_ch22_289-298.indd Page 297 13/01/11 8:57 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

CHAPTER 22: THE RHETORIC 297

The golden mean will often prove to be the best way to persuade others. But
for Aristotle, that was not the ethical issue. Aristotle advocated the middle way
because it is the well-worn path taken by virtuous people.

CRITIQUE: STANDING THE TEST OF TIME

For many teachers of public speaking, criticizing Aristotle’s Rhetoric is like doubt-
ing Einstein’s theory of relativity or belittling Shakespeare’s King Lear. Yet the
Greek philosopher often seems less clear than he urged his students to be. Schol-
ars are puzzled by Aristotle’s failure to define the exact meaning of enthymeme,
his confusing system of classifying metaphor according to type, and the blurred
distinctions he made between deliberative (political) and epideictic (ceremonial)
speaking. At the beginning of the Rhetoric, Aristotle promised a systematic study
of logos, ethos, and pathos, but he failed to follow that three-part plan. Instead, it
appears that he grouped the material in a speech-audience-speaker order. Even
those who claim that there’s a conceptual unity to Aristotle’s theory admit that
the book is “an editorial jumble.”18 We must remember, however, that Aristotle’s
Rhetoric consists of lecture notes rather than a treatise prepared for the public.
To reconstruct Aristotle’s meaning, scholars must consult his other writings on
philosophy, politics, ethics, drama, and biology. Such detective work is inherently
imprecise.
Some present-day critics are bothered by the Rhetoric’s view of the audience
as passive. Speakers in Aristotle’s world seem to be able to accomplish any
goal as long as they prepare their speeches with careful thought and accurate
audience analysis. Other critics wish Aristotle had considered a fourth compo-
nent of rhetoric—the situation. Any analysis of King’s address apart from the
context of the march on Washington would certainly be incomplete.
Referring to Aristotle’s manuscript in a rare moment of sincere appreciation,
French skeptic Voltaire declared what many communication teachers would
echo today: “I do not believe there is a single refinement of the art that escapes
him.”19 Despite the shortcomings and perplexities of this work, it remains a
foundational text of our discipline—a starting point for social scientists and
rhetoricians alike.

QUESTIONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS

1. For most people today, the term rhetoric has unfavorable associations. What
synonym or phrase captures what Aristotle meant yet doesn’t carry a negative
connotation?
2. What enthymemes have advocates on each side of the abortion issue employed
in their public deliberative rhetoric?
3. Aristotle divided ethos into issues of intelligence, character, and goodwill. Which
quality is most important to you when you hear a campaign address, sermon,
or other public speech?
4. Most scholars who define themselves as rhetoricians identify with the
humanities rather than the sciences. Can you support the claim that Aristotle
took a scientific approach to rhetoric?