October 6, 2012 by

Warning: This is the final installment of the Rhetoric theory; it's not my fault if you learn something. ;)

If you haven’t already, please read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3; you can probably understand each blog by itself, but it makes more sense if you read the others first.

(I believe this particular portion of the Rhetoric Theory will be the most relevant to some of you because this is where the negative view of rhetoric comes from. These are the areas where rhetoric is most important and where it can do the most damage personally, legally, and politically.)

During Aristotle’s time citizens were asked to take part in a number of speaking activities; from judge to attorney to legislator. It was in this spirit that Aristotle identified different speaking situations for citizens to consider when conversing on trade, finance, national defense, and war. He denoted three types of rhetoric, or what he called three types of oratory: forensic, epideictic, and deliberative. The three types refer to three different time periods: forensic to the past, epideictic to the present, and deliberative to the future.

Forensic rhetoric

Forensic rhetoric is a type of rhetoric that pertains to speakers prompting feelings of guilt or innocence from an audience.

Forensic oratory, or judicial rhetoric, specifically refers to speaking in courtrooms. Its intent is to establish guilt or innocence; in Aristotle’s day, forensic speakers directed their presentation to courtroom judges. Forensic speaking requires focusing on arguments that tap into judges’ psyches, including their beliefs about why certain criminals act the way they do and which types of occasions tempt people to break the law. Because past actions are frequently indicative of a person’s current behavior, forensics orators rely upon previous behaviors.

Aristotle recognized that a person’s character is critical in forensic rhetoric. He interprets character as both status (that is, whether a person is young or old, rich or poor, fortunate or unfortunate) and morality (whether a person is just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable). If people act voluntarily, Aristotle argued, the choices they make have consequences. To establish guilt, the forensic speaker needs to establish motivation for doing wrong. In speaking before an audience, then, speakers will invoke what Aristotle called the “moral habits” of a person.

(Examples and a rant in...3...2...1: The scary thing about this type of rhetoric is a good enough argument can get a person sent to prison on the flimsiest of evidence. What makes it scary is the story of people spending years even decades in prisons only to find that they were not guilty of the crimes. It isn’t always tampering with the evidence that leads to convictions. If a prosecutor assassinated your character well enough and your defense attorney isn’t very good, it is still possible to convince a jury to convict.

Another problem with this type of rhetoric is it is used by the media when revealing criminal suspects to the public. The media often paints a portrayal of a person that leads audiences to begin assigning guilt or innocence. It’s bad enough when it becomes difficult for a suspect to receive a fair trial; it’s even worse for those who are later exonerated of crimes.

If the public assigns guilt to a person who is later proven completely innocent, there is a tendency for the public to still maintain a negative opinion. The worse the crime the person was accused of, the worst the treatment. Imagine what it must be like for a person to be accused of murder, rape, or child molestation; have the public ready to enact retribution; have to go through months of fear, hatred, and death threats; and finally have evidence revealed that completely clears you. That person’s life would be ruined; no one would be willing to hire or associate with the person because of the stigma hanging over them.

People will still find a way to make the situation the accused person's fault or somehow assume the person is still guilty of something. "If you had just turned yourself in earlier maybe this wouldn't have happened." "Where there's smoke there's fire." "They were probably up to something in the first place." "Good people don't get accused of things like this." "Regardless of the verdict this person looks like a murderer/rapist/child molester." There's quite a few more choice opinions. Now how's this for a question: Would you let a person with a history of being an excellent teacher, daycare worker, or nanny who was falsely accused of child molestation (media exposure, trial, exoneration, and media follow-up) watch your children for you?

The odds are pretty good knowing this information would make you very uncomfortable. Even in the event you were willing to give the person the benefit of the doubt, somewhere in the back of your mind you will probably want to watch this person more closely. Here let me mentally slap you around some more: imagine how you would feel if your family and friends started treating you differently (shunning you or even hostility) because you plan on hiring this person or you already hired this person. Would you be so quick to freely associate with this person now?

It would really be interesting for this person to try getting a job, moving to a new area, or even building relationships of any kind...the stigma of accusation will still follow them and show up in background checks (The word accused is enough to raise Red Flags.) Welcome to the power of negative rhetoric.

It isn’t a bed of roses from crime victims either. Imagine being a victim of a horrible crime only to have people look at you like you were lying or somehow place blame on you for being a victim. The same public that rushes to judge the accused often rushes to judge the accuser even faster. The media and the courts are often reluctant to give you privacy. Essentially, the person can end up a victim three times; from the accused, the public, and the legal system.)

Epideictic rhetoric

Epideictic rhetoric is a type of rhetoric that pertains to praising or blaming. The second type of rhetoric, epideictic, is also called ceremonial speaking. Speeches during Aristotle’s time were given in public arenas with the goal of praising, honoring, blaming, or shaming. Epideictic rhetors include people, events, organizations, or nations in their speeches. These speeches usually focus on social issues because, according to Aristotle, people are interested in the here and now. Epideictic speaking cannot be separated from ethos.

Aristotle believed that by understanding the need to praise or blame, epideictic speakers understand the importance of their own character. (In other words, the type of message is a lot more convincing coming from a person that you know would normally provide certain types of information; like a journalist (forensic rhetoric) a Priest, Rabbi, Imam, doctor, meteorologist, or even another gamer. It’s harder to accept a message if it comes from someone who seems less likely to know about something or doesn’t seem objective.) For instance, a speech criticizing prison conditions may not resonate deeply with an audience if the speaker is on death row for rape and murder.

Epideictic speaking is greatly informed by the study of virtues or values; a theme that Aristotle borrowed from Plato. The epideictic speaker must be able to relate the virtues of the topic to a diverse audience. (In other words, the speaker has to make what he or she says sound convincing to a wide variety of people. The information can be positive or negative, supportive of a person or subject or against.)

Epideictic rhetoric is exemplified in funeral practices in our country. Eulogies, which are commonplace at many funerals, usually laud the life of the deceased. Commenting on contemporary values, the epideictic speaker at a funeral frequently compares the virtues of the dead person with those of society. (He was a friendly person who everyone seemed to like. He could always bring a smile to a person’s face. The world has lost a very special person.)

Deliberative rhetoric

Disclaimer: This type of rhetoric can be used by politicians who genuinely (don't laugh) want to do a good job and encourage you to share your concerns through letters, phone calls, e-mail, and newspaper editorials so they can act on them.

Deliberative rhetoric is a type of rhetoric that determines an audience’s course of action. Deliberative rhetoric is also called political rhetoric. Aristotle believed that although many writers failed to discuss this rhetorical form, it deserves attention because it has the potential to elicit the most change in an audience. Deliberative rhetoric is associated with the future; what an audience will do or think as a result of a speaker’s efforts.

Deliberative speaking, then, requires the speaker to be adept at understanding how his or her thoughts are aligned with those of the audience. (In other words, if a person does not share your beliefs or opinions, he or she must figure out what you believe and then appeal to that belief. If you believe in lower taxes, but I don’t, then I must convince you that I do to get your support. Appealing to what you already believe to be true will give politicians, talk show hosts, or political journalists more credibility when they try to influence your choices or beliefs.)

The deliberative speaker should be prepared to consider subjects that are relevant to the audience and to which the speaker can personally relate. (In other words, they would have a better chance of controlling your opinions if you have similar backgrounds. They know all of your concerns because they had the same ones.)

Aristotle believed that there are five subjects on which people deliberate: revenue, war and peace, the defense of the country, commerce, and legislation. Today’s list of deliberative topics might include health insurance, taxes, relationships, education, and personal wellness. Deliberative speakers might try to raise interest in these topics, and once interest is peaked, they might find that listeners are more prone to being persuaded.

The deliberative rhetorician needs to know not only the actual subject of deliberation but also the elements of human nature that influence deliberation. There are a number of topics, therefore, that are suited for deliberation and others that are not. (In other words, a speaker needs to know enough about the subject matter to be convincing. In addition, the speaker must know enough about you to appeal to the way you see things. For example: If the speaker is trying to talk to a particular cultural group he or she might speak a few words in their language. If you live in the country, the speaker might speak with a southern drawl or mention liking to visit the area to eat common foods. The speaker is basically pandering by pretending to be whatever he or she needs to be to build rapport with you.)

Remember, if the information is true it can be confirmed from sources under both political ideologies and alternate sources not recommended, already linked, quoting the original source you’re questioning, or affiliated with your favorite programs or hosts. Take what you hear with a grain of salt and check for yourself.

West, R. & Turner, L. (2004). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill

Submit Blog