It was the custom, and perhaps remains so today, to name the senior class at a Jesuit school as Rhetoric. This proclaimed the classical view that rhetorical skills were needed by anyone who intended to be of substance in the outside world. Indeed, I did much public speaking at school – followed by Speaker’s Corner for the Catholic Evidence Guild. And many years later, I was paid attractive fees for addressing business conferences and dinners. But rhetoric has been a problem and continues to be today. From Today in Parliament to most social media, you will find it flourishing.
It developed as an art in Ancient Greece, where there were many lawsuits over land ownership. It was seen as an essential tool to hold on to one’s rights and to claim against the rights of others. It created the need for teachers of rhetoric, who were a questionable lot.
Socrates was not pleased. He took the view, as we read in Plato’s Gorgias, that rhetoric was neither an art nor a virtue, but simply a skill which could be used for good or bad purposes. Aristotle’s compendium on the subject is not light reading, but his analysis of the elements of persuasion remains relevant. And rhetoric has remained important. From Rome to the Renaissance it marked the well-educated individual.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary gives as its first definition of rhetoric: “The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing.” The emphasis here is on “effective” because the purpose is to lead the listener, through argument and emotion, to agree with the rhetorician and to act accordingly. The dictionary adds that “rhetoric” can carry the implication of insincerity. We often employ the word to suggest that the style is superior to the substance.
Take as an example the “Friends, Romans, countrymen” speech from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Brutus conceals his intention to inflame the mob under the cover of a funeral speech: “I come to bury Caesar not to praise him.” Every line is designed to deceive the “honourable men”. Compare that with Mark Antony’s “O pardon me thou bleeding piece of earth, that I am meek and gentle with these butchers!” There is rhetoric enough here to inflame passion, but no deceit. In real life we may recall Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech, which, ironically, never used that phrase. I do not doubt Powell’s sincerity. Even I have to admit that I wrote a book entirely devoted to the use of rhetoric in business situations, without using the word “rhetoric” once.
So rhetoric comes in all shapes and sizes. We remember that it can be written as well as spoken: from Cicero on natural law to Cassius Longinus’s 3rd-century classic “On the Sublime” to Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua to that column you read in your newspaper this morning. It can be long or short. The shortest I have found is “Well he would, wouldn’t he?” from Mandy Rice-Davies. Even my Ukrainian housekeeper had heard that one.
We are left asking the question: whatever our sincerity and the importance of the cause we defend, to what extent are we entitled to use the techniques of rhetoric to persuade our listeners? Let’s suppose that I am addressing an audience on the undesirability of immigrants, particularly from the Third World. I abandon the use of quiet logic and choose passion laced with prejudice. I focus on fear and I make use of anecdotes. Any statistic that helps will be at hand. I hope for a noisy audience and I fan their strong reactions. Ideally they will leave the hall carrying banners and shouting slogans.
But if I wish to support immigration I will need to create a quiet and thoughtful atmosphere. I may season this with a little humour, establishing how civilised I am. My logic will be impeccable as will be my statistics, but both are carefully selected. They will be backed up by chosen anecdotes of the historical outcomes of racism. I will welcome the occasional heckle because my peaceful response will support the merits of my cause.
My point, of course, is that both speeches use rhetoric. And the order in which I take subjects, the pauses, my summaries, the tone of my voice, the use of my eyes and myriad other techniques will also influence the outcome.
So how comfortable do we feel about influencing people through methods of which they are mostly unaware? Should we not describe rhetoric, by definition, as manipulation? But, if we do, we recall that “manipulation” comes ultimately from the Latin for hand (manus). So let’s call it “handling the audience”. Choosing the most beneficial word is essential in rhetoric. Now ask your spouse to make you a cup of tea – but remove rhetoric from your request, so “darling”, “would” and “please” are all verboten.
Join the discussion at secondsightblog.net Mary Kenny returns next week
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.