Editing Rhetoric (section)

==Uses==

===Scope===
[[File:Schnorr von Carolsfeld Bibel in Bildern 1860 126.png|thumb|right|[[Ezra]] calls for the rebuilding of the temple in this 1860 woodcut by [[Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld]].]]
Scholars have debated the scope of rhetoric since ancient times. Although some have limited rhetoric to the specific realm of [[Discourse analysis|political discourse]], to many modern scholars it encompasses every aspect of culture. Contemporary studies of rhetoric address a much more diverse range of domains than was the case in ancient times. While classical rhetoric trained speakers to be effective persuaders in public forums and in institutions such as courtrooms and assemblies, contemporary rhetoric investigates human discourse [[wikt:writ large|writ large]]. Rhetoricians have studied the discourses of a wide variety of domains, including the natural and social sciences, fine art, religion, journalism, digital media, fiction, history, [[cartography]], and architecture, along with the more traditional domains of politics and the law.<ref>{{multiref2
|1=John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, and Donald N. McCloskey ''[http://hhs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/3/2/305?ck=nck The Rhetoric of Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091124163114/http://hhs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/3/2/305?ck=nck |date=24 November 2009 }}'', London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. "In the last ten years, many scholars have investigated exactly how rhetoric works within a particular field."{{clarify|reason=the link goes to a review of a book, and it's not clear from the citation whether it is the review itself or the book being reviewed that forms the correct citation|date=September 2023}}
|2={{cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00136.x |volume=37 |title=Educational Theory as Theory of Culture: A Vichian perspective on the educational theories of John Dewey and Kieran Egan |year=2005 |journal=[[Educational Philosophy and Theory]] |pages=475–494 |last1=Polito |first1=Theodora |issue=4 |s2cid=143830059}}
|3={{cite book | last=McCloskey | first=Deirdre N. | author-link=Deirdre N. McCloskey | title=The Rhetoric of Economics | publisher=Univ of Wisconsin Press | year=1998 | isbn=978-0-299-15813-2 }}
|4={{cite journal | last=McCloskey | first=Donald N. | title=The Rhetoric of Economics | journal=Journal of Economic Literature | publisher=American Economic Association | volume=21 | issue=2 | year=1983 | issn=0022-0515 | jstor=2724987 | pages=481–517}}
|5={{cite book | last=Nelson | first=John S. | title=Tropes of Politics | publisher=[[University of Wisconsin Press]] | year=1998 | isbn=978-0-299-15833-0}}
|6={{cite book | last=Brown | first=Richard Harvey | title=Society as Text | publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] | location=Chicago | year=1987 | isbn=978-0-226-07617-1}}
}}</ref>

Because the ancient Greeks valued public political participation, rhetoric emerged as an important curriculum for those desiring to influence politics. Rhetoric is still associated with its political origins. However, even the original instructors of [[Western culture|Western]] speech—the [[Sophists]]—disputed this limited view of rhetoric. According to Sophists like [[Gorgias]], a successful rhetorician could speak convincingly on a topic in any field, regardless of his experience in that field. This suggested rhetoric could be a means of communicating any expertise, not just politics. In his ''[[Encomium to Helen]]'', Gorgias even applied rhetoric to fiction by seeking, for his amusement, to prove the blamelessness of the mythical [[Helen of Troy]] in starting the [[Trojan War]].<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Encomium of Helen|author=Gorgias|translator-first=George|translator-last=Kennedy|editor-first=Rosamond Kent |editor-last=Sprague |title=The Older Sophists: A Complete Translations by Several Hands of the Fragments |location=Columbia, South Carolina |publisher=[[University of South Carolina Press]] |edition=first|year=1972 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/oldersophists0000unse/page/50 50]–54 |isbn=0-87249-192-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/oldersophists0000unse|url-access=registration}}</ref>

[[Plato]] defined the scope of rhetoric by discarding any connotation of religious ritual or magical incantation, simply taking the term in its literal sense, which means "leading the soul" through words.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Cleary |first=John Joseph |title=Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy: Volume XXIV (2008) |last2=Gurtler |first2=Gary M. |date=2009 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-17742-0 |location=Leiden |pages=236 |language=en}}</ref> He criticized the Sophists for using rhetoric to deceive rather than to discover truth. In ''[[Gorgias (dialogue)|Gorgias]]'', one of his [[Socratic Dialogues]], Plato defines rhetoric as the persuasion of ignorant masses within the courts and assemblies.<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Plato]]|title=Gorgias|url=http://www.classicallibrary.org/plato/dialogues/15_gorgias.htm|publisher=The Classical Library|translator-first=Benjamin|translator-last=Jowett}}</ref> Rhetoric, in Plato's opinion, is merely a form of flattery and functions similarly to [[culinary arts]], which mask the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.{{Citation needed|date=March 2025}} Plato considered any speech of lengthy [[prose]] aimed at flattery as within the scope of rhetoric. Some scholars, however, contest the idea that Plato despised rhetoric and instead view his dialogues as a dramatization of complex rhetorical principles.<ref name="KBB">{{multiref2
|1={{Cite book|last=Kastely|first=James|title=The Rhetoric of Plato's Republic|publisher=Chicago UP|year=2015|language=en}}
|2={{Cite journal|last=Bjork|first=Collin|date=2021|title=Plato, Xenophon, and the Uneven Temporalities of Ethos in the Trial of Socrates|journal=Philosophy & Rhetoric|volume=54|issue=3|pages=240–262|doi=10.5325/philrhet.54.3.0240|jstor=10.5325/philrhet.54.3.0240|s2cid=244334227|issn=0031-8213}}
|3={{Cite book|last=Bengtson|first=Erik|title=The epistemology of rhetoric: Plato, doxa and post-truth|publisher=Uppsala UP|year=2019}}
}}</ref> Socrates explained the relationship between rhetoric in flattery when he maintained that a rhetorician who teaches anyone how to persuade people in an assembly to do what he wants, without knowledge of what is just or unjust, engages in a kind of flattery (''kolakeia'') that constitutes an image (''eidolon'') of a part of the art of politics.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Zuckert |first=Catherine H. |title=Plato's Philosophers: The Coherence of the Dialogues |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-226-99338-6 |location=Chicago |pages=40 |language=en}}</ref>

Aristotle both redeemed rhetoric from Plato and narrowed its focus by defining three genres of rhetoric—[[Deliberative rhetoric|deliberative]], [[forensic rhetoric|forensic]] or judicial, and [[epideictic]].<ref>{{cite web|last=Rapp|first=Christof|at=[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/#StruRhet §2 "The Structure of the Rhetoric"]|title=Aristotle's Rhetoric|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/|website=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|year=2022}}</ref> Yet, even as he provided order to existing rhetorical theories, Aristotle generalized the definition of rhetoric to be the ability to identify the appropriate means of persuasion in a given situation based upon the art of rhetoric (''technê'').<ref>{{Citation |last=Rapp |first=Christof |title=Aristotle's Rhetoric |date=2023 |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ |access-date=2024-03-21 |edition=Winter 2023 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |editor2-last=Nodelman |editor2-first=Uri}}</ref> This made rhetoric applicable to all fields, not just politics. Aristotle viewed the [[enthymeme]] based upon [[logic]] (especially, based upon the syllogism) as the basis of rhetoric.

Aristotle also outlined generic constraints that focused the rhetorical art squarely within the domain of public political practice. He restricted rhetoric to the domain of the [[Contingency (philosophy)|contingent]] or probable: those matters that admit multiple legitimate opinions or arguments.<ref>{{Citation |last=Rapp |first=Christof |title=Aristotle's Rhetoric |date=2023 |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ |access-date=2024-03-14 |edition=Winter 2023 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |editor2-last=Nodelman |editor2-first=Uri}}</ref>

Since the time of Aristotle, logic has changed. For example, [[modal logic]] has undergone a major development that also modifies rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book |first=George A. |last=Kennedy |title=Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse |location=New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=1991}}</ref>

The contemporary [[Neo-Aristotelianism (literature)|neo-Aristotelian]] and neo-Sophistic positions on rhetoric mirror the division between the Sophists and Aristotle. Neo-Aristotelians generally study rhetoric as political discourse, while the neo-Sophistic view contends that rhetoric cannot be so limited. Rhetorical scholar [[Michael Leff]] characterizes the conflict between these positions as viewing rhetoric as a "thing contained" versus a "container". The neo-Aristotelian view threatens the study of rhetoric by restraining it to such a limited field, ignoring many critical applications of rhetorical theory, criticism, and practice. Simultaneously, the neo-Sophists threaten to expand rhetoric beyond a point of coherent theoretical value.

In more recent years, people studying rhetoric have tended to enlarge its object domain beyond speech. [[Kenneth Burke]] asserted humans use rhetoric to resolve conflicts by identifying shared characteristics and interests in symbols. People engage in [[Identification (psychology)|identification]], either to assign themselves or another to a group. This definition of [[Identification in rhetoric|rhetoric as identification]] broadens the scope from strategic and overt political persuasion to the more implicit tactics of identification found in an immense range of sources{{Specify|reason=which sources? what kind of things are "sources"?|date=September 2023}}.<ref>{{cite book |first=Kenneth |last=Burke |title=A Rhetoric of Motives |location=Berkeley |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |year=1969}}</ref> Burke focused on the interplay of identification and division, maintaining that identification compensates for an original division by preventing a strict separation between objects, people, and spaces.<ref name=":11">{{Cite book |last=Jensen |first=Kyle |title=Kenneth Burke’s Weed Garden: Refiguring the Mythic Grounds of Modern Rhetoric |publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press |year=2022 |isbn=9780271092928 |language=en}}</ref> This is achieved by assigning to them common properties through linguistic symbols.<ref name=":11" />

Among the many scholars who have since pursued Burke's line of thought, [[James Boyd White]] sees rhetoric as a broader domain of social experience in his notion of [[constitutive rhetoric]]. Influenced by theories of [[social construction]], White argues that culture is "reconstituted" through language. Just as language influences people, people influence language. Language is socially constructed, and depends on the meanings people attach to it. Because language is not rigid and changes depending on the situation, the very usage of language is rhetorical. An author, White would say, is always trying to construct a new world and persuading his or her readers to share that world within the text.<ref name=WhiteWords>{{cite book |first=James Boyd |last=White |title=When Words Lose Their Meaning |location=Chicago |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |year=1984}}</ref>

People engage in rhetoric any time they speak or produce meaning. Even in the field of [[science]], via practices which were once viewed as being merely the objective testing and reporting of knowledge, scientists persuade their audience to accept their findings by sufficiently demonstrating that their study or experiment was conducted reliably and resulted in sufficient evidence to support their conclusions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vernon |first1=Jamie L |title=Leveraging rhetoric for improved communication of science: a scientist’s perspective |journal=Poroi |date=31 January 2014 |volume=10 |issue=1 |page=3 |doi=10.13008/2151-2957.1181|doi-access=free }}</ref>

The vast scope of rhetoric is difficult to define. Political discourse remains the paradigmatic example for studying and theorizing specific techniques and conceptions of persuasion or rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book |first=Michael |last=Leff |chapter=The Habitation of Rhetoric |title=Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader |editor1-first=John Louis |editor1-last=Lucaites |display-editors=etal |location=New York |publisher=[[Guilford Press]] |year=1993}}</ref>

===As a civic art===
Throughout [[European History]], rhetoric meant persuasion in public and political settings such as assemblies and courts.{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}} Because of its associations with democratic institutions, rhetoric is commonly said to flourish in open and democratic societies with rights of [[free speech]], free assembly, and political enfranchisement for some portion of the population.{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}} Those who classify rhetoric as a civic art believe that rhetoric has the power to shape communities, form the character of citizens, and greatly affect civic life.

Rhetoric was viewed as a civic art by several of the ancient philosophers. Aristotle and [[Isocrates]] were two of the first to see rhetoric in this light. In ''[[Antidosis]]'', Isocrates states, "We have come together and founded cities and made laws and invented arts; and, generally speaking, there is no institution devised by man which the power of speech has not helped us to establish."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Henderson |first=Jeffrey |title=Antidosis |url=https://www.loebclassics.com/view/isocrates-discourses_15_antidosis/1929/pb_LCL229.327.xml |access-date=2025-04-24 |website=Loeb Classical Library |page=327 |language=en |doi=10.4159/DLCL.isocrates-discourses_15_antidosis.1929}}</ref> With this statement he argues that rhetoric is a fundamental part of civic life in every society and that it has been necessary in the foundation of all aspects of society. He further argues in ''[[Against the Sophists]]'' that rhetoric, although it cannot be taught to just anyone, is capable of shaping the character of man. He writes, "I do think that the study of political discourse can help more than any other thing to stimulate and form such qualities of character."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Matsen |first=Patricia |title=Readings from Classical Rhetoric |last2=Rollinson |first2=Philip |last3=Sousa |first3=Marion |publisher=Southern Illinois University Press |year=1990 |isbn=0-8093-1593-9 |location=United States of America |page=55}}</ref> Aristotle, writing several years after Isocrates, supported many of his arguments and argued for rhetoric as a civic art.

In the words of Aristotle, in the ''Rhetoric'', rhetoric is "...the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion". According to Aristotle, this art of persuasion could be used in public settings in three different ways: "A member of the assembly decides about future events, a juryman about past events: while those who merely decide on the orator's skill are observers. From this it follows that there are three divisions of oratory—(1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display".<ref>{{cite book|author=Aristotle|title=Rhetoric|at=I.3}}</ref> Eugene Garver, in his critique of Aristotle's ''Rhetoric'', confirms that Aristotle viewed rhetoric as a civic art. Garver writes, "''Rhetoric'' articulates a civic art of rhetoric, combining the almost incompatible properties of {{transliteration|grc|techne}} and appropriateness to citizens."<ref>{{cite book |last=Garver |first=Eugene |title=Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character |location=Chicago |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |year=1994 }}</ref> Each of Aristotle's divisions plays a role in civic life and can be used in a different way to affect the {{transliteration|grc|[[polis]]}}.

Because rhetoric is a public art capable of shaping opinion, some of the ancients, including [[Plato]] found fault in it. They claimed that while it could be used to improve civic life, it could be used just as easily to deceive or manipulate. The masses were incapable of analyzing or deciding anything on their own and would therefore be swayed by the most persuasive speeches. Thus, civic life could be controlled by whoever could deliver the best speech. Plato explores the problematic moral status of rhetoric twice: in ''Gorgias'' and in ''The [[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]'', a dialogue best-known for its commentary on love.

More trusting in the power of rhetoric to support a republic, the Roman orator [[Cicero]] argued that art required something more than eloquence. A good orator needed also to be a good person, enlightened on a variety of civic topics. In ''[[De Oratore]]'', modeled on Plato's dialogues, Cicero emphasized that effective rhetoric comes from a combination of '''wisdom (sapientia)''' and '''eloquence (eloquentia)'''.<ref name="Keith">Keith, William M. The Rhetorical Tradition: The Origins of Rhetoric, pp. 5–8.</ref> According to Cicero, the ideal orator must demonstrate not only stylistic skill but also moral integrity and broad learning, thus uniting theory and practice for the betterment of the state. Influenced by Aristotelian ideas, Cicero advanced the tradition by systematizing the five canons of rhetoric—inventio (invention), dispositio (arrangement), elocutio (style), memoria (memory), and pronuntiatio (delivery)—which he saw as key to crafting persuasive discourse.<ref name="CrowleyHawhee">Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students.</ref> In this view, a well-trained orator, who draws from philosophy, law, and other disciplines, is best able to address civic and ethical challenges, thus underscoring Cicero's vision of rhetoric as both an intellectual and ethical pursuit.<ref name="Keith"/>

Modern works continue to support the claims of the ancients that rhetoric is an art capable of influencing civic life. In ''Political Style'', [[Robert Hariman]] claims that "questions of freedom, equality, and justice often are raised and addressed through performances ranging from debates to demonstrations without loss of moral content".<ref>{{cite book|last=Hariman|first=Robert|title=Political Style: The Artistry of Power|location=Chicago|publisher=The University of Chicago Press|year=1995}}</ref> [[James Boyd White]] argues that rhetoric is capable not only of addressing issues of political interest but that it can influence culture as a whole. In his book, ''When Words Lose Their Meaning'', he argues that words of persuasion and identification define community and civic life. He states that words produce "the methods by which culture is maintained, criticized, and transformed".{{r|WhiteWords}}

Rhetoric remains relevant as a civic art. In speeches, as well as in non-verbal forms, rhetoric continues to be used as a tool to influence communities from local to national levels.

===As a political tool===
Political parties employ "manipulative rhetoric" to advance their party-line goals and lobbyist agendas. They use it to portray themselves as champions of compassion, freedom, and culture, all while implementing policies that appear to contradict these claims. It serves as a form of political propaganda, presented to sway and maintain public opinion in their favor, and garner a positive image, potentially at the expense of suppressing dissent or criticism. An example of this is the government's actions in freezing bank accounts and regulating internet speech, ostensibly to protect the vulnerable and preserve freedom of expression, despite contradicting values and rights.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Netzer |first=Olek |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ch4SEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA13 |title=Person-Centered Political Party: A Blueprint for Organization Free of Power Corruption |date=2021-06-14 |publisher=LIT Verlag Münster |isbn=978-3-643-91296-1 |pages=13+ |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Cheminant |first1=Wayne Le |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sCjGBQAAQBAJ |title=Manipulating Democracy: Democratic Theory, Political Psychology, and Mass Media |last2=Parrish |first2=John M. |date=2010-09-22 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-99445-6 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Saussure |first1=Louis de |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-uj7zi4p664C&pg=PA213 |title=Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind |last2=Schulz |first2=Peter |date=2005-01-01 |publisher=John Benjamins Publishing |isbn=978-90-272-2707-2 |pages=213+ |language=en}}</ref>

Going back to the fifth century BCE, the term rhetoric originated in Ancient Greece. During this period, a new government (democracy) had been formed and as speech was the main method of information, an effective communication strategy was needed. Sophists, a group of intellectuals from Sicily, taught the ancient Greeks the art of persuasive speech in order to be able to navigate themselves in the court and senate.<ref name=":2" /> This new technique was then used as an effective method of speech in political speeches and throughout government. Consequently people began to fear that persuasive speech would overpower truth. However, Aristotle argued that speech can be used to classify, study, and interpret speeches and as a useful skill. Aristotle believed that this technique was an art, and that persuasive speech could have truth and logic embedded within it. In the end, rhetoric speech still remained popular and was used by many scholars and philosophers.<ref name=":2">Lundberg, C. O., & Keith, W. M. (2018). The essential guide to rhetoric. Bedford/St. Martin's.
‌</ref>

===As a course of study===
The study of rhetoric trains students to speak and/or write effectively, and to critically understand and analyze discourse. It is concerned with how people use symbols, especially language, to reach agreement that permits coordinated effort.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hauser |first=Gerard |author-link=Gerard Hauser |title=Introduction to Rhetorical Theory |publisher=Waveland Press |location=Illinois |year=2002 |page=2 |isbn=978-1-57766-221-1}}</ref>

Rhetoric as a course of study has evolved since its ancient beginnings, and has adapted to the particular exigencies of various times, venues,<ref>{{cite book|last=Kennedy|first=George A.|title=Classical Rhetoric & Its Christian and Secular Tradition|location=Chapel Hill|publisher=The [[University of North Carolina Press]]|year=1999}}</ref> and applications ranging from architecture to literature.<ref>{{cite book|last=Vickers|first=Brian|chapter=Deconstruction's Designs on Rhetoric|title=Rhetoric and Pedagogy: Its History, Philosophy, and Practice|editor-first1=Winifred Bryan|editor-last1=Horner|editor-first2=Michael|editor-last2=Leff|pages=295–315}}</ref> Although the curriculum has transformed in a number of ways, it has generally emphasized the study of principles and rules of composition as a means for moving audiences.

Rhetoric began as a civic art in Ancient Greece where students were trained to develop tactics of oratorical persuasion, especially in legal disputes. Rhetoric originated in a school of [[pre-Socratic]] philosophers known as the [[Sophists]] {{circa|{{BCE|600}}}}. [[Demosthenes]] and [[Lysias]] emerged as major orators during this period, and [[Isocrates]] and [[Gorgias]] as prominent teachers. Modern teachings continue to reference these rhetoricians and their work in discussions of classical rhetoric and persuasion.

Rhetoric was taught in universities during the [[Middle Ages]] as one of the three original [[liberal arts]] or [[trivium (education)|trivium]] (along with [[logic]] and [[grammar]]).<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|last=Conley|first=T.M.|year=1990|title=Rhetoric in the European Tradition|publisher=University of Chicago Press}}
|2={{cite book|last=Kennedy|first=G.A.|year=1994|title=A New History of Classical Rhetoric|publisher=Princeton University Press}}
}}</ref> During the medieval period, political rhetoric declined as republican oratory died out and the emperors of Rome garnered increasing authority. With the rise of European monarchs, rhetoric shifted into courtly and religious applications. [[Augustine]] exerted strong influence on Christian rhetoric in the Middle Ages, advocating the use of rhetoric to lead audiences to truth and understanding, especially in the church. The study of liberal arts, he believed, contributed to rhetorical study: "In the case of a keen and ardent nature, fine words will come more readily through reading and hearing the eloquent than by pursuing the rules of rhetoric."<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Augustine of Hippo]]|title=[[De doctrina Christiana]]|at=IV|orig-date={{CE|426}}}}</ref> Poetry and letter writing became central to rhetorical study during the Middle Ages.<ref name=Prill1987>{{cite journal |last1=Prill |first1=Paul E. |year=1987 |title=Rhetoric and Poetics in the Early Middle Ages |journal=Rhetorica |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=129–147 |doi=10.1525/rh.1987.5.2.129}}</ref>{{rp|129–47}} After the fall of the Roman republic, poetry became a tool for rhetorical training since there were fewer opportunities for political speech.{{r|Prill1987|page=131}} Letter writing was the primary way business was conducted both in state and church, so it became an important aspect of rhetorical education.<ref name="bedfordstmartins.com">{{cite web|title=A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition|website=The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing|url=http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/bb/history.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100516061220/http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/bb/history.html |archive-date=16 May 2010 }}</ref>

Rhetorical education became more restrained as style and substance separated in 16th-century France, and attention turned to the scientific method. Influential scholars like [[Peter Ramus]] argued that the processes of invention and arrangement should be elevated to the domain of philosophy, while rhetorical instruction should be chiefly concerned with the use of figures and other forms of the ornamentation of language. Scholars such as [[Francis Bacon]] developed the study of "scientific rhetoric"<ref>{{cite journal |last=Zappen |first=James P. |title=Francis Bacon and the Historiography of Scientific Rhetoric |journal=Rhetoric Review |volume=8 |number=1 |year=1989 |pages=74–88 |doi=10.1080/07350198909388879 |jstor=465682}}</ref> which rejected the elaborate style characteristic of classical oration. This plain language carried over to [[John Locke]]'s teaching, which emphasized concrete knowledge and steered away from ornamentation in speech, further alienating rhetorical instruction—which was identified wholly with such ornamentation—from the pursuit of knowledge.

In the 18th century, rhetoric assumed a more social role, leading to the creation of new education systems (predominantly in England): "[[Elocution]] schools" in which girls and women analyzed classic literature, most notably the works of [[William Shakespeare]], and discussed pronunciation tactics.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Edwards |first1=Paul C. |year=1984 |title=Elocution and Shakespeare: An Episode in the History of Literary Taste |journal=[[Shakespeare Quarterly]] |volume=35 |issue=3 |pages=305–14 |doi=10.2307/2870367 |jstor=2870367}}</ref>

The study of rhetoric underwent a revival with the rise of democratic institutions during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. [[Hugh Blair]] was a key early leader of this movement. In his most famous work, ''Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres'', he advocates rhetorical study for common citizens as a resource for social success. Many American colleges and secondary schools used Blair's text throughout the 19th century to train students of rhetoric.{{r|bedfordstmartins.com}}

Political rhetoric also underwent renewal in the wake of the U.S. and French revolutions. The rhetorical studies of ancient Greece and Rome were resurrected as speakers and teachers looked to [[Cicero]] and others to inspire defenses of the new republics. Leading rhetorical theorists included [[John Quincy Adams]] of [[Harvard]], who advocated the democratic advancement of rhetorical art. Harvard's founding of the [[Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory]] sparked the growth of the study of rhetoric in colleges across the United States.{{r|bedfordstmartins.com}} Harvard's rhetoric program drew inspiration from literary sources to guide organization and style, and studies the rhetoric used in political communication to illustrate how political figures persuade audiences.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal |url=http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/j_roffee_rhetoric_aboriginal_australians_2016.pdf |last=Roffee |first=J. A. |year=2016 |title=Rhetoric, Aboriginal Australians and the Northern Territory intervention: A socio-legal investigation into pre-legislative argumentation |journal=International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=131–47 |doi=10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i1.285 |s2cid=146941187 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205013154/http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/j_roffee_rhetoric_aboriginal_australians_2016.pdf |archive-date=5 February 2017 |df=dmy-all}}
|2={{cite journal |last=Roffee |first=J. A. |year=2014 |title=Synthetic Necessary Truth Behind New Labour's Criminalisation of Incest |doi=10.1177/0964663913502068 |volume=23 |journal=[[Social & Legal Studies]] |pages=113–30 |s2cid=145292798}}
}}</ref> [[William G. Allen]] became the first American college professor of rhetoric, at [[New-York Central College]], 1850–1853.

Debate clubs and lyceums also developed as forums in which common citizens could hear speakers and sharpen debate skills. The American lyceum in particular was seen as both an educational and social institution, featuring group discussions and guest lecturers.<ref>{{cite book |last=Ray |first=Angela G. |title=The Lyceum and Public Culture in the Nineteenth-Century United States |location=East Lansing |publisher=[[Michigan State University Press]] |year=2005 |pages=14–15}}</ref> These programs cultivated democratic values and promoted active participation in political analysis.

Throughout the 20th century, rhetoric developed as a concentrated field of study, with the establishment of rhetorical courses in high schools and universities. Courses such as [[public speaking]] and [[speech analysis]] apply fundamental Greek theories (such as the modes of persuasion: {{transliteration|grc|[[ethos]]}}, {{transliteration|grc|[[pathos]]}}, and {{transliteration|grc|[[logos]]}}) and trace rhetorical development through history. Rhetoric earned a more esteemed reputation as a field of study with the emergence of [[Communication Studies]] departments and of Rhetoric and Composition programs within English departments in universities,<ref>{{cite book |last=Borchers |first=Timothy A. |title=Rhetorical Theory: An Introduction (with InfoTrac) |year=2006 |publisher=[[Wadsworth Publishing]] |location=Canada |isbn=978-0-534-63918-1 |page=21}}</ref> and in conjunction with the [[linguistic turn]] in [[Western philosophy]]. Rhetorical study has broadened in scope, and is especially used by the fields of marketing, politics, and literature.

Another area of rhetoric is the study of cultural rhetorics, which is the communication that occurs between cultures and the study of the way members of a culture communicate with each other.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last1=Cobos |first1=Casie |last2=Raquel Ríos |first2=Gabriela |last3=Johnson Sackey |first3=Donnie |last4=Sano-Franchini |first4=Jennifer |last5=Haas |first5=Angela M. |date=2018-04-03 |title=Interfacing Cultural Rhetorics: A History and a Call |journal=Rhetoric Review |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=139–154 |doi=10.1080/07350198.2018.1424470 |s2cid=150341115 |issn=0735-0198}}</ref> These ideas{{Specify|reason=which ideas?|date=September 2023}} can then be studied and understood by other cultures, in order to bridge gaps in modes of communication and help different cultures communicate effectively with each other. James Zappen defines cultural rhetorics as the idea that rhetoric is concerned with negotiation and listening, not persuasion, which differs from ancient definitions.<ref name=":7" /> Some ancient rhetoric was disparaged because its persuasive techniques could be used to teach falsehoods.<ref>{{Cite book |first=Keith|last=Lundberg |title=The Essential Guide to Rhetoric |publisher=Bedford/St. Martin's |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-312-47239-9 |edition=1st |pages=5–8 |language=English}}</ref> Communication as studied in cultural rhetorics is focused on listening and negotiation, and has little to do with persuasion.<ref name=":7" />

====Canons====
Rhetorical education focused on five [[Canon (basic principle)|canons]]. The {{visible anchor|Five Canons of Rhetoric|text=Five Canons of Rhetoric}} serve as a guide to creating persuasive messages and arguments:

; ''[[inventio]]'' (invention) : the process that leads to the development and refinement of an argument.
; ''[[dispositio]]'' (disposition, or arrangement) : used to determine how an argument should be organized for greatest effect, usually beginning with the ''[[exordium (rhetoric)|exordium]]''
; ''[[elocutio]]'' (style) : determining how to present the arguments
; ''[[memoria]]'' (memory) : the process of learning and memorizing the speech and persuasive messages
; ''[[pronuntiatio]]'' (presentation) and ''[[actio]]'' (delivery) : the gestures, pronunciation, tone, and pace used when presenting the persuasive arguments—the [[Grand Style]].

[[Memoria|Memory]] was added much later to the original four canons.<ref>{{Cite book |first=Jay |last=Heinrichs |title= [[Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion|Thank You for Arguing]] |year=2017 |page=303}}{{ISBN?}}</ref>

===Music===
During the [[Renaissance]] rhetoric enjoyed a resurgence, and as a result nearly every author who wrote about music before the [[Romantic era]] discussed rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book |last=Haynes |first=Bruce |title=The End of Early Music: A Period Performer's History of Music |year=2007 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-0-19-804094-1 |page=8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nOAtpUTjewEC|url-access=limited |access-date=6 August 2019}}</ref> [[Joachim Burmeister]] wrote in 1601, "there is only little difference between music and the nature of oration".{{quote without source|date=September 2023}} [[Christoph Bernhard]] in the latter half of the century said "...until the art of music has attained such a height in our own day, that it may indeed be compared to a rhetoric, in view of the multitude of figures"{{Context inline|date=September 2023}}.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bartel |first1=Dietrich |title=Musica Poetica: Musical-Rhetorical Figures in German Baroque Music |date=1997 |publisher=[[University of Nebraska Press]] |isbn=0-8032-3593-3 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=p45OwxQB05YC&pg=PA57 57] }}</ref>

===Knowledge===
[[Epistemology]] and rhetoric have been compared to one another for decades, but the specifications of their similarities have gone undefined. Since scholar [[Robert L. Scott]] stated that, "rhetoric is [[Epistemology|epistemic]],"<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last=Scott |first=Robert L. |date=1967 |title=On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic |journal=Central States Speech Journal |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=9–17 |doi=10.1080/10510976709362856 |issn=0008-9575}}</ref> rhetoricians and [[Philosophy|philosophers]] alike have struggled to concretely define the expanse of implications these words hold. Those who have identified this inconsistency maintain the idea that [[Robert L. Scott|Scott's]] relation is important, but requires further study.<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal |last=Harpine |first=William D. |date=2004 |title=What Do You Mean, Rhetoric Is Epistemic? |journal=Philosophy and Rhetoric |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=335–352 |doi=10.1353/par.2004.0026 |s2cid=53057130 |issn=1527-2079|url=https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=aiken_communications_facpub |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

The root of the issue lies in the ambiguous use of the term rhetoric itself, as well as the epistemological terms [[knowledge]], [[certainty]], and [[truth]].<ref name=":9" /> Though counterintuitive and vague, [[Robert L. Scott|Scott's]] claims are accepted by some academics, but are then used to draw different conclusions. [[Sonja K. Foss]], for example, takes on the view that, "rhetoric creates knowledge,"<ref>{{Cite book |title=Rhetorical criticism: exploration & practice |date=1996 |publisher=Waveland Press |isbn=978-0-88133-873-7 |editor-last=Foss |editor-first=Sonja K. |edition=2nd |location=Prospect Heights, Ill}}</ref> whereas [[James A. Herrick|James Herrick]] writes that rhetoric assists in people's ability to form [[belief]]s, which are defined as [[knowledge]] once they become widespread in a community.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Herrick |first=James A. |date=2017-09-22 |title=The History and Theory of Rhetoric |doi=10.4324/9781315404141|isbn=978-1-315-40414-1 }}</ref>

It is unclear whether [[Robert L. Scott|Scott]] holds that [[certainty]] is an inherent part of establishing [[knowledge]], his references to the term abstract.<ref name=":8" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Scott |first=Robert L. |date=February 2000 |title=The Forum |journal=Quarterly Journal of Speech |volume=86 |issue=1 |pages=108–110 |doi=10.1080/00335630009384281 |s2cid=147585248 |issn=0033-5630}}</ref> He is not the only one, as the debate's persistence in [[philosophical]] circles long predates his addition of rhetoric. There is an overwhelming majority that does support the concept of [[certainty]] as a requirement for [[knowledge]], but it is at the definition of [[certainty]] where parties begin to diverge. One definition maintains that [[certainty]] is subjective and feeling-based, the other that it is a byproduct of [[Justification (epistemology)|justification]].

The more commonly accepted definition of rhetoric claims it is synonymous with [[persuasion]]. For rhetorical purposes, this definition, like many others, is too broad. The same issue presents itself with definitions that are too narrow. Rhetoricians in support of the [[Epistemology|epistemic]] view of rhetoric have yet to agree in this regard.<ref name=":9" />

[[Philosophical]] teachings refer to [[knowledge]] as a [[justified true belief]]. However, the [[Gettier problem|Gettier Problem]] explores the room for fallacy in this concept.<ref>{{Cite book |date=2017-07-05 |title=Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? |doi=10.4324/9781912281862|isbn=978-1-912281-86-2 |url=https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01439314/file/2013%20Gettier%20Conocimiento.pdf }}</ref> Therefore, the [[Gettier problem|Gettier Problem]] impedes the effectivity of the argument of Richard A. Cherwitz and James A. Hikins,<ref name=":10">{{Cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Susan |last2=Cherwitz |first2=Richard A. |last3=Hikins |first3=James |date=May 1987 |title=Communication and Knowledge: An Investigation in Rhetorical Epistemology |journal=College Composition and Communication |volume=38 |issue=2 |page=216 |doi=10.2307/357725 |jstor=357725 |issn=0010-096X}}</ref> who employ the [[justified true belief]] standpoint in their argument for rhetoric as [[Epistemology|epistemic]]. Celeste Condit Railsback takes a different approach,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Railsback |first=Celeste Condit |date=November 1983 |title=Beyond rhetorical relativism: A structural-material model of truth and objective reality |journal=Quarterly Journal of Speech |volume=69 |issue=4 |pages=351–363 |doi=10.1080/00335638309383662 |issn=0033-5630}}</ref> drawing from Ray E. McKerrow's system of [[belief]] based on [[Validity (logic)|validity]] rather than [[certainty]].<ref>{{Citation |last=McKerrow |first=Ray E. |chapter=Chapter 16. Rhetorical Validity: an Analysis of three Perspectives on the Justification of Rhetorical Argument |date=1992-12-31 |title=Readings in Argumentation |pages=297–312 |publisher=DE GRUYTER |doi=10.1515/9783110885651.297 |isbn=978-3-11-013576-3}}</ref>

William D. Harpine refers to the issue of unclear definitions that occurs in the theories of "rhetoric is epistemic" in his 2004 article "What Do You Mean, Rhetoric is Epistemic?".<ref name=":9" /> In it, he focuses on uncovering the most appropriate definitions for the terms "rhetoric", "knowledge", and "certainty". According to Harpine, certainty is either objective or subjective. Although both Scotts<ref name=":8" /> and Cherwitz and Hikins<ref name=":10" /> theories deal with some form of certainty, Harpine believes that knowledge is not required to be neither objectively nor subjectively certain. In terms of "rhetoric", Harpine argues that the definition of rhetoric as "the art of persuasion" is the best choice in the context of this theoretical approach of rhetoric as epistemic. Harpine then proceeds to present two methods of approaching the idea of rhetoric as epistemic based on the definitions presented. One centers on Alston's<ref>{{Cite book |last=Alston |first=William P. |title=Epistemic Justification: Essays in the Theory of Knowledge |publisher=Cornell University Press |year=1989 |location=Ithaca, NY |pages=153–171}}</ref> view that one's beliefs are justified if formed by one's normal doxastic while the other focuses on the causal theory of knowledge.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Goldman |first=Alan H. |title=Empirical Knowledge |publisher=University of California Press |year=1988 |location=Berkeley, CA |pages=22–23}}</ref> Both approaches manage to avoid Gettier's problems and do not rely on unclear conceptions of certainty.

In the discussion of rhetoric and [[epistemology]], comes the question of [[ethics]]. Is it [[Ethics|ethical]] for rhetoric to present itself in the branch of [[knowledge]]? [[Robert L. Scott|Scott]] rears this question, addressing the issue, not with ambiguity in the definitions of other terms, but against subjectivity regarding [[certainty]]. Ultimately, according to Thomas O. Sloane, rhetoric and [[epistemology]] exist as counterparts, working towards the same purpose of establishing [[knowledge]], with the common enemy of subjective [[certainty]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Waddington |first1=Raymond B. |last2=Sloane |first2=Thomas O. |date=1999 |title=On the Contrary: The Protocol of Traditional Rhetoric |journal=Comparative Literature |volume=51 |issue=4 |page=346 |doi=10.2307/1771268 |jstor=1771268 |issn=0010-4124}}</ref>