Do you think that as children and adults mature they become more attuned to rhetoric?

[Michelle in MO]

I was thinking about Robin in TX's thread questioning whether or not IEW was formulaic. The whole thread was very interesting to read. There have been some other threads lately about rhetoric.

 

If I understand rhetoric correctly---this is off the top of my head---it would be the ability to craft your words in such a way as to communicate to the intended audience what you want them to know; i.e., it's the power of persuasion, through writing or speech, to convince your audience of the truth you want to convey to them.

 

Rhetoric needs to be taught to children as they grow up, but I honestly can't remember being formally taught the art of rhetoric. (Sorry, I graduated from p.s.!) Do you think this ability is learned as people mature? As I write, I naturally try to think, "What am I trying to say? Why do I believe in this topic so strongly? Who is my audience? How can I best convince them of the truth behind this?" I believe my ability to think in this way has grown as I've grown older. In high school, I doubt if I considered writing for anyone else but my teachers. :D

 

Dh and I subscribe to a national news magazine. In this particular publication, I'm always impressed with the quality of the writing. Of course, since it's a news magazine, politics is always touched upon, and the writers have come up with some incredibly clever ways to convey their opinions.

 

Is rhetoric taught in writing classes at the college level? Or, are classes in rhetoric given different labels in this day and age? How much rhetoric can an average high school student comprehend, do you think?

 

I'm really interested in responses to this; this is not just a "rhetorical" question! :)

 

Sigh. I guess so often I read a very well-written book, or an excellent magazine article, and I wonder, "How can I learn to do that? How do you teach that to children?" Broad question.

[Beth in SW WA]

:lurk5:

[Tullia]

I think it's possible to teach the rudiments to high school students in such a way that a person can become more aware of the structure of writing. IMO, most high school students are capable of learning a great deal, but it takes a certain level of maturity in order to practice the rhetorical arts effectively. It's a cumulative process. I'm still learning. Several years ago, I looked at what colleges are teaching that might be classified as rhetoric. For quite a few years the trend seemed to be one of moving rhetoric into "Communications" departments, but Aristotle revived and updated so as to be palatable to modern politically correct sensibilities is creeping back into English departments.

 

FWIW, last year I spoke to a prominent local lawyer who told me that most law schools have dropped formal rhetorical training and focus more on applications such using books like the D'Angelo text Composition in the Classical Tradition in law or pre-law classes. He teaches continuing education courses to his colleagues and puts the ancient authors (in translation, of course) on his reading lists.

 

I haven't heard from Prof. Robert Einarsson for awhile, but several years ago, he was planning to teach a course on rhetoric in his department (English). For anyone who's interested, the last time I stopped by his website he's offering his exercises on the sentence structure of classic English authors as a free download. There are several other worthwhile articles at his personal website too.

 

http://www.classiclanguagearts.net/workbook.htm

 

Prof. Einarsson's sentence analysis exercises are well-suited to teaching what he calls "structural awareness" which IMO is a necessary foundation for understanding the whole point of rhetoric.

 

Another resource that I think takes that idea (structural awareness) into a larger framework in an accessible, do-able way is SWB's The Well Educated Mind. The combination of reading and keeping a journal is essential; it's what makes real the concepts taught in formal rhetoric courses.

 

As far as defining rhetoric, I like the way Aristotle described it as a systematic observation, case by case, of the available means of persuasion. That's my version of the introduction to Chapter 2 of the Roberts translation.;)

 

Added thought: It is possible to pick up a lot by wide reading, but a formal study of rhetoric makes it easier to sort, make sense of, and discuss what you read or hear.

[Michelle in MO]

For quite a few years the trend seemed to be one of moving rhetoric into "Communications" departments, but Aristotle revived and updated so as to be palatable to modern politically correct sensibilities is creeping back into English departments.

 

FWIW, last year I spoke to a prominent local lawyer who told me that most law schools have dropped formal rhetorical training and focus more on applications such using books like the D'Angelo text Composition in the Classical Tradition in law or pre-law classes. He teaches continuing education courses to his colleagues and puts the ancient authors (in translation, of course) on his reading lists.

 

I haven't read Aristotle (yet), but I find this very interesting that a local lawyer told you this. Dh is a lawyer; I'll have to ask him whether or not his law school ever gave the students formal rhetorical training. I know that he's said before that almost all of his law school classes were taught with the Socratic method of questions and discussions; of course, that's not Aristotle. But, it's great to see at least one local lawyer who finds that the wisdom from the ancient authors is worth passing along to his students in the setting of continuing education classes!

 

I haven't heard from Prof. Robert Einarsson for awhile, but several years ago, he was planning to teach a course on rhetoric in his department (English). For anyone who's interested, the last time I stopped by his website he's offering his exercises on the sentence structure of classic English authors as a free download. There are several other worthwhile articles at his personal website too.

 

http://www.classiclanguagearts.net/workbook.htm

 

Prof. Einarsson's sentence analysis exercises are well-suited to teaching what he calls "structural awareness" which IMO is a necessary foundation for understanding the whole point of rhetoric.

 

Martha, this looks like a great website--these exercises on the sentence structure of classic English authors! Thank you for posting this.

 

(FWIW, for a fine imitation piece in the style of The Canterbury Tales, read this.)

 

Added thought: It is possible to pick up a lot by wide reading, but a formal study of rhetoric makes it easier to sort, make sense of, and discuss what you read or hear.

 

This is exactly where I'm at. I think I've picked up an understanding of rhetoric through wide reading, so I tend to intuitively think of the questions I've listed above (i.e., who is my audience? what is my purpose? etc.). As far as a formal study----no, I'm terribly ignorant at the moment. I need more education in this area. I do own the D'Angelo book, but only read portions of it while our girls were taking Cindy Marsch's Progymnasmata Tutorials.

 

I have another question: Do you think that as a person matures, i.e., socially, academically, etc.---growing in "virtue", as the ancients tried to communicate---that they grow in rhetorical persuasiveness? Let me give you an example from my own life, along with a disclaimer: this example is by no means intended to hold myself up as a paragon of virtue. Through classical education, I've become more educated in the history of the Church. Having learned more of church history, I find that I'm much more appreciative of the rich history in the Christian church (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). I'm more aware of the inestimable value of what the variety of churches have contributed to the expression of the Church, as a whole, in the world today. Therefore, I find myself more disturbed when I see certain polemics still employed by some church members towards members of a different denomination. That doesn't mean I buy into a syncretism or a watered-down faith. This influences the way I think and the way I approach these subjects in both speaking and writing. So, I see a growth in "virtue" or, perhaps stated more appropriately in my case, "awareness", and this awareness has influenced my rhetoric in that particular area.

[Tullia]

Of course, it would be far easier to subside into self-centered crankiness instead. :D I'm too painfully aware of the inadequacy of looking at life solely from my own perspective to be satisfied with that, but there are those days when disgust sets in and I wonder if I'd be better off gardening.

 

I spend some of my free time practicing rhetoric without a license in local politics...and that is why I have been discussing Plato and Aristotle with a lawyer. Similar issues play a role in politics, too.

 

I'd like to know what your dh has to say about law school classes.

 

Martha

[Michelle in MO]

about the study of rhetoric in law school. He said at his law school (University of Missouri-Columbia) they did not read Plato or Aristotle. He said they did study jurisprudence, which is legal philosophy, which actually included very little history. This included reading more recent philosophers like Rousseau, John Locke, and Thomas Paine, which dealt with the nature of law, liberty in society, social contract theory, and other subjects that looked at the underlying principles or values that law was designed to protect. But, unfortunately, no ancient or classical philosophers were studied. It's too bad, really, because I would imagine that these more recent philosophers studied Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc. Probably the trend in schools then was more towards what is utilitarian.

 

It sounds like your discussions with your lawyer friend may prove very fruitful; I think it's wonderful that he's incorporating this reading into the classes that he teaches. It sounds like he's ahead of the curve. Hopefully there will be more of that!

[Leah]

I haven't heard from Prof. Robert Einarsson for awhile, but several years ago, he was planning to teach a course on rhetoric in his department (English). For anyone who's interested, the last time I stopped by his website he's offering his exercises on the sentence structure of classic English authors as a free download. There are several other worthwhile articles at his personal website too.

 

http://www.classiclanguagearts.net/workbook.htm

 

Prof. Einarsson's sentence analysis exercises are well-suited to teaching what he calls "structural awareness" which IMO is a necessary foundation for understanding the whole point of rhetoric.

 

 

 

Thank you for linking to this! You all should be sure to click over to this site and check it out. :)