Editing Rhetoric (section)

== Modern ==
At the turn of the 20th century, there was a revival of rhetorical study manifested in the establishment of departments of rhetoric and speech at academic institutions, as well as the formation of national and international professional organizations.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|last=Cohen|first=H.|year=1994|title=The history of speech communication: The emergence of a discipline, 1914–1945|location=Annandale, Va.|publisher=Speech Communication Association}}
|2={{cite book|last=Gehrke|first=P.J.|year=2009|title=The ethics and politics of speech: Communication and rhetoric in the twentieth century|location=Carbondale, Ill.|publisher=[[Southern Illinois University Press]]}}
}}</ref> The early interest in rhetorical studies was a movement away from elocution as taught in English departments in the United States, and an attempt to refocus rhetorical studies from delivery-only to civic engagement and a "rich complexity" of the nature of rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book|first1=Jim A.|last1=Kuypers|author-link1=Jim A. Kuypers|first2=Andrew|last2=King|title=Twentieth-Century Roots of Rhetorical Studies|location=Westpost, Conn.|publisher=Praeger|year=2001}}</ref>

By the 1930s, advances in [[mass media]] technology led to a revival of the study of rhetoric, language, persuasion, and political rhetoric and its consequences. The [[linguistic turn]] in philosophy also contributed to this revival. The term rhetoric came to be applied to media forms other than verbal language, e.g. [[visual rhetoric]], "temporal rhetorics",<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bjork |first1=Collin |last2=Buhre |first2=Frida |year=2021 |title=Resisting Temporal Regimes, Imagining Just Temporalities |journal=Rhetoric Society Quarterly |volume=51 |issue=3 |pages=177–181 |doi=10.1080/02773945.2021.1918503 |issn=0277-3945 |doi-access=free |s2cid=235812222}}</ref> and the "temporal turn"<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite journal |last=Mao |first=LuMing |date=18 December 2018 |title=In the Present and Importantly Present: Enacting a Temporal Turn for Asian American Rhetoric |url=http://enculturation.net/in-the-present-and-importantly-present |journal=Enculturation}}
|2={{Cite journal |last1=Houdek |first1=Matthew |last2=Phillips |first2=Kendall R. |year=2020 |title=Rhetoric and the Temporal Turn: Race, Gender, Temporalities |journal=Women's Studies in Communication |volume=43 |issue=4 |pages=369–383 |doi=10.1080/07491409.2020.1824501 |issn=0749-1409 |doi-access=free |s2cid=230637522}}
}}</ref> in rhetorical theory and practice.

The rise of [[advertising]] and of mass media such as [[photography]], [[telegraphy]], [[radio]], and [[film]] brought rhetoric more prominently into people's lives. The discipline of rhetoric has been used to study how [[advertising]] persuades,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Stern |first=Barbara B. |year=1990 |title=Pleasure and Persuasion in Advertising: Rhetorical Irony as a Humor Technique |journal=Current Issues and Research in Advertising |volume=12 |issue=1–2 |pages=25–42 |doi=10.1080/01633392.1990.10504942 |doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 |issn=0163-3392}}</ref> and to help understand the spread of [[fake news]] and [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] on social media.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Diaz Ruiz |first1=Carlos |last2=Nilsson |first2=Tomas |year=2023 |title=Disinformation and Echo Chambers: How Disinformation Circulates on Social Media Through Identity-Driven Controversies |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07439156221103852 |journal=Journal of Public Policy & Marketing |language=en |volume=42 |issue=1 |pages=18–35 |doi=10.1177/07439156221103852 |s2cid=248934562 |issn=0743-9156}}</ref>

=== Notable theorists ===
; [[Kenneth Burke]] : Burke was a rhetorical theorist, philosopher, and poet. Many of his works are central to modern rhetorical theory: ''Counterstatement'' (1931), ''A Grammar of Motives'' (1945), ''A Rhetoric of Motives'' (1950), and ''Language as Symbolic Action'' (1966). Among his influential concepts are "identification", "consubstantiality", and the "[[dramatistic pentad]]". He described rhetoric as "the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Borchers |first=Timothy A. |title=Rhetorical theory: an introduction |year=2006 |publisher=[[Thomson/Wadsworth]] |location=Belmont, Calif. |isbn=978-0-534-63918-1}}</ref> In relation to Aristotle's theory, Aristotle was more interested in constructing rhetoric, while Burke was interested in "debunking" it.
; The [[Groupe μ]] : This interdisciplinary team contributed to the renovation of the {{lang|la|elocutio}} in the context of poetics and modern linguistics, significantly with ''Rhétorique générale''<ref>{{cite book|first1=J.|last1=Dubois|first2=F.|last2=Edeline|first3=J.-M.|last3=Klinkenberg|first4=P.|last4=Minguet|first5=F.|last5=Pire|first6=H.|last6=Trinon|orig-date=1970|title=A General Rhetoric|translator-first1=Paul B.|translator-last1=Burrell|translator-first2=Edgar M.|translator-last2=Slotkin|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|year=1981}}</ref> and ''Rhétorique de la poésie'' (1977).
; [[Marshall McLuhan]] : McLuhan was a media theorist whose theories and whose choice of objects of study are important to the study of rhetoric. McLuhan's book ''[[The Mechanical Bride]]''<ref>{{cite book|last=McLuhan|first=Marshall|author-link=Marshall McLuhan|title=[[The Mechanical Bride]]: The Folklore of Industrial Man|publisher=Vanguard Press|year=1951}}</ref> was a compilation of exhibits of ads and other materials from popular culture with short essays involving rhetorical analyses of the persuasive strategies in each item. McLuhan later shifted the focus of his rhetorical analysis and began to consider how communication media themselves affect us as persuasive devices. His famous dictum "[[the medium is the message]]" highlights the significance of the medium itself. This shift in focus led to his two most widely known books, ''[[The Gutenberg Galaxy]]''<ref>{{cite book|last=McLuhan|first=Marshall|author-link=Marshall McLuhan|title=[[The Gutenberg Galaxy]]: The Making of Typographic Man|publisher=University of Toronto Press|year=1962}}</ref> and ''[[Understanding Media]]''.<ref>{{cite book|last=McLuhan|first=Marshall|author-link=Marshall McLuhan|title=[[Understanding Media]]: The Extensions of Man|publisher=[[McGraw-Hill]]|year=1964}}</ref> These books represent an inward turn to attending to one's consciousness in contrast to the more outward orientation of other rhetoricians toward sociological considerations and symbolic interaction. No other scholar of the history and theory of rhetoric was as widely publicized in the 20th century as McLuhan.
; [[Chaïm Perelman]] : Perelman was among the most important [[argumentation theory|argumentation]] theorists of the 20th century. His chief work is the ''Traité de l'argumentation—la nouvelle rhétorique'' (1958), with [[Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca]], which was translated into English as ''The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation''.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Perelman|first1=Chaïm|last2=Olbrechts-Tyteca|first2=Lucie|author-link1=Chaïm Perelman|author-link2=Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca|title=The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation|translator-first1=John|translator-last1=Wilkinson|translator-first2=Purcell|translator-last2=Weaver|year=1969|orig-date=1958|publisher=University of Notre Dame Press|isbn=978-0-268-00446-0|lccn=68-20440|location=Notre Dame, Ind.}}</ref> Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca move rhetoric from the periphery to the center of argumentation theory. Among their most influential concepts are "dissociation", "the universal audience", "quasi-logical argument", and "presence".
; [[I. A. Richards]] : Richards was a literary critic and rhetorician. His ''The Philosophy of Rhetoric'' is an important text in modern rhetorical theory.<ref name=Richards1965>{{cite book |last=Richards |first=I. A. |year=1965 |title=The Philosophy of Rhetoric |location=New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-0-19-500715-2}}</ref> In this work, he defined rhetoric as "a study of misunderstandings and its remedies", and introduced the influential concepts ''tenor'' and ''vehicle'' to describe the components of a metaphor—the main idea and the concept to which it is compared.{{r|Richards1965|p=97}}
; [[Stephen Toulmin]] : Toulmin was a philosopher whose ''Uses of Argument'' is an important text in modern rhetorical theory and [[argumentation theory]].<ref>{{cite book |first=Stephen |last=Toulmin |author-link=Stephen Toulmin |year=2003 |title=The Uses of Argument |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-0-521-53483-3}}</ref>
; [[Richard M. Weaver]] : Weaver was a rhetorical and cultural critic known for his contributions to the new conservatism. He focused on the ethical implications of rhetoric in his books ''Language is Sermonic'' and ''The Ethics of Rhetoric''. According to Weaver there are four types of argument, and through the argument type a rhetorician habitually uses a critic can discern their worldview. Those who prefer the argument from genus or definition are idealists. Those who argue from similitude, such as poets and religious people, see the connectedness between things. The argument from consequence sees a cause and effect relationship. Finally the argument from circumstance considers the particulars of a situation and is an argument preferred by liberals.

===Methods of analysis===

====Criticism seen as a method====
Rhetoric can be analyzed by a variety of methods and theories. One such method is criticism. When those using criticism analyze instances of rhetoric what they do is called rhetorical criticism {{See below|[[#Criticism|Criticism]]}}. According to rhetorical critic [[Jim A. Kuypers]], "The use of rhetoric is an art, and as such, it does not lend itself well to scientific methods of analysis. Criticism is an art as well, and as such is particularly well suited for examining rhetorical creations."<ref name="Jim A 2009">{{cite book|first=Jim A.|last=Kuypers|chapter=Rhetorical Criticism as Art|title=Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action|editor-first=Jim A.|editor-last=Kuypers|location=Lanham, Md.|publisher=[[Lexington Books]]|year=2009|isbn=978-0-7391-2774-2}}</ref>{{rp|14}} He asserts that criticism is a method of generating knowledge just as the scientific method is a method for generating knowledge:<ref name="Jim A 2009"/> 
{{Blockquote
|text=The way the Sciences and the Humanities study the phenomena that surround us differ greatly in the amount of researcher personality allowed to influence the results of the study. For example, in the Sciences researchers purposefully adhere to a {{em|strict}} method (the scientific method).... Generally speaking, the researcher's personality, likes and dislikes, and religious and political preferences are supposed to be as far removed as possible from the actual study....<br /><br />In sharp contrast, criticism (one of many Humanistic methods of generating knowledge) actively involves the personality of the researcher. The very choices of what to study, and how and why to study a rhetorical artifact are heavily influenced by the personal qualities of the researcher.... In the Humanities, methods of research may also take many forms—criticism, ethnography, for example—but the personality of the researcher is an integral component of the study. Further personalizing criticism, we find that rhetorical critics use a variety of means when examining a particular rhetorical artifact, with some critics even developing their own unique perspective to better examine a rhetorical artifact.{{r|Jim A 2009|page=14}}
|author=Jim A. Kuypers}}

[[Edwin Black (rhetorician)|Edwin Black]] wrote on this point that, "Methods, then, admit of varying degrees of personality. And criticism, on the whole, is near the indeterminate, contingent, personal end of the methodological scale. In consequence of this placement, it is neither possible nor desirable for criticism to be fixed into a system, for critical techniques to be objectified, for critics to be interchangeable for purposes of replication, or for rhetorical criticism to serve as the handmaiden of quasi-scientific theory."<ref name=Black1978>{{cite book|author-link=Edwin Black (rhetorician)|first=Edwin|last=Black|title=Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method|location=Madison, Wisc.|publisher=[[University of Wisconsin Press]]|year=1978|orig-date=1965|isbn=0-299-07550-8}}</ref>{{rp|xi}}

Jim A. Kuypers sums this idea of criticism as art in the following manner: "In short, criticism is an art, not a science. It is not a scientific method; it uses subjective methods of argument; it exists on its own, not in conjunction with other methods of generating knowledge (i.e., social scientific or scientific)... [I]nsight and imagination top statistical applications when studying rhetorical action."{{r|Jim A 2009|page=14–15}}

===Strategies=== <!-- Anchor from redirect; caution. -->
''Rhetorical strategies'' are the efforts made by authors or speakers to persuade or inform their audiences. According to James W. Gray,{{Importance inline|reason=this source is a blog post by some guy with a website; has its categorization been more widely influential?|date=September 2023}} there are various argument strategies used in writing. He describes four of these as argument from analogy, argument from absurdity, thought experiments, and inference to the best explanation.<ref>{{cite web |last=Gray |first=James W. |title=Four Argument Strategies |website=Ethical Realism|url=https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/four-argument-strategies/ |access-date=19 February 2016 |date=June 2011}}</ref>

===Criticism===
Modern [[rhetorical criticism]] explores the relationship between text and context; that is, how an instance of rhetoric relates to circumstances. Since the aim of rhetoric is to be persuasive, the level to which the rhetoric in question persuades its audience is what must be analyzed, and later criticized. In determining the extent to which a text is persuasive, one may explore the text's relationship with its audience, purpose, ethics, argument, evidence, arrangement, delivery, and style.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Speaking/Writing Connection |last=Ryan |first=David |publisher=Parthenon West Books |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-9765684-9-0 |location=Berkeley, Calif. |page=236}}</ref>

In his ''Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method'', Edwin Black states, "It is the task of criticism not to measure... discourses dogmatically against some parochial standard of rationality but, allowing for the immeasurable wide range of human experience, to see them as they really are."{{r|Black1978|page=131}} While "as they really are" is debatable, rhetorical critics explain texts and speeches by investigating their [[rhetorical situation]], typically placing them in a framework of speaker/audience exchange. The antithetical view places the rhetor at the center of creating that which is considered the extant situation; i.e., the agenda and spin.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal|last=Bitzer|first=Lloyd F.|title=The Rhetorical Situation|journal=[[Philosophy & Rhetoric]]|year=1968|volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=1–14|jstor=40236733}}
|2={{cite journal|last=Vatz|first=Richard E.|title=The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation|journal=[[Philosophy & Rhetoric]]|year=1974|volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=154–161 |jstor=40236848}}
|3={{cite book | last=Vatz | first=Richard E. | title=The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion | year=2014 | publisher=Kendall Hunt Publishing Company | isbn=978-1-4652-5925-7}}
}}</ref>

====Additional theoretical approaches====
Following the [[Neo-Aristotelianism (literature)|neo-Aristotelian]] approaches to criticism, scholars began to derive methods from other disciplines, such as history, philosophy, and the social sciences.<ref name=Jansinski2001>{{cite journal |last1=Jansinski |first1=James |title=The Status of Theory and Method in Rhetorical Criticism |url=http://blog.umd.edu/tpg/files/2012/08/Jasinski-WJC1.pdf |journal=Western Journal of Communication|year=2001 |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=249–270 |doi=10.1080/10570310109374705 |s2cid=151981343 |access-date=5 June 2017 |archive-date=29 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170329060528/http://blog.umd.edu/tpg/files/2012/08/Jasinski-WJC1.pdf }}</ref>{{rp|249}} The importance of critics' personal judgment {{clarify|reason=coverage of what by whom? explicit how?|text=decreased in explicit coverage|date=September 2023}} while the analytical dimension of criticism began to gain momentum. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, methodological pluralism replaced the singular neo-Aristotelian method. Methodological rhetorical criticism is typically done by deduction, in which {{Vague|reason=what's "a broad method"?|text=a broad method|date=September 2023}} is used to examine a specific case of rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book|last=Foss|first=Sonja|year=1989|title=Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice|location=Prospect Heights|publisher=Waveland Press, Inc.}}</ref> {{clarify|reason="these" isn't appropriate as this is the first mention of "types" in the section|text=These types|date=September 2023}} include:
; [[Ideological criticism]] : ''engages rhetoric as it suggests the beliefs, values, assumptions, and interpretations held by the rhetor or the larger culture''
: Ideological criticism also treats ideology as an artifact of discourse, one that is embedded in key terms (called "[[ideographs]]") as well as material resources and discursive embodiment.
; [[Cluster criticism]] : ''seeks to help the critic understand the rhetor's worldview'' (developed by [[Kenneth Burke]])
: This means identifying terms that are "clustered" around key symbols in the rhetorical artifact and the patterns in which they appear.
; [[Frame analysis]] : ''looks for how rhetors construct an interpretive lens in their discourse''
: In short, how they make certain facts more noticeable than others. It is particularly useful for analyzing products of the news media.
; [[Genre criticism]] : ''assumes certain situations call for similar needs and expectations within the audience, therefore calling for certain types of rhetoric''
: It studies rhetoric in different times and locations, looking at similarities in the rhetorical situation and the rhetoric that responds to them. Examples include eulogies, inaugural addresses, and declarations of war.
; [[Narrative criticism]] : ''narratives help organize experiences in order to endow meaning to historical events and transformations''
: Narrative criticism focuses on the story itself and how the construction of the narrative directs the interpretation of the situation.

By the mid-1980s the study of rhetorical criticism began to move away from precise methodology towards conceptual issues. Conceptually-driven criticism<ref>{{cite book|first=Stephanie Houston|last=Grey|chapter=Conceptually-Oriented Criticism|title=Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action|editor-link=Jim A. Kuypers|editor-first=Jim A.|editor-last=Kuypers|location=Lanham, Md.|publisher=[[Lexington Books]]|year=2009}}</ref> operates more through abduction, according to scholar James Jasinski, who argues that this type of criticism can be thought of as a back-and-forth between the text and the concepts{{Specify|reason=which concepts are these? those in the text or some other set?|date=September 2023}}, which are being explored at the same time. The concepts remain "works in progress", and understanding {{clarify|reason=Are "those terms" the same as "the concepts" or something different?|text=those terms|date=September 2023}} develops through the analysis of a text.{{r|Jansinski2001|page=256}}

Criticism is considered rhetorical when it focuses on the way some types of discourse react to situational exigencies—problems or demands—and constraints. Modern rhetorical criticism concerns how the rhetorical case or object persuades, defines, or constructs the audience. In modern terms, rhetoric includes, but it is not limited to, speeches, scientific discourse, pamphlets, literary work, works of art, and pictures. Contemporary rhetorical criticism has maintained aspects of early neo-Aristotelian thinking through close reading, which attempts to explore the organization and stylistic structure of a rhetorical object.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Leff |first=Michael |year=2001 |title=Lincoln at Cooper Union: Neo-Classical Criticism Revisited |journal=Western Journal of Communication |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=232–48 |doi=10.1080/10570310109374704 |s2cid=157684635}}</ref> Using close textual analysis means rhetorical critics use the tools of classical rhetoric and literary analysis to evaluate the style and strategy used to communicate the argument.

====Purpose of criticism====
Rhetorical criticism serves several purposes. For one, it hopes to help form or improve public taste. It helps educate audiences and develops them into better judges of rhetorical situations by reinforcing ideas of value, morality, and suitability. Rhetorical criticism can thus contribute to the audience's understanding of themselves and society.

According to Jim A. Kuypers, a second purpose for performing criticism should be to enhance our appreciation and understanding. "[W]e wish to enhance both our own and others' understanding of the rhetorical act; we wish to share our insights with others, and to enhance their appreciation of the rhetorical act. These are not hollow goals, but quality of life issues. By improving understanding and appreciation, the critic can offer new and potentially exciting ways for others to see the world. Through understanding we also produce knowledge about human communication; in theory this should help us to better govern our interactions with others." Criticism is a humanizing activity in that it explores and highlights qualities that make us human.{{r|Jim A 2009|page=13}}