Editing Rhetoric (section)

===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.