Rankin1

Elizabeth Rankin

Nathaniel Rivers

History of Rhetoric

1 May 2017

Database: Elocution

To start, I would like to repeat that Rhetoric is a verb. Rhetoric is

the question that haunts you with every choice you make (or dont

make) consciously and unconsciously. Rhetoric is trying to answer

that same question Quintilian posed after already having answered

it. Rhetoric is knowing that answer is only a and not the. Rhetoric is

fighting to know and showing you how. Rhetoric is the home of

uncertainty and doubt that we go to in order to find harmony and

sustenance in things that do. Rhetoric is what humanism tries to

steal from me, you, us. Rhetoric is that which is probably only

certain about uncertainty. Rhetoric is why we talk to our fathers about

our accomplishments in relation to our hardships without using the

word feminism, the word gender, the word woman, while also still

using all of those words. Rhetoric is that same argument being

made the opposite way, but not badly: ineffectively. Rhetoric is

treating my fellow humans how they want to be treated and not the

way I want to be treated. Rhetoric is how and why I know those

ways. Rhetoric is what gives might to what we decide is good and

bad and we choose between them. Rhetoric is arguing with something

or someone that you didnt know were arguing with you until you

tried to argue back with it/them. Rhetoric is the anxiety that is

necessary, constantly preserved yet devouring and destructive force

that we cant and refuse to let ourselves be and get rid of. Rhetoric

is constantly trying to do. Rhetoric is an infinity within other

infinities. Rhetoric is constant in that it is always changing, moving,

shouting, describing. Rhetoric is violent for doing so. Rhetoric is

ceaseless because it is incapable of resuming, beginning, ending.

Rhetoric is not. Although many things can be said about rhetoric it is

easiest to simply say that it is conclusive that rhetoric is difficult to

define. More So than being something that I can define, it is something that

commands our outlook on the world and influences the framework

of the society in which we live. Rhetoric has been and will always be

an important part of our world, but with changing civilizations and

societal constructs its meaning and influence in the world shifts

constantly, leaving it open to a million different definitions from a million

different people.

With this idea in mind, I have chosen to discuss elocution as my

rhetorical concept to shed some light on what rhetoric is or could be from

one angle. Elocution is described as the delivery element of rhetoric,

simply put: the ideas communicated are only as strong as the way

the ideas are delivered. This includes the audiences reaction, the

speakers goals and ideals, and the situation in which the idea was
 Rankin3

presented. For George Campbell, elocution is that art or talent by

which the discourse is adapted to its end, designating a Burkean

ideal of rhetoric motives (Campbell 902). During Kenneth Burkes

writing, elocution appears to take a backseat to the basic

understanding of the motives of language itself. Previous 18th and

19th century rhetoricians direct specific attention to elocution after

its long absence of importance. Thomas Sheridan, for instance,

indicates elocution has sunk so low that there was no true art

anymore (Sheridan 881).

In the Grammar of Motives, Burke is interested in the dramatic

elements, which are act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose or as I

saw it, the five Ws of writing; who, what, when, where, and why. (Burke

1298). Seemingly, Burke doesnt fully address concerns of elocution.

Yet, with a closer reading, the elements of elocution are apparent,

as elocution must be used by any rhetoric speaker. In fact, the scene is

conveyed primarily by suggestions built into the lines of the verbal

action itself, meaning the delivery of the spoken dialogue sets the

scene (Burke 1303). For example, the dialect of southern white

Christian man sets a very different scene than a Bosnian immigrant

because different mind frames come to mind. This is a good idea to

thank upon when reading about Frederick Douglas as he was told to speak

with the slave-like dialect to win over more of the audience.

Burke explores this idea further in A Rhetoric of Motives. The

sociological concept of the cognitive monster of mind frames,

which is implicit intergroup bias, plays into Burkes argument well

(Epp, Maynard-Moody, Haider-Markel 43). The cognitive monster

relates to Burkes idea of identification with a group that by

identifying with a group, the individual is predisposed to have

certain qualities or mindsets. As Burke describes with his example

of A and B colleagues, A may identify with B because their interests

are joined or A may identify with B if he assumes that they [have

the same interests], or is persuaded to believe so (Burke 1325).

This identification automatically alters an individuals motives,

rhetorically. In this way, the rhetorical motive is often present

where it is not usually recognized (Burke 1324). Using the

cognitive monster, found in another discipline (sociology) to help

explicate this phenomenon, therefore strengthens Burkes

conceptions. His understanding of identification is replicated in

other modes of knowledge. At the most basic level, the intergroup

bias is not recognizable by anyone. It is so difficult for individuals to

comprehend that most do not even realize the motives in their

thoughts and actions. There are, though, rhetoric motives stemming

in part from the identification with others, even if the rhetoric

motives are not fully visible or realized.

Instead of addressing elocution in its singularity, Burke takes

the more complicated approach: to ground elocution in everything.

Which is very true. Without elocution the audience would not fully grasp the

meaning behind the speakers words. He argues rhetoric cannot be

taken singularly. Returning the idea that the scene is set in part by

the verbal action, this rhetoric is based in elocution, and it cannot

be separated. All in all, Burke intertwines elocution in his discussion

of rhetoric and does not explain elocutions own meaning, leading to

a strong backing of elocution in rhetoric.

Different methods of speaking were more effective in convincing a

crowd. For example, a dialect (or lack-thereof) could influence the

audiences perception of the speaker, and there are those who

would (and have) edited dialect back into the public speeches of

black rhetors. Rhetoric is all about being able to sway a crowd so it is

important to consider to whom such a dialect would appeal, and the

political choice such a dialect represents. In the case of Frederick

Douglas he was asked to speak in his slave dialect. This is a significant

decision on Douglass part, and it was a decision that had to be

faced not only by other free blacks who spoke publicly, but also by

those who recorded and reported such speech-making. SImilar to

other stories of the time, this dialect could create a new ethos for Douglas.

For Douglas to portray himself with a plantation accent and

slaves servility serves the interests of those hoping to appeal to

a white savior complex, and their desire to turn Douglass into a

mere character, such as Uncle Remus, rather than an abolitionist

thinker in his own right. When Douglas did speak publically he was known

to take Sheridan's advice and be natural, treat public speaking as a

form of conversation, to adhere to correct grammar and usage,

and to practice, for reasons of social expediency, the refined

dialect of the educated English. He would also use his voice,

naturally deep and resonant, as a flexible instrument that could

range from rafter-shaking thunder to tenderly moving, quiet tones.

This relates back to my first statement that different methods of

speaking were more effective in convincing a crowd. It also ties into

Maria Stewarts femininity, perhaps the softer sex presents a more

alluring tone of voice to move a certain kind of crowd. Douglas saw the

appeal in this and adopted the gentle speaking for the convincing some

crowds.

In the case of Maria Stewart, Men were often known to find ways

to diminish the public role of women such as the ministers

suggesting that women who took on such activist roles called their

own chastity into question. This made it difficult for women to get a foot

in the door in terms of public speaking and left the reputation of the

women damaged. This played a role in the witch hunt that proved to be

part of long tradition of feminizing rhetoric in order to demean it. As

stated earlier, Stewart was part of the softer sex and pulled from her
 Rankin7

femininity to speak publically. Stewart uses the word feeble, which I believe

adds to her ability to speak and sway an audience. It is stated, for God

makes use of feeble means sometimes, to bring about his most

exalted purposes. Stewart is arguing that in many past respected

societies (Greek, Roman, Jewish), women were well-respected in a

religious sense. Although she is using her public voice to speak for

woman her use of the word feeble is interesting, because it seems

like she is ascribing to the expected gender roles/personalities, in

that women are the softer sex, and not perceived as strong or

powerful, but by speaking out publically she adds strength in the feminine

form of elocution she has set regardless of her use of the word feeble. One

big issue for rhetoric [can be] to determine what people will take

to be true or persuasive, by being able to take advantage of different

types of elocution can make it easier to determine what people will take

to be true or persuasive.

I chose Maria and Douglas as my examples because of their bodily

appearance. A black man and a woman had no social presence and therefore

asks the question, What sort of rhetorical implications does this have

regarding the relationship between ethos and medium for the

author and their audience? Douglas and Stewart both had to start from

scratch and present themselves in a way the white male majority could

accept. By assuming that the constantly changing opinion of the

audience is indeed fact, the orator is able to better prepare

themselves for the influence of the crowd. I believe that Stewart and

Douglas did this quite well and then proceeded to use elocution style to drive

the point home.

Elocution is not just important for speech but writing as well. its

always best to be cautious when reading a text with heavy dialect,

because the way we talk (and listen) are often just too different

than the ways we write (and read). As oral elocution changes from

person to person as does the written forms as well for written language is

only a copy of that which is spoken. Cixous is a wonderful example of

this as she seems to acknowledge the importance of acknowledging a rhetors

body, actions, and delivery as much as their words in her writing style as her

writing style is extremely animated and sounds like a speech. She supported

ecriture feminine that worked against the predisposition that women were the lesser

sex. They could not stick to linear and hierarchical textual structures, which only

lead to greater writing skills. She would rather the writing organize itself diffusely

around key themes and supplied a generous flow of allusive language and

remains open to many viewpoints without trying to enforce just one. Cixous

manages to defend the Freudian idea that women are less structured than men in a

positive way by stating that those qualities in a woman allow her to move freely

through their imagination in the act of writing. They were granted the gift of less

controlling social rules. Regardless of the rhetor's situation, elocution methods

depend wholly on the audience that is receiving them and that does not

change when in the written form.

It is obvious to see from all these different viewpoints that elocution is

a crucial component of any kind of rhetoric. It is vital in the act of

approaching the audience, whether it is through writing or speaking.

Although we have been taught throughout the whole of the semester that

rhetoric is not something that we should define, through the glasses of

elocution, we are able to see a small, yet essential component of what

makes up rhetoric.

*Kathryn, Emily, Byron, Sean, Patrick, Maddie, Amanda, Nathaniel, Margaux, Sean, Biff, Kevin
Rankin10