The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics

Ruth Wodak, Bernhard Forchtner, Ruth Wodak, Bernhard Forchtner

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351728966
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sprachen & Linguistik
• Subtopic: Sprachwissenschaft

The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics provides a comprehensive overview of thisimportant and dynamic area of study and research. Language is indispensable to initiating, justifying, legitimatising and coordinating action as well as negotiating conflict and, as such, is intrinsically linked to the area of politics. With 45 chapters written by leading scholars from around the world, this Handbook covers the following key areas:

• Overviews of the most influential theoretical approaches, including Bourdieu, Foucault, Habermas and Marx;
• Methodological approaches to language and politics, covering – among others –content analysis, conversation analysis, multimodal analysis and narrative analysis;
• Genres of political action from speech-making and policy to national anthems and billboards;
• Cutting-edge case studies about hot-topic socio-political phenomena, such as ageing, social class, gendered politics andpopulism.

• 
  
  

The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics is a vibrant survey of this key field and is essential reading for advanced students and researchers studying language and politics.

Part I
Theoretical approaches to language and politics

1
Rhetoric as a civic art from antiquity to the beginning of modernity

Sara Rubinelli

---

Introduction

Language is essential to politics as politics exercises its power of making decisions and influencing citizens through language. The ancient Greeks started a tradition of the study of language focused on this power of influencing civic life under the field of ‘rhetoric’.

When thinking about ‘rhetoric’ currently, we are often confronted with negative connotations. As the ‘intellectual art or study of persuasion’, intimately connected with oratory as ‘verbal communication with the intent to persuade’ (Worthington 1994, p. viii), rhetoric is often perceived as a field of study leading to the acquisition of skills to unethically deceive people. Within this connotation, rhetoric is also considered to be the study of how to support both sides of an argument and, thus, how to give credit to whatever is in the best interests of the speaker, regardless of its truth (Parker 1972).

If mastering the art of rhetoric can lead to the power to greatly harm people by unjustly using the strategies of language, Aristotle was keen to underline that, without knowledge of persuasion, it is not easy to convince an audience of good, constructive, or true ideas. Audiences will not be able to evaluate claims and standpoints in the correct way if such points are not presented and supported persuasively (Aristotle’s Rhetoric A 1, 1355a, pp. 20–23, Bodéüs 1992). This is why, despite the ‘dark side’ of rhetoric, the study of persuasion is a key source of empowerment for those citizens who have vital interests and core values to defend (Vickers 1989, preface and pp. 1–80). Rhetoric is a discipline of study that leads to personal growth and, in politics, it is a laboratory for developing democratic processes (Ober 1994; Lunsford et al. 2009, p. 290). Thus, since Greek antiquity, rhetoric has focused on what counts as an argument of quality, on how to recognise fallacious arguments and, overall, on how to use language in order to persuade people to act upon beneficial ideas (see, for instance, Aristotle’s Rhetoric B 23). To use concepts from the modern theory of argumentation, there was a tradition beginning in classical Greece concerned with the study of the relationship between reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentation (i.e. on the use of appropriate reasons to support a point of view while, at the same time, aiming for effectiveness) (van Eemeren 2010). Rhetoric developed as a discipline that deals with the requirements and characteristics of persuasive discourse and, as such, flourished as a key discipline in the education system (Milanese 1989).

The objective of this chapter is to examine the development of rhetoric as the study of language in the context of politics from antiquity to the beginning of modernity. More specifically, it examines the way in which the principal classical authors dealt with rhetoric in light of its power ‘to cultivate citizens’ (Glenn & Carcasson 2010) in both thinking and speaking and, from there, to impact civic life.

Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

The Sophists and Isocrates

The rise of rhetoric as a discipline of study in Ancient Greece can be seen as a recognition of the importance of language in political society. Historically, the origin of the art of speaking is said to be found in the second quarter of the fifth century BC in the newly established democracy of Syracuse. Citizens’ effective participation in political debate required that there be an exchange of opinions to enable them to make good and wise decisions on issues of social interest (Kennedy 1963; Cole 1991). Skillful oratory played an instrumental role for power in Athenian society (Ober 1994); it was a precondition for political success as well as a form of self-defence.

With this in mind, it is not surprising that, in the second half of the fifth century BC, the teaching of persuasion became a key business, especially for the itinerant professional teachers known as the Sophists. The most famous of these teachers were Protagoras (490–420 BC), Gorgias (485–380 BC) and Prodicus (465–395 BC). The Sophists made rhetoric the core of their education programme as, in their view, the acquisition of rhetorical skills and of competence in using rhetorical devices was the best equipment for fulfilling any political ambition (Guthrie 1971; Kerferd 1981).

Protagoras stressed that every argument has two contradictory sides, both of which could well be argued. In his teaching, Gorgias specifically focused on how to lead souls (psychagogia) by using figures of speech and working on stylistic elements. He also focused on the so-called art of the propitious moment (kairos) as the ability to say the right thing at the right time. For this purpose, students were taught to memorise specific speeches that they could use at any time so they were always ready with an appropriate response (Rubinelli 2009, pp. 43–72).

The Sophists elevated rhetoric to an autonomous discipline, the study of which was essential for personal empowerment. However, rhetoric was taught as being detached from personal qualities such as justice, respect and honesty, and this evident limitation did not go unnoticed from an ethical point of view.

In the treatise Against the Sophists, Isocrates (436–338 BC) condemned the main principles behind the educational programme of the Sophists. He portrayed rhetoric as ‘that endowment of our human nature which raises us above mere animality and enables us to live the civilised life’ (Norlin 1928, p. ix). There is no absolute truth on which human beings can base their judgement; nevertheless, human beings can be reliable judges and so not entirely susceptible to manipulation through speech (Balla 2004). Through pioneering ideas that were most successful in the Roman rhetorical tradition, Isocrates conceived the ideal orator as a person not only skilful in the art of speaking, but also gifted in history, culture, science and, ultimately, morality. It was this notion that led to Isocrates being known today as the father of ‘liberal education’ (Corbett 1989; Benoit 1991).

Plato

Isocrates looked at rhetoric as a practical skill to be coupled with education. But, in the same period as Isocrates, this constructive idea of rhetoric was strongly rejected by Plato (436–338 BC) who, at an early stage in his career, condemned rhetoric as simply being the expression of a decline of values in society (Wardy 1996; Ryan 1979; Cole 1991). For Plato, a competence in rhetoric was all about appearing to know things and flattering the audience through skilful usage of the language. In Gorgias (464b–465d), Plato presented a remarkable analogy when comparing rhetoric and justice with cookery and medicine: medicine and justice aim towards the good, cookery and rhetoric aim towards pleasure. Thus, within the educational model presented in the Republic, rhetoric does not hold a position. For Plato, what is important to those individuals who will guide the city are disciplines including music, gymnastics, mathematics and dialectic (Republic 521d–541b).

Yet, Plato could not avoid admitting that oratory is an important component of human communication. Thus, later in his career, he reflected on whether there could be a way to think about rhetoric more constructively. In the second half of the Phaedrus, Plato re-evaluated the possibility that rhetoric could be a real art by pointing out that it is not speaking or writing that are shameful per se, but that what is bad is when people engage in them shamefully (Phaedrus 258d, pp. 4–5). Indeed, Plato recognises that rhetoric is the primary way ‘of leading the soul by means of speech’ (Phaedrus 261a, 8). As such, it can to be used to enhance society for the good, provided that it is assisted by a rigorous study of nature, of psychology and of argumentation techniques (Phaedrus, pp. 269e–272b).

Overall, it is clear that for Plato, rhetoric should be subordinated to philosophy, as it is philosophy that offers the knowledge and moral virtues necessary to use rhetoric for the benefit of the city.

Aristotle

Plato never wrote a handbook of rhetoric. It was only his pupil Aristotle (384–322 BC) who, in the Rhetoric, pioneered that which Plato had left unexamined.

For Aristotle, rhetoric, as the counterpart of dialectic, can enable speakers to strengthen their ability to construct sound arguments (Rhetoric A 1, 1355a, pp. 20–33) (Rubinelli 2009, pp. 50–58).

In the Rhetoric, Aristotle gave clear indications of what students had to learn. They had to be trained in the discovery of ‘artistic’ arguments (Rhetoric A 2, 1355b, pp. 35–39) that result from a reflection on the speaker, the audience and the topic. Orators can design their arguments by playing on the character of the speaker (the ethos), by disposing the listener in some way (with attention to pathos) and by playing on the rational appeal (the logos) with induction and deduction (Rhetoric A 2, 1356a, pp. 1–4).

Aristotle considered the rational appeal to be particularly important in shaping persuasive speeches. To teach students this task, he introduced in the Rhetoric the method of argumentation presented in his Topics, which instructs students how to build arguments by reflecting on the formal aspects of argumentation (Rubinelli 2009, pp. 59–90).

To increase students’ knowledge of emotions is one target of rhetorical education, and that is why, in the Rhetoric, Aristotle presented the first systematic discussion of human psychology. In Book 2 of the Rhetoric he analysed 15 emotions, including anger/mildness, love/friendship, pity and envy (Wisse 1989). As for the other role of the speaker, Aristotle emphasised the value of ethical appeal. When speakers gain trust and admiration, they increase their credibility (Rhetoric 2, pp. 12–17).

In Book 3 of the Rhetoric, Aristotle addressed the issue of style as another topic in which students must be trained and enquired what a good prose style comprises. Aristotle recognised the importance of the actual delivery of a speech in terms of its linguistic format. (Rhetoric 3, pp. 1–19).

Overall, Aristotle is recognised as having made the greatest contribution to rhetorical theory in the sense that he offered a theory of persuasive speech communication that could train and reinforce the skills of students. He developed this theory by reflecting on the fact that rhetoric was indeed used to influence events in the city and also on the evidence that there was a lack of theoretical insight in the current teaching of rhetoric (Rhetoric 1–3) (Grimaldi 1972, pp. 60–66). He was aware that rhetoric is morally free and that, as such, it can be used or abused. Nevertheless, he was optimistic enough to believe that empowering citizens in terms of their persuasion skills would have offered a valuable tool with which to transmit the best ideas for human progress.

Rhetoric in Ancient Rome

The ability to design and deliver persuasive speeches was perceived as a precondition for success in the popular assemblies and the Roman senate (Kennedy 1972, pp. 23–37; Bonner 1998). Rome was, at the time, based on a form of democratic oligarchy where several hundred men in the senate would each need the skill to present their points of view to gain the approval of the audience, as well as to influence the passing or vetoing of various laws and legislation (Crook 1967). One priority in rhetorical training in the Roman context focused on teaching students how to successfully plead a case.

The two Roman thinkers who most influenced the development of rhetoric as an educational discipline, namely Cicero (106–43 BC) and Quintilian (35–96 AD), were themselves highly competent lawyers.

Cicero

Thanks to the status of his father, an equestrian knight, Cicero received the best education in philosophy, history and rhetoric through classes with famous Greek teachers. At the age of 15, he wrote De inventione, which, together with the contemporary anonymous work known as Rhetorica ad Herennium, represent the first extant treatises of Roman rhetoric. Cicero’s early interest in rhetoric was influenced by the idea that eloquence is one of the most important traits for a man who contends on behalf of his country (Powell & Paterson 2004). Indeed, as he explained at the beginning of De inventione, the ability to deliver persuasive speeches facilitated the use of wisdom in settling many important issues for cities. Rhetoric was, thus, for the young Cicero, an element of political science.

As the title De inventione underlines, the rhetorical training to empower citizens focused on the elaboration of a speech known as inventio, concerned with the ‘discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments to render one’s cause plausible’ (De inventio I, 9). Within the context of inventio, Cicero, by following ideas already discussed in the Greek tradition, proposed an extended version of the distinction of the parts of a speech, namely: the introduction [exordium], the beginning of the discourse; the narration [narratio] of the events that occurred, or that might have occurred; the division [divisio or partitio], about what is agreed upon and what is a matter of controversy; the proof [confirmatio], as the presentation of arguments; the refutation [refutatio] of the adversaries’ arguments; and the conclusion [conclusio] of the discourse (De inventione I, 9). According to the above categories, speakers were taught h...