Organizations need to communicate. As evident as that statement is, studies continue to probe how discourse can be effective and ethical. Present research literature abounds with theoretical advances that provide advice for how organizations can participate in dialogue and engage with their stakeholders (e.g., Johnston & Taylor, 2018). Some sort of discourse, including narrative form and content, is presupposed in this regard, and rhetoric, because of its origins in classical Greece, is arguably the foundation for these concepts. As the first of the communication disciplines, rhetoric has both practical and theoretical applications that have not only stood the test of time but redirected, and corrected, nation statesâ relationships with citizens. Furthermore, the rhetorical tradition offers scholars, organizational managers, and communication practitioners a resource to understand organizational discourse, its effects, and its role in society. This volume examines humans, and the organizations they create, as homo rhetoricus, the rhetorical animal who uses words to coâcreate meaning, share ideas, and motivate actions, the building blocks of selfâgovernance (Oesterreich, 2009).
Rhetoric helps explain the ways in which organizations attempt to achieve specific political or economic goals, build identity, and foster relationships with their stakeholders. Rhetorical theory sets itself apart from disciplines such as discourse studies (e.g., van Dijk, 2011) by tracing its tradition back to ancient time and by harboring a normative and practical ambition (Conley, 1994). In addition to offering downâtoâearth practical advice, rhetoric also presents epistemological perspectives that temper theoretical tendencies toward naive realism and platonic notions of absolute truth (Vickers, 1999). Rhetoric helps us to understand how knowledge is generated and socially constructed through communication. People create the world in which they work and live via words. They also contend with one another over values and policies. They seek to demonstrate and critique ideas as ways of enlightening choices. Thus, the topic is both ancient, and as current as some outraged positionâtaking on Facebook, as is evident by the coverage of the many facets of rhetoric in, for instance, the International Encyclopedia of Communication, edited by Donsbach (2008) and area specialists. Rhetoric and its companion concepts heritage and current relevance arise from the need for shared meaning to enact societies, and the layers of individual identities, identifications, and interpretations of reality that constitute the pillars of selfâgovernance, the rationale for society.
In the time of ancient rhetoricians like Aristotle (2007), Isocrates (2000), and others, the goal was to understand rational, valuesâbased, and wise policyâformulating discourse for individual agency, and then society. Today organizations of all types have taken on the individual roles, but as a collective endeavor to achieve societal agency. In recognition of the centrality of discourse, there has been a (re)turn toward rhetoric in many academic disciplines. Scholars of philosophy, management, economics, law, political science, social psychology, history, anthropology, political science, sociology, and literature have all drawn on the rhetorical tradition (e.g., Harmon, Green, and Goodnight, 2015; Heath, 2011; Lucaites, Condit, and Caudill, 1999; Sillince and Suddaby, 2008). However, presently, the rhetorical scholarship that is of relevance for the analysis of organizations is largely confined to its respective disciplinary contexts, be it public relations, organizational communication, marketing, advertising, organizational theory, or management studies. A goal of this handbook is to go beyond the silos and bring this scholarship together to demonstrate its currency and impact on todayâs fractured world and complex societies. We seek to extend the scholarship that has used rhetoric to analyze the internal as well as external communication of organizations, and discuss how dialogue, discourse, narrative, and engagement (as key rhetorical forms) have become parallel lines of exploration to investigate the enacted role of discourse in human affairs.
The book presents a research collection on rhetoric and organizations while discussing stateâofâtheâart insights from disciplines that have and will continue to use rhetoric. With its organizational focus, it examines the advantages and perils of organizations seeking to project their voices to shape society to their benefits. As such, the book contains chapters working in the tradition of neoâAristotelian rhetorical criticism that asks whether the rhetorical strategies have fulfilled their function, but also chapters that incorporate perspectives with a view of whose interests that are served by particular rhetorical means (Conrad, 2011; Ihlen, 2015). The book discusses the importance of nuanced strategies such as discourse interaction that balances dissensus as formative and consensus as daunting. It explores the potential, risks, and requirements of engagement which presumes that discourse improves ideas, reputations, policies, and relationships as ongoing efforts to draw on the best all parties can offer.
This introductory chapter proceeds to offer a brief overview of the art of rhetoric, anchoring it in the Western tradition from Greece (Aristotle, 2007), but also with a view on new rhetoric ĂĄ la Kenneth Burke (1969a, 1969b). While the volume includes several chapters that explore the link between and history of rhetoric and organizations, a short preface is given in this introduction chapter as well. Finally, the chapter also includes a presentation of the structure of the volume.
The Ancient Art of Rhetoric
Several excellent introductions to rhetoric point out that the GreekâRoman tradition of rhetoric can be traced back to around 500 BCE (e.g., Golden, Berquist, Coleman, and Sproule, 2011; Herrick, 2011; Kennedy, 1999). At this time, a system for making speeches was developed for ordinary citizens who had to present their own cases in court. The emergent study of rhetoric advised that speeches should include an introduction, presentation of proofs, and a conclusion. Later, more elaborate systems were introduced on the Greek mainland and teachers and sophists offered their services in this regard.
From this period stems the soâcalled rhetorical canon. Rhetoricians had ideas for the five stages of the preparation of a speech: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. The later Roman rhetorician, Cicero, described the phases as follows:
A wellâknown dispute developed between philosophers, Plato (1960) in particular, and rhetoricians. Plato positioned philosophy, or more specifically dialectic, as a form of truthâfinding superior to rhetoric which could only create the appearance of truth. Rhetoric deals in deception and manipulation, and allows nonâexperts to outmaneuver the real experts. Thus, rhetoric is actually dangerous, according to Plato. In the dialogue Gorgias he pits Socrates against the discipline and the sophist Gorgias with the following statement: âan ignorant person is more convincing than the expert before an equally ignorant audienceâ (Plato, 1960, p. 459). Sophists like Gorgias adhered to the idea of competing truths (dissoi logoi) and saw pros and cons for all arguments, and that truth, being a social construction, could change accordingly. Plato, however, only saw rhetoric as legitimate if it supported the truths that philosophy had established. Truth exists outside of language, it is singular and stable, and can be grasped by dialectic approaches.
Platoâs arguments have been recycled throughout history in different versions. Critics have for instance pointed out that rhetoric will utilize all there is, including appeals to emotions, to achieve its goals. For philosophers like Rene Descartes (1956), this was something of an affront since clear logical arguments ar...
