Politcal Rhetoric
Chapter 1: Introduction
What is politcal rhetoric and why is it imortant?
Politics is all about persuasion by speech (not the same as persuasion by force!)
Persuasion by speech: you voluntary agree by being persuaded by the person
speaking
Persuasion by force: you just must agree with the person speaking
Politcal rhetoric: the art of persuading others by speech
It can be seen as a fundamental political skill
What is (political) rhetoric?
The art of speaking `
Rhetor = speaker
Tekhne = art
Studying rhetoric: learning the practical skills of persuasion and studying the
persuasiveness of speech
Rhetoric is not limited to the spoken word only
It can also be the written word, visuals that you include to the background
when you’re speaking
Anything to convince an audience
Political rhetoric:
Many areas of rhetorical studies
There’s also persuasion in the political realm
This doesn’t mean that it’s limited to politicians only
Also, others who try to convince others of following rules or take certain
points of view
What we will be studying: “what makes a political speech persuasive?”
Most famous persuasive speech in history = Martin Luther King – I have a dream
There are a lot of elements to make a speech persuasive:
Different backgrounds, different questions
Linguistics
o E.g., rhetorical figures
Psychology
o E.g., emotions vs. the cognitive
Political science
o E.g., question of power
Communication science
o E.g., mass media
Each with their own terminology and research methods
Difficulty: they don’t always talk to each other
1
, Many fields are studying this, so there are a lot of points of views
This course will be about eclectic approach
Rhetoric is a little bit contested:
Is seen as someone that is in contrast with the truth
Also frequently associated with danger
E.g., when Trump persuaded people to raid the Capitol
There’s this negative connotation, but it’s a good and important thing in democracy
Free speech: everyone is allowed to express their opinion
Rhetoric seems to be a condition
Views on rhetoric through history
Ancient democracy:
Rhetoric was seen as very important
Highly participatory system
Came with obligations, you are expected to always participate
Rhetorical skills became important
Anyone should be able to speak up and defend themselves
Sophists: people who taught rhetoric to others
Plato:
Saw rhetoric as something dangerous because it was “empty”
His mentor was Socrates, who had to drink poison because he taught young
people on political affairs
Plato thought that bad people could do bad things just by being good at
rhetoric (which is true)
Plato believed in one big truth
Allegory of the cave: people are stuck in a cave and what they see is only a
projection of the real world, only someone who is smart enough can leave the
cave and see things in their true form
Not everyone can see the “big truth”
“The Republic”: a book in which he describes the society that he wants
There’s no rhetoric needed, only philosophy kings who know the big truth
Popper sees Plato’s ideas as a totalitarian system
There are also writers who do like his idea of a perfect society
They say rhetoric shouldn’t be the highest principle
Technocracy: letting experts make decisions instead of politics
Aristotle:
Pupil of Plato who had a more positive view on rhetoric
Thinks that a man is a political animal, because we live in a community (that’s
why we’re not the same as animals)
Rhetoric complements philosophical reasoning
How should the best case be put, given the argument, evidence, audience?
Best case is not always clear
“The Art of Rhetoric”
Disclaimer: exclusive notion of “citizen”
2
, Enthymeme: a technique where you make an argument by not making the
full argument, but you somehow assume that your audience already shares a
certain opinion with you
o Enthymeme is very important in Aristotle’s “The Art of Rhetoric”
Degree of permitted disagreement is limited
Cicero:
Great orator of the Roman world
He was very pragmatic
“De Oratore”: book on how to be a good speaker
Refuted sophism
Understanding of the topic comes first, then follows good speech
A good speaker is someone who feels what’s needed in certain situations
It’s not about techniques, but about the talent to adapt
Rhetoric in the modern state:
Centralized powerful authorities
Laws to be obeyed without discussion
State has a “monopoly of violence”
Subordination of citizens assemblies to rules
Two important thinkers:
Hobbes and Rousseau
Tried to see why people agreed with obeying to a central authority
They both have a different perception on why people do this, but they have
a similar idea on rhetoric
Hobbes:
“Leviathan”
Pessimist about nature of human beings: uncertainty and competition driven by
passion
He thought that people were capable of reasoning, but because life is so
difficult people won’t generally reason
People also have different interpretations of the same event
Rhetoric would lead to even more confusion
Things like metaphors make some things difficult to understand
Perspicuous words: speaking clearly, something not many people are capable
of
Rational thing to do is a one time “social contract”
Appoint supreme power to bring civil piece
Rousseau:
Is less pessimist and believe people can live together, but he thinks modern society
had made people selfish
Way to return to the “original state” is an agreement among citizens
Less externalized than it is with Hobbes
Just likes Hobbes he thinks rhetoric doesn’t have a place in this
Persuasion shouldn’t be rhetoric, but just looking internally and knowing
what is actually good
3
, Need for unanimity
There’s a need for a small and highly exclusive state
People will identify with each other and have a shared sentiment from within
Politi cs vs. the politi cal
Why do so many people see rhetoric as something dangerous?
Politics: regular activities taking place within the rules of the game
The political: higher principles, what are the rules of the game?
Foundation of politics
The political is always partially settled
If not, there wouldn’t be politics
It’s only partially settled; power can always change, and the “rules of the
game” can also change
Philosophers are looking for harmony
Rhetoric gives an opportunity for chaos because you can challenge politics
Rhetoric involves both politics and the political
There’s this rhetoric that has the potential to change the order
Can be uncomfortable
If some of the thinkers (Aristotle) have sympathy for rhetorics, it’s often very limited
So that it can’t really change society
Is it impossible to reconcile stability with inclusive rhetoric?
Probably yes, but this argument will come back
Situati on rhetoric
Language:
Rhetoric uses language
Not all rhetoric is language
Not all language is rhetoric
Ideology:
Ideology: organized belief system
E.g., liberalism, communism…
But rhetoric is about assembly/construction of ideas (and delivery)
Ideology is a resource for rhetoric
Rhetoric can change (or create) ideologies
Discourse:
Is also about how people ‘make meaning’ of things
Also deals with persuasion and power
Cf. critical discourse analysis
Discourse is broad and ungoing; rhetoric concentrates on situated encounters
4
Chapter 1: Introduction
What is politcal rhetoric and why is it imortant?
Politics is all about persuasion by speech (not the same as persuasion by force!)
Persuasion by speech: you voluntary agree by being persuaded by the person
speaking
Persuasion by force: you just must agree with the person speaking
Politcal rhetoric: the art of persuading others by speech
It can be seen as a fundamental political skill
What is (political) rhetoric?
The art of speaking `
Rhetor = speaker
Tekhne = art
Studying rhetoric: learning the practical skills of persuasion and studying the
persuasiveness of speech
Rhetoric is not limited to the spoken word only
It can also be the written word, visuals that you include to the background
when you’re speaking
Anything to convince an audience
Political rhetoric:
Many areas of rhetorical studies
There’s also persuasion in the political realm
This doesn’t mean that it’s limited to politicians only
Also, others who try to convince others of following rules or take certain
points of view
What we will be studying: “what makes a political speech persuasive?”
Most famous persuasive speech in history = Martin Luther King – I have a dream
There are a lot of elements to make a speech persuasive:
Different backgrounds, different questions
Linguistics
o E.g., rhetorical figures
Psychology
o E.g., emotions vs. the cognitive
Political science
o E.g., question of power
Communication science
o E.g., mass media
Each with their own terminology and research methods
Difficulty: they don’t always talk to each other
1
, Many fields are studying this, so there are a lot of points of views
This course will be about eclectic approach
Rhetoric is a little bit contested:
Is seen as someone that is in contrast with the truth
Also frequently associated with danger
E.g., when Trump persuaded people to raid the Capitol
There’s this negative connotation, but it’s a good and important thing in democracy
Free speech: everyone is allowed to express their opinion
Rhetoric seems to be a condition
Views on rhetoric through history
Ancient democracy:
Rhetoric was seen as very important
Highly participatory system
Came with obligations, you are expected to always participate
Rhetorical skills became important
Anyone should be able to speak up and defend themselves
Sophists: people who taught rhetoric to others
Plato:
Saw rhetoric as something dangerous because it was “empty”
His mentor was Socrates, who had to drink poison because he taught young
people on political affairs
Plato thought that bad people could do bad things just by being good at
rhetoric (which is true)
Plato believed in one big truth
Allegory of the cave: people are stuck in a cave and what they see is only a
projection of the real world, only someone who is smart enough can leave the
cave and see things in their true form
Not everyone can see the “big truth”
“The Republic”: a book in which he describes the society that he wants
There’s no rhetoric needed, only philosophy kings who know the big truth
Popper sees Plato’s ideas as a totalitarian system
There are also writers who do like his idea of a perfect society
They say rhetoric shouldn’t be the highest principle
Technocracy: letting experts make decisions instead of politics
Aristotle:
Pupil of Plato who had a more positive view on rhetoric
Thinks that a man is a political animal, because we live in a community (that’s
why we’re not the same as animals)
Rhetoric complements philosophical reasoning
How should the best case be put, given the argument, evidence, audience?
Best case is not always clear
“The Art of Rhetoric”
Disclaimer: exclusive notion of “citizen”
2
, Enthymeme: a technique where you make an argument by not making the
full argument, but you somehow assume that your audience already shares a
certain opinion with you
o Enthymeme is very important in Aristotle’s “The Art of Rhetoric”
Degree of permitted disagreement is limited
Cicero:
Great orator of the Roman world
He was very pragmatic
“De Oratore”: book on how to be a good speaker
Refuted sophism
Understanding of the topic comes first, then follows good speech
A good speaker is someone who feels what’s needed in certain situations
It’s not about techniques, but about the talent to adapt
Rhetoric in the modern state:
Centralized powerful authorities
Laws to be obeyed without discussion
State has a “monopoly of violence”
Subordination of citizens assemblies to rules
Two important thinkers:
Hobbes and Rousseau
Tried to see why people agreed with obeying to a central authority
They both have a different perception on why people do this, but they have
a similar idea on rhetoric
Hobbes:
“Leviathan”
Pessimist about nature of human beings: uncertainty and competition driven by
passion
He thought that people were capable of reasoning, but because life is so
difficult people won’t generally reason
People also have different interpretations of the same event
Rhetoric would lead to even more confusion
Things like metaphors make some things difficult to understand
Perspicuous words: speaking clearly, something not many people are capable
of
Rational thing to do is a one time “social contract”
Appoint supreme power to bring civil piece
Rousseau:
Is less pessimist and believe people can live together, but he thinks modern society
had made people selfish
Way to return to the “original state” is an agreement among citizens
Less externalized than it is with Hobbes
Just likes Hobbes he thinks rhetoric doesn’t have a place in this
Persuasion shouldn’t be rhetoric, but just looking internally and knowing
what is actually good
3
, Need for unanimity
There’s a need for a small and highly exclusive state
People will identify with each other and have a shared sentiment from within
Politi cs vs. the politi cal
Why do so many people see rhetoric as something dangerous?
Politics: regular activities taking place within the rules of the game
The political: higher principles, what are the rules of the game?
Foundation of politics
The political is always partially settled
If not, there wouldn’t be politics
It’s only partially settled; power can always change, and the “rules of the
game” can also change
Philosophers are looking for harmony
Rhetoric gives an opportunity for chaos because you can challenge politics
Rhetoric involves both politics and the political
There’s this rhetoric that has the potential to change the order
Can be uncomfortable
If some of the thinkers (Aristotle) have sympathy for rhetorics, it’s often very limited
So that it can’t really change society
Is it impossible to reconcile stability with inclusive rhetoric?
Probably yes, but this argument will come back
Situati on rhetoric
Language:
Rhetoric uses language
Not all rhetoric is language
Not all language is rhetoric
Ideology:
Ideology: organized belief system
E.g., liberalism, communism…
But rhetoric is about assembly/construction of ideas (and delivery)
Ideology is a resource for rhetoric
Rhetoric can change (or create) ideologies
Discourse:
Is also about how people ‘make meaning’ of things
Also deals with persuasion and power
Cf. critical discourse analysis
Discourse is broad and ungoing; rhetoric concentrates on situated encounters
4
