A Lesson in Rhetoric

Aristotle: (Yawn) Hmmm…. What a great nap.

Lloyd Burke: Well good evening Aristotle! You woke just in

time for the Daily Show with John Stewart. Quintilian and

I were going to watch it and have a little discussion on

its rhetorical value.

Quintilian: Would you care to join us?

Aristotle: Why yes I would. I always enjoy a good

discussion about rhetoric.

…30 minutes later…

Burke: That was a very interesting show!

Quintilian: I agree, it is one of my favorites to watch. What

did you think Aristotle?

Aristotle: Well I did find it entertaining, but not entirely

rhetorical.

Burke: Maybe before we begin to discuss whether or not the

show was rhetorical, we should define each of our

views on rhetoric. Give our definitions.

Quintilian: I agree Burke. If neither of you mind, I will go

first.

Burke: Fine with me.

Aristotle: Please proceed.

Quintilian: Alright, here we go. I would define rhetoric

simply as the act of the good citizen speaking well. It is

something that is used to benefit society. There are

more in depth points, but we can discuss them as we go.

Burke would you like to go next?

Burke: Thank you Quintilian. I define rhetoric, or

identification, as the ability to connect with an

audience. You persuade a man only insofar as you can

talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order,

image, attitude, and/or idea.

Aristotle: Thank you Burke. My personal view on rhetoric,

however, is that it is the faculty of observing in any

given case the available means of persuasion. This

“faculty” is a tool box giving the rhetorician the ability

to discern all options in a situation; however they need

not apply all or any of those options.

Burke: So do you believe that the daily show is a form of

rhetoric?

Aristotle: Well as you are probably aware, I believe that there

are two sides to persuasion. First is the rhetorical side

that focuses on character, emotion, political, judicial,

and generally specific issues.

Quintilian: And the other side?

Aristotle: The other side is the dialectic. Its focus is on just

the facts. Common uses for the dialectic are to resolve

personal issues and address general questions.

Burke: I am not sure I completely understand. Could you

give a few examples?

Aristotle: Take the death penalty for example. Asking if the

death penalty is correct in general is an example of a

dialectic situation. Asking if the death penalty is a correct punishment for a specific case would be an example of a rhetorical situation.

Quintilian: Sounds very much like my definite and indefinite

questions.

Burke: Excuse me?

Quintilian: Indefinite questions are dialectic in nature, and

definite questions are rhetorical.

Burke: Interesting, since both of your times rhetoric has come

to encompass both under the same heading.

Aristotle: Well that is just silly. Rhetoric and dialectic are

mutually exclusive conditions.

Quintilian: I agree.

Burke: I am just saying that from my point of view, rhetoric is

more how we go about persuading people.

Humans are symbol making, using, and misusing

animals. It is through our language that we apply filters

to our world and our views. We can use our language

like a play. In my dramatistic pentad, I can break down

a rhetorical situation to better understand what is

occurring. The five parts are the act, agent, agency,

scene, and purpose. The act is the “what.” The agent is

the “who.” The agency is the “how.” The scene is the

“where.” Finally the purpose is the “why.”

Quintilian: Well now that we have an idea where we are all

coming from, perhaps we should focus our attentions

on whether this Daily Show is rhetorical.

Aristotle: I concur.

Quintilian: As far as I am concerned, the Daily Show is

rhetorical. John Stewart is a good citizen who speaks

well. The show is entertaining, and giving the masses something to enjoy is a benefit to society. The show employs writers and it is clear that very little of the show is extemporaneous.

Aristotle: Just because the show is well thought out, planned,

and organized does not make it rhetorical. Dialectic

situations rely on planning and organization just as

much as rhetorical situations do.

Burke: Would you agree that if rhetoric and dialectic were

mutually inclusive, counter to your belief, that the show

would in fact be rhetorical? After all, much of the show

deals exclusively with matters regarding political and

judicial topics.

Aristotle: This is true, however the topics are often broad in

nature and therefore dialectic.

Burke: I agree, but the fact that they are dialectic does not

mean that they are not rhetorical. The show utilizes

many terministic screens to support both specific and

general issues.

Quintilian: Terministic screens?

Burke: Terministic screens are like the filters on a camera. It

is the mechanisms of language we employ and a

reflection, selection, and even deflection of what we consider reality.

Aristotle: How does that apply to the Daily Show?

Burke: Glad you asked. Many occasions in the Daily Show

use terministic screens, or rather language choices

designed to shape perceptions and reveal intentions.

On June 25, 2008, the show premiered a new tag line

for the presidential campaign of Barack Obama.

“Baracknophobia” was the term John Stewart coined

for the irrational accusations of James Dobson, who

claimed that Obama was distorting the traditional

understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview.

(http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml) Not

only is the term “Baracknophobia” a terministic screen,

but had Dobson been correct, Obama distorting the

Bible to fit his world view would have also been an

example of a terministic screen.

Quintilian: I had never thought of rhetoric in that light. For

me, rhetoric has always been strictly noble. One must

be a good citizen, with a strong moral fiber in order to

speak rhetoric.

Aristotle: So in other words, if a man speaks rhetoric he is a

morally strong and just individual?

Quintilian: Basically!

Aristotle: I love a good Enthymeme.

Burke: A what?

Aristotle: An Enthymeme is a shortened syllogism. In this

case the syllogism is good citizen equals strong moral

fiber which equals a rhetorician. An enthymeme would

be to say that a good citizen is a rhetorician.

Burke: Would you two agree that John Stewart has a strong

moral fiber?

Both: Yes.

Burke: And would agree that John Stewart is a good citizen?

Both: Yes.

Burke: Then it would be fair to say that, according to your

own arguments Quintilian, and your enthymeme

concept Aristotle, John Stewart is a rhetorician!

Aristotle: Yes.

Quintilian: He is yes.

Aristotle: The question then becomes, does having a true

rhetorician as the host of a program, make the program

itself rhetorical?

Quintilian: I believe that it does, as the things Stewart

discusses do benefit society. Also, the interviews he

does are well thought out, not necessarily memorized,

but very well planned for.

Aristotle: I agree. John Stewart’s rhetoric allows things to

become equal. The playing field becomes level. When

all things are equal, the truth tends to rise to the top.

Burke: The final nail in this coffin of the rhetoric debate is

how well Stewart identifies with his audience, and how

well the audience connects with him. In my opinion, this identification is analogous with rhetoric. They are the same thing. If identification is present, so is rhetoric. Conclusion, the Daily Show is rhetorical.

Aristotle: I agree, for my own reasons, and in the sense I

defined.

Quintilian: Ditto Aristotle, ditto on both accounts.

Burke: Rhetoric is a fluid medium, much like water. It takes

many shapes and accomplishes many things.

All Three: Fin