Neoclassical Rhetorical Theory

Overview

Neoclassical rhetorical theory is grounded in the reemergence of classical theories and perspectives. It is also a theory that emphasizes the local and attempts to move away from globalizing or universalizing concepts. This turn towards local and specific theories was an attempt to break away from global perspectives that were not able to accurately represent local events. In doing so, neoclassical rhetorical theory resists the attempts to produce systems or models into which any rhetorical event can be analyzed. Instead, scholars using neoclassical theories will look at a specific event in great detail and only make occasional reference and comparison to other, also local, events.

Rhetorical theory has a long, varied history of the development of tools and perspectives. Many rhetorical theorists trace their academic roots to ancient Greece and Rome, with a special emphasis on the works of Aristotle. These classical tools were used to assess specific speeches and events. While they were sometimes used to generalize a situation, they were not used to say that all people or groups should or could behave in the same way.

As the field of rhetoric developed, scholars began to look at ways in which rhetorical analysis could be systematized. Sometimes, this systemization occurred through the creation of a rhetorical model that could be used to analyze many different types of speeches and speech activities. Other times, rhetorical scholars borrowed from other fields, such as anthropology and sociology, which had their own unique tools and methods that could be used to assess broad movements and changes in society. Some rhetorical scholars were worried that these systematized approaches were producing poor analysis because they could not account for the small but important differences between different types and forms of speech. Other rhetorical scholars went a bit further, arguing that systematic forms of analysis were a form of “tyranny” which took unique speech patterns and acts and then changed them to fit a model. They said that this was especially destructive toward minority groups because it misrepresented the ideas, thoughts, and at times intelligence, of these communities.

In response to the systemization of rhetorical theory, scholars began to call for a return to classical theory and analysis, which they termed neoclassical rhetorical theory. Early works of neoclassical theory provide a description of how neoclassical theory is different from a neo-Aristotelian approach, which was also based on classical rhetoric but allows the scholar to use only a few different points of approach for their analysis. For neo-Aristotelians, a piece of rhetorical analysis should begin with a focus on one of three different places: the universe, the writer, or the audience. Although all of these points of departure were possible, critics of neo-Aristotelians argue that analysis too often begins with audience reception. They agree that it is important to understand how an audience receives a speech, but note that there are many other topics that also deserve attention.

For these authors, it is necessary for scholars to return to generic distinctions and apply genre theory to create a set of categories of analysis that are not a systemized approach but are in some way organized. For example, they support the use of metaphors as a form of analysis. They also support the use of genre theory and audience analysis. One major distinction is that they identify an infinite number of servicing points for their analysis, rather than the three starting points that are identified for neo-Aristotelians.

Many of the debates between neoclassicists and neo-Aristotelians occurred in the middle of the twentieth century. They do not always appear in contemporary textbooks and rhetorical manuals as, in some ways, neo-Aristotilianism has folded into neoclassicism, becoming just one of many neoclassical approaches. For example, some theorists addressed the tool of kairos, a Greek term for the moment in which a decision must be made. There are many ancient Greek texts that describe the way that a specific speaker draws the audience into a moment of decision, such as encouraging soldiers to go to battle or for a jury to vote in a particular way. Kairos is the goal of these speakers who want immediate action and who attempt to prevent their audiences from thinking to themselves, “Well, that’s a good point. Let me go home and think about it some more.” Neoclassical theorists argue that moments of kairos have existed throughout history, and such events can be studied using this Greek term. This tool easily transitions from historical analysis to contemporary settings. However, there are still scholars who are interested in making the distinction between classical, neoclassical, and contemporary rhetorical theory.

Among scholars who were experts in Aristotelian rhetoric and then began to support neoclassical rhetorical tools is Eugene Garver, a professor from Saint John’s University. He has authored books addressing Aristotle’s political and rhetorical thought, as well as criticisms of the reliance on Aristotle’s ethics, while emphasizing both ethics and prudence. Alan Gross has also worked hard to advance the ideas of neoclassical rhetoric. His own work places a special emphasis on the ways that the rhetoric of science is informed by Aristotelian systems, and how those systems can be adapted in a neoclassical way to better reflect contemporary debates and discussions. A collection of responses to Aristotle’s Rhetoric and its applications to contemporary speech and texts edited by Gross takes on the role of argument production, the applications of rhetoric, and how ancient theories can be applied to contemporary situations.

Applications

John Campbell’s 1998 article in the Southern Communication Journal, “Rhetorical Theory in the Twenty-first Century, a Neo-classical Perspective,” provides a rare and complete take on the use of neoclassical theory and draws parallels between neoclassicism and postmodernism. Campbell examines how the universalizing perspectives that are commonly used in critiques of postmodern theory can be applied to rhetorical theory. Sometimes, these tools are not neatly applied, but they are often able to fit. He calls for a nuanced interpretation and cross-application of different rhetorical fields as a method of ensuring that specific elements of rhetorical theory are used and applied to local events.

In this way, scholars are encouraged to blend old and new tools to produce their rhetorical theories. Rather than strictly adhering to the old methods (as they would if they used only classical rhetoric) or only one theorist (as they would if they used neo-Aristotelian tools), they are encouraged to blend tools to produce the best possible analysis. As rhetorical theorist Michael Calvin McGee has argued, it is up to rhetorical scholars to use all tools available, even the scraps of speech and intention, to produce their scholarship. One of the tools that McGee has become famous for is the ideograph, a rhetorical tool that he developed to blend together concepts of mythology and ideology into a meaning-making vocabulary.

Commonly used examples of ideographs are “freedom” and “rights.” Citizens of different countries have different understandings of what these words mean, the history of how they came to be, who they apply to, why they matter, and how they should be defended. Many of these interpretations are based on history, but it is a history that has been interpreted and reinterpreted through many different lenses. The concept of ideographs draws on the historical concepts of political thought and persuasion that were outlined by classical scholars. In this way, it is an example of how neoclassical rhetorical theory has developed and been used by rhetoricians. Since McGee published his article in 1980, the concept of the ideograph has been taken up by many different scholars and applied to the use of metaphors on Twitter, the ways that mothers discuss their experiences in hospitals, and contemporary political struggles.

Another commonly used classical term, apologia, has been taken up by neoclassical rhetoricians to understand the ways that individuals and groups defend their actions and opinions. Classical texts such as Socrates’ Apologia, which was recorded by Plato, have been used as hallmarks for how ancient Greeks constructed their defenses, particularly in legal settings. It is important to note that while the contemporary understanding of an “apology,” which includes connotations of regret, is similar to apologia, they are not the same thing. A classical apologia was more of an explanation, defense, or, sometimes, an answer to a charge. It could include an apology, but that was not necessary to make a classic apologia. Neoclassical rhetoricians have used the concept of apologia to examine the ways in which individuals and groups have explained and defended their actions. For example, many rhetoricians have examined corporate scandals and the ways that corporations have defended and explained their actions. These scholars often debate whether the speaker appears to be guilty, if they deflect criticism, or defend their own actions, if they place blame elsewhere, and if they pledge in some sort of way to act differently in the future. All of these steps are similar to the ways that ancient speeches were analyzed and assessed.

Contemporary scholars also address the need for an apology, particularly a “heartfelt” apology, in a contemporary apologia speech. They ask, just as ancient Greeks did, if the speech is sufficient without an apology or admission of guilt and if, when apology is present, it seems to be genuine. The quality and believability of the apology will then be assessed using other classical tools, such as ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic). In this way, neoclassical rhetoricians are able to blend together many different traditions, tools, and theories to produce a modern analysis. In each of these new analytical projects, we see the development of a new term based on old concepts to understand the modern world.

Other scholars, such as Dana Cloud and Celeste Condit, have investigated the ways that relying only on classical rhetorical tools can oppress and silence minority perspectives. Instead, these scholars support a blended approach that utilizes classical and modern tools in a way that accounts for multiple, diverse, and, at times, competing, traditions of speech, community, and deliberation. For example, in 2018, Cloud published an article that used neoclassical tools to analyze the contemporary speech of working-class movements. These are careful adaptations and reworkings of classical tools to form a rhetorical analysis that represents the truth about hardships experienced by members of contemporary society. In such texts, it is important to recognize that, while neoclassical rhetorical theory is used, it is used in a way that is attentive of the history behind rhetorical tools.

Issues

While neoclassical rhetoricians have worked hard to become more inclusive of diverse viewpoints, challenges remain regarding what is considered classical and therefore what can become neoclassical. These criticisms point to the limitations of Greek and Roman society, which generally supported the speech of wealthy men but excluded most women and low-income individuals. They also point to structures of slavery and indentured labor and address the Greek concept of the “barbarian” as a group of people who could be ethically killed, stolen from, and in other ways abused. These scholars ask whether Greek society was indeed the ideal type on which scholars should base their theories. They question whether it is possible to produce enlightened tools from systems that encouraged democracy and debate but did not encourage full participation from everyone living in the society.

Neoclassicists have responded by working to identify other classical texts that could be included in the body of literature that is considered to be classical. This includes the work of Carol Lipson and Roberta Binkley, whose 2004 collection Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks includes classical texts from other traditions and communities. It also includes texts from around the world and demonstrates the ways in which tools found in these texts can be applied to contemporary rhetorical analysis. This book sparked a range of other articles, all of which demonstrate how classical, non-Greek teachings can inform neoclassical rhetorical theory.

Contemporary neoclassical theorists have grappled with how to best apply their tools to a rapidly changing world. For some scholars, classical tools were designed for spoken and written texts and cannot be easily applied to digital rhetoric. However, many scholars have argued that these tools can be easily adapted to contemporary situations and can help us to understand that, even though communicative technologies are changing, the way that we speak and persuade remains the same. In the twenty-first century, classical elements of neoclassical rhetorical theory have been applied and used in the analysis of various modern communications. For example, the theory may be used to analyze a political candidate’s social media campaign—their use of personal stories (or pathos), their assertion concerning their competence and expertise (or ethos), and their use of data concerning their past performance in particular areas compared to their opponents (or logos). Other applications include analyzing the effectiveness of a particular viral advertisement or the online escalation of discussion of a controversial topic.

There are new ways to express oneself, but the goals behind those expressions, the ways that we assess speech, and the ways that we are persuaded are all rooted in much older forms of rhetorical production and theory. The field of neoclassical rhetorical theory continues to develop as new texts are uncovered and analyzed for their rhetorical quality and as rhetoricians analyze contemporary situations using classical tools and texts.

Terms & Concepts

Apologia: A speech of text which is written to defend one’s actions or behavior. This ancient Greek term has been applied to contemporary situations ranging from corporate scandals to online public speech.

Audience Analysis: Speakers engage in audience analysis when they work to understand the attitudes and beliefs of their audience. They do this to ensure that their message is received in the best way possible. Rhetorical scholars assess the ways that the speaker adapted to the audience and the way that the audience received the speech.

Barbarian: The ancient Greek term for anyone who did not speak Greek, regardless of their level of social sophistication, political structure, or other circumstances. The Greeks framed these people to be uncivilized because they had not taken up the Greek language and other norms of Greek civilization. Throughout history, the term has been used in a pejorative manner, and some criticism of classical rhetoric and neoclassical rhetoric use this term as evidence of the exclusive nature of Greek society and Greek rhetorical tools.

Ideograph: For rhetoricians, an ideograph is the blending of mythology and history into a metaphor, such as “freedom.” These ideographs are persuasive to the public because each member of the public is able to conceptualize freedom in the way they find most meaningful. So when a politician announces, “I will preserve your freedom,” each audience member fills the concept of freedom with their own assumptions of what most needs preservation.

Kairos: The moment when an individual or a group of individuals must come to a decision. The role of a persuasive speaker is to press the audience into a time of kairos, causing them to make a decision based on the speech that they just heard.

Metaphor: A figure of speech in which a word is used in a representative rather than a literal way.

Neoclassical Rhetoricians: Neoclassical rhetoricians focus on the ways that metaphors have been used as persuasive devices throughout history.

Rhetoric of Science: The study of how science is explained to the public, how scientists speak to one another, and how scientists persuade audiences to understand and accept difficult and novel concepts. Neoclassical rhetoricians are interested in the ways that the rhetoric of science has changed and advanced over time.

Bibliography

Brummett, Barry. Rhetoric in Popular Culture. 6th ed., SAGE Publications, 2023.

Campbell, J. A. "Rhetorical Theory in the Twenty‐First Century: A Neo‐Classical Perspective." Southern Journal of Communication, vol. 63, no. 44, 1998, pp. 291–308, doi.org/10.1080/10417949809373103. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.

Cloud, Dana L. "Standpoint, Mediation and the Working-Class Public Sphere." Javnost-The Public, vol. 25, no. 1-2, 2018, pp. 51–58, doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1418812. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.

Condit, C. M. Angry Public Rhetorics: Global Relations and Emotion in the Wake of 9/11. U of Michigan P, 2018.

McGee, Michael Calvin. "The 'Ideograph': A Link between Rhetoric and Ideology." Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 66, no. 1, 1980, pp. 1–16, Communication and Mass Media Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9993504&site=ehost-live. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.

Pezzullo, P. C., and Cox, R. Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere. 6th ed., SAGE Publications, 2022.

Trapani, W. C., and Maldonado, C. A. "Kairos: On the Limits to Our (Rhetorical) Situation." Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 3, 2018, pp. 278–86, doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2018.1454211. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.

Urbanski, S. "A Neo-Aristotelian Critique of 'Jimmy's World': New Ideas in a Long-Debated Journalism Fabrication." American Communication Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1–14, Communication and Mass Media Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=116161864&site=ehost-live. Accessed 22 Aug. 2023.