Modern Rhetoric in Culture, Arts, and Media

319 Pages·2012·5.936 MB·English

by  Joachim Knape, Alan L. Fortuna

Joachim Knape
Modern Rhetoric in Culture, Arts, and Media

Joachim Knape
Modern Rhetoric
in Culture, Arts,
and Media
13 Essays
DE GRUYTER
TranslatedbyAlanL.Fortuna
ISBN978-3-11-029245-9
e-ISBN978-3-11-026250-3
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
ACIPcatalogrecordforthisbookhasbeenappliedforattheLibraryofCongress.
BibliographicinformationpublishedbytheDeutscheNationalbibliothek
TheDeutscheNationalbibliothekliststhispublicationintheDeutscheNationalbibliografie;
detailedbibliographicdataareavailableintheInternetathttp://dnb.dnb.de.
©2013WalterdeGruyterGmbH,Berlin/Boston
Typesetting:MetaSystemsGmbH,Wustermark
Printing:Hubert&Co.GmbH&Co.KG,Göttingen
♾Printedonacid-freepaper
PrintedinGermany
www.degruyter.com
Contents
Modern Rhetoric. An Introduction 1
General Rhetoric
1 Rhetorical Fallacies and the Foundations of Intercultural
Contrastive Research in Rhetoric 23
2 Rhetoric between Historicism and Modern Science 37
3 Oratorical Image, Prestige, Reputation and
Ethos in Aristotelian Rhetoric 51
4 Language or Rhetoric? A Dialog 69
Dialog
5 A Rhetoric of Conversation 93
Rhetoric of Verbal Texts
6 Historiography as Rhetoric in Medieval Times 127
7 On the Problems of Literary Rhetoric 139
8 Paratexts and the Rhetorical Factor in Literature 151
9 New Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of Deconstruction 167
Intersemiotic Rhetoric
10 The Rhetoric of Music 183
11 A Rhetoric of Images 195
12 On a Theory of the Rhetoric of Feature Films 215
Media Rhetoric
13 The Concept of Medium in Rhetoric 251
Bibliography 270
Index 295

Modern Rhetoric. An Introduction
In most European countries, the study of rhetoric as a formal subject disap-
pearedfromuniversitycurriculainthe18thand19thcenturies,replacedbythe
various branches of philology and other disciplines in the humanities. After
this period, the analysis of language and literature became the focus of aca-
demicinterest.Thestudyofstrategiccommunicationfroma‘production-theo-
retical’ viewpoint, however, was largely displaced; it was not until the 20th
centurythatsuchstudywasrevivedintheacademicworld.Today,rhetoricas
auniversitysubjectmustberediscoveredbymanyacademics,despitethefact
that its practical use has always been present in social discourse in one form
oranother.Moderndemocraticsocietiesneedrhetoricasacivilizedmethodto
affect socio-political decisions. Such decisions deal with questions of power
thatcanonlybenegotiatedopenlyandpeacefullythroughconstantcommuni-
cation.Accordingly,oneofmydefinitionsofrhetoricisthatitisthecommuni-
cative method by which a change (metabole) of opinion in a society or group
canbepeacefullyachieved.Tothisdefinition Iwouldaddthefollowingpara-
dox:rhetoricisalsothemethodofre-establishingorderandconnections(sys-
tasis) once such change has taken place.1
The topic of rhetoric in politics has been and continues to be the subject
ofcountlesspublicationsbyacademicsfromawidearrayofdisciplinesaround
the world.2 In general, these works are based on a practical understanding of
rhetoric that is oriented towards either common prejudices, on the myriad
booksthatdealwithpracticaleverydayrhetoric,orontextbooksthatdealwith
ancient rhetorical theory.3 There is also a wide array of literary studies that
sailundertheflagofrhetoric.Bycontrast,therehavebeenadearthofstudies
thatattempttodevelopamodernandgenuinetheoryofrhetoricandthattake
the idea of rhetoric as an independent scientific paradigm seriously, while
fulfilling contemporary theoretical demands. The fact is that in the 20th cen-
tury,onlyaveryfewthinkersdevotedthemselvestothequestionofamodern
theoryofrhetoric;KennethD.Burke(Berkley,USA)andChaïmPerelman(Brus-
sels,Belgium)representtwooriginalandindependentexceptionstothistrend.
The attempts of some German philosophers (Martin Heidegger,4 Hans Georg
Gadamer, Hans Blumenberg) have been unable to newly contour the theoreti-
cal understanding of the specifics of an independent discipline of rhetoric.
1 Knape2000a,p.34.
2 Foraselectionoftitlesonthissubjectsee:Jasinski2008andBergsdorf2009.
3 ThereferencestospecifictextbookscanbefoundinChapter2ofthisbook.
4 Knape/Schirren2005b.
2 ModernRhetoric.AnIntroduction
Other philosophers, such as Jürgen Habermas, have gone so far as to reject
rhetoric altogether.5 At the same time, American postmodern philosophers
such as Richard Rorty, have had an ambiguous relationship with rhetoric (if
they have really spoken of rhetoric at all and not some other conception of
communication).6 On the one hand, such philosophers have strengthened the
pragmaticapproachofmodernrhetoricaltheory.Ontheother,theyhaveprac-
ticedadeconstructiveandfundamentalcriticismofthestrategicbasisofrheto-
ric as a whole.
Thefollowingbookseekstosolvesomeofthesediscrepancies.Itwilldiscuss
questionsrelated tothefundamentalanthropological,communicativeandcul-
turalfoundationsofaterminologicallyconsistentunderstandingofrhetoric.At
thesametime,aseriesofcasestudieswillbeusedtoillustratethepresenceof
rhetoricinculture,7andtoshowitsmeaningandfunctionineachindividualcase.
A theory of rhetoric is first and foremost a theory of communication. But
because communication touches on every aspect of culture, rhetoric is also
partofasocialandculturaltheory.Still,wemustbecareful:rhetoricaltheory
does not claim to be a general or overarching theory of communication. It is
insteadveryspecialized.Ascientifictheoryofrhetoricconcentratesonspecific
questions and problems of communication involved in the persuasive action
ofhumans,andfocusesexclusivelyontheseissues.Thus,anotherofmydefini-
tions of rhetoric can be formulated as follows:
Inpractice,rhetoricisthemasteryofsuccess-oriented,strategicprocessesofcommunica-
tion.Rhetoricisthecommunicativepossibilityformantoassertthesocialvalidityofan
issuethatisimportanttohim(hisoratoricaltelos)and,indoingso,tofreehimself,at
leastinthemomentofcommunicativesuccess,fromsocialdetermination.Rhetorichas,
fromthebeginning,alwaysbeenabouttheemergenceofmanfromsocialvoicelessness,
andtherhetoricalimperativeis:perorareaude!Havethecouragetouseyourexpressive
capabilities!8
Thedisciplinaryperspectiveofrhetoricalstudyisthusquitespecific,anditisdis-
crete from other (social) areas of study. For this reason, Chapter 1 of this book
deals with the seven main fallacies found in intercultural rhetorical research.
Intercultural contrastive rhetoric is itself a new academic branch that seeks to
applythesystematicrhetoricalapproachoriginallydevelopedinEuropetoother
5 Habermas1981.
6 FormoreonRorty’stheoreticalroleinrhetoricsee:Knape2000a,pp.43ff.;andKnape
2007c,pp.44–47.
7 Greene2008.
8 Knape2000a,p.33.
ModernRhetoric.AnIntroduction 3
non-European and non-American contexts.9 The area of fundamental rhetoric
providesthenecessaryanalyticalapproachforsuchresearch,becauseitdefines
whenarhetoricalcase(thatis,aninstanceofpersuasion)occurs.Onlythencan
suchinstancesbeinterculturallyanalyzedwitharhetoricalfocus.
Another systematic area of rhetoric is the organon doctrine, which deals
with the means (instruments) that an orator (a rhetorically acting person or
institution) can utilize in cases of rhetorical communication. With respect to
these rhetorical means and ways, studies in intercultural contrastive rhetoric
have demonstrated that clear differentiations exist: true rhetoric only occurs
when socially acceptable means and methods are used, and varying cultures
around the world have different standards about what constitutes acceptable
and appropriate means of persuasion.
Discussionswithincontrastiverhetoricbeginwiththequestionofwhether
the conception ofrhetoric that originated in Greco-Romanantiquity (and con-
tinuestoformthefoundationofWesternrhetoric)isappropriateandmeaning-
fulforanalysesofotherculturessuchasthoseinAsiaandAfrica.Theanswer
is yes: if rhetoric is systematically conceived and theoretically rigorous (as all
othermodernsynchronicsciences),thenitsapplicationisappropriateinsuch
situations regardless of its historical origins.
Thisdiscussionleadsustoacompletelydifferentquestion:towhatextent
are purely historical studies on the development of rhetoric (especially those
that deal with antiquity) still useful today? Chapter 2 deals with exactly this
issue. In it, I draw the conclusion that diachronic or historical research on
rhetoric continues to be useful because ancient theories of rhetoric long ago
gained insights into human communication that remain valid today. At the
sametime,thepracticalhistoryofrhetoricprovidesuswithavaluablecollec-
tion of empirical cases that can be systematically and structurally evaluated
inordertolearnmoreaboutthecommunicativebehaviorofhumansincertain
social formations (for instance when in small groups, in the political sphere,
orinthe courtroom).Regardlessofthe numberandtypeof laboratorystudies
it may run, synchronic rhetorical science could never hope to replicate the
amount of knowledge contained in human history. In this way, historical
research on rhetoric is just as valuable as intercultural contrastive rhetoric:
bothfieldsofresearchprovideuswithsystematicallyuseableknowledgeabout
thesocialandpsychologicalhistoryofpersuasion.Andpersuasionisthecore
of rhetorical theory.10
ThisdisciplinaryfocusonpersuasionwasestablishedinGreekandRoman
antiquity, and our modern thinking follows their lead. Knowledge of human
9 Meyer2009andHinkel2009.
10 Knape2003a;PriceDillard/Miraldi2008;Seiter/Gass2008;Hosman2008.