Search results

"Words are actions, and leaders know it. This thought-provoking study sheds light on the rhetorical battles that have shaped Australia's recent political history - and it's a cracking good read to boot."--Dr Dennis Grube, University of Cambridge, UK This book examines both the rhetorical content of contemporary public leadership and the leadership methods pioneered by early English statesman Sir Francis Bacon. In particular, it considers the use of public rhetoric to defend leadership legitimacy in six case studies, drawing on leadership contests in recent Australian political history. The authors map out the complex language of leadership in contemporary politics through chapter-length portraits of the inter-related political rhetoric of prime ministers Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull, plus former foreign minister Bob Carr and indigenous leader Noel Pearson. The process is a novel application of leadership analysis derived from the political philosophy of Francis Bacon, who emerges as a founder of the study, and indeed practice, of political and public leadership. The book will appeal to students and scholars across the fields of political science, communication and rhetorical studies, and political history

A review essay on books by (1) Joseph V. Femia, Machiavelli Revisited (Cardiff: U Wales Press, 2004); (2) Mikael Hornqvist, Machiavelli and Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 2004); & (3) Paul A. Rahe [Ed], Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy (Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 2006).

Foucault, Veyne and others have indicated that early Christian morality was firmly embedded in the Graeco-Roman ethos and should not be regarded as unique. The article elaborates, using the notion of the "regulatory body," expressed in terms of Laquer's "one-sex model" to show how rhetorics of love were determined by the body politic of the "regulatory body," entrenching, empowering and confirming societal structures. It is argued that early Christianity's rhetoric foists upon the terminologies of Graeco-Roman erotic love, radicalising these terminologies by interiorisation.

Foreword — The Modernity of Rhetoric -- Formal Logic and Informal Logic -- Logic and Argumentation -- To Reason While Speaking -- Organization and Articulation of Verbal Exchanges: Question-Response Exchange in Polemical Contexts -- Argumentativity and Informativity -- Saying and Knowing -- Dialectic, Rhetoric and Critique in Aristotle -- Toward an Anthropology of Rhetoric -- Rhetoric-Poetics-Hermeneutics -- Rhetoric and Literature -- The Figure and the Argument -- Rhetoric and Politics.

This article examines presidential rhetoric about the Vietnam War since 9/11. It argues that both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have faced a rhetorical dilemma when dealing with the legacies of Vietnam because of the potential harm that they believe these legacies may have on public perception of their own military policies. Therefore, although Presidents Bush and Obama have often resisted making comparisons between contemporary conflicts and Vietnam, they have also developed a rhetorical strategy, built on the revisionism of Ronald Reagan and others, which celebrates Vietnam as a "noble cause" in American history, while they have also selected other "lessons" from Vietnam that could be useful to their overseas interventions. This rhetorical strategy suggests that Americans should continuously prepare to make long‐term military commitments.

Activists have long recognized the importance of rhetoric and emotional appeal in building support for the global justice movement. However, many political theorists worry that the use of rhetoric may obstruct clear presentation of the issues at stake, and may result in our policies being determined by where the sympathies of the best rhetoricians lie. In this article I examine the ways in which contemporary theorists try to accommodate the need for rhetoric and emotional appeal, and I argue that their attemptsare unsatisfactory because they view rhetoric as a tool or skill that can be used to manipulate people to support any position. Yet if we question the sharp separation between rhetoric and reason, then the aims of building support for a cause, identifying the causes we ought to support, and treating others with respect need no longer conflict. Re-examining the radical liberal theories of J.S. Mill, L.T. Hobhouse and J.A. Hobson, will help us to see how this separation might be questioned and rhetoric recovered as a respectful and respectable form of argument.

Activists have long recognized the importance of rhetoric and emotional appeal in building support for the global justice movement. However, many political theorists worry that the use of rhetoric may obstruct clear presentation of the issues at stake, and may result in our policies being determined by where the sympathies of the best rhetoricians lie. In this article I examine the ways in which contemporary theorists try to accommodate the need for rhetoric and emotional appeal, and I argue that their attempts are unsatisfactory because they view rhetoric as a tool or skill that can be used to manipulate people to support any position. Yet if we question the sharp separation between rhetoric and reason, then the aims of building support for a cause, identifying the causes we ought to support, and treating others with respect need no longer conflict. Re-examining the radical liberal theories of J.S. Mill, L.T. Hobhouse and J.A. Hobson, will help us to see how this separation might be questioned and rhetoric recovered as a respectful and respectable form of argument.

Abstract: This paper offers a new interpretation of the first chapter of Aristotle's Rhetoric and of Aristotle's understanding of rhetoric throughout the treatise. I defend the view that, for Aristotle, rhetoric was a skill in offering the listener 'proofs' (pisteis), that is, proper grounds for conviction. His arguments in the opening chapters of the treatise state and defend this controversial, epistemically normative view against the rival views of Gorgias, Thrasymachus and the rhetorical handbook writers, on the one hand, and against those of Plato, on the other. Aristotle defends his view on the basis that rhetoric is a skill in discharging an important role in the state – the role of helping citizens to good publicly-deliberated judgements.