Suchergebnisse

Although there has been a renewed interest in Aristotle's Rhetoric during the last decade or so, very few scholars have directly addressed what might be described as the most basic or obvious question concerning the work: what sort of rhetoric does Aristotle himself employ? To rephrase this question in slightly different terms: to whom is the book addressed and what did he hope to convey or teach? This essay contends that Aristotle's rhetorical strategy is aimed at convincing two different audiences—both practicing statesmen and potential philosophers—of the inherent limits of rhetoric as a field of study and way of life. In the former case, Aristotle wishes to set forth all of the clever rhetorical ruses aspiring statesmen may have to employ against sophistical demagogues in order to promote and sustain a decent political order as well as to remind them that they must eventually turn to the architectonic study of political science if they wish to comprehend most fully the nature of politics. In the latter case, Aristotle wants to demonstrate that although rhetoric and dialectic share striking similarities, rhetoric contains a necessarily sophistical—and therefore unsatisfying—character because of its focus on persuasion rather than instruction. In sum, the rhetoric of Aristotle's Rhetoric is intended to make rhetoric, properly understood, a prolegomena to both political science and philosophy.

Rhetoric is a persuasive device that has been studied for centuries by philosophers, thinkers, and teachers. In the political sphere of the Trump era, the bombastic, social media driven dissemination of rhetoric creates the perfect space to increase its effect. Today, there are clear examples of how rhetoric influences policy. This Article explores the link between divisive political rhetoric and policies that negatively affect minority health in the U.S. The rhetoric-policy-health (RPH) paradigm illustrates the connection between rhetoric and health. Existing public health policy research related to Health in All Policies and the social determinants of health combined with rhetorical persuasive tools create the foundation for the paradigm.

Any institution seeking selfpreservation faces a discrepancy and trade-off between its stated, idealistic, long-term ideology, and its compromising, immediate interests. The first is a source of popular legitimacy; the second ensures day-to-day survival. Hamas, an Islamist movement and the de facto government of the Gaza Strip, does not escape this dilemma. Hamas is a pragmatic, rational actor which knows that permanence violence toward Israel, though in line with its ideology, is not a sustainable policy. Hamas cannot afford the continual loss of human and material capital, and is accountable to foreign actors. Still, this ideological extremism results in the ideology–interests inconsistency being magnified. The movement thus has come up with innovative rhetorical strategies and justificatory discourses to bridge the gap. These bridging strategies can be explained in light of the distinction between fundamental and operative ideologies, as well as the theory of framing. The result of these necessary practices is that the ideological goals get blurred with immediate interests. This mix is what ultimately drives Hamas' strategy and decisionmaking process.

This article investigates the rhetoric employed by the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) in the UK during the campaign for women's suffrage. It argues that the rhetoric, as a result of adopting a militant approach, increasingly served the purpose of justifying the method rather than the cause. Based on an analysis of speeches by leading members of the WSPU, the article finds that the Union rhetoric justified the use of militancy by systematically drawing on democratic and social values, attacking the credibility of the legislators, promoting binary thinking and situating the conflict within the framework of a "just war."

With an uncompromising strategy, simple language and distinctive communication via social media, Donald Trump has managed to motivate people who feel like they are the losers of globalization to give him their vote and to contribute to his victory in the 2016 presidential election. In his rhetoric, he always followed three principles: simplicity, repetition, and sensationalism. Trump's speeches are conceived primarily to attract the attention of working-class whites. His rhetorical style gives the impression that he is doing everything in the interest of the working class, when in fact he is promoting the interests of big business. Trump's topic abuse is present on a number of issues, most notably in speeches about illegal immigrants, whereby he strikes concern among the impoverished masses, expecting them to react in his favour in the election. Thereby, he is not concerned that his statements spread discord and contribute to the negative atmosphere in the country and to numerous attacks on minorities. Donald Trump's behaviour and speeches are full of contradictions. He praises togetherness, but does not believe in shared values, permanent alliances, or lessons from history.

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.

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.

In contrast to some recent articles, which try to bridge the gap between Aristotle's Rhetoric and contemporary concepts of deliberative democracy, it is argued that Aristotle in this work does not plead for a rational and unemotional way of political decision making. On the contrary, his Rhetoric should be read as a manual for strategically oriented actors if not for demagogues. The well-known tension between the more ethical and the political parts of Rhetoric can be resolved if a distinction is made between a form of rhetoric, which has its place in an ideal polis, and the kind of rhetoric that is necessary in a corrupt regime. For Aristotle the democratic regime of Athens is such a corrupt regime. In the last part of this paper, it is demonstrated that Aristotle in his Rhetoric highlights the non-cognitive and emotional features of deliberative procedures and thereby corrects one of the most serious shortcomings of the theory of deliberative democracy.

Policymakers increasingly demand private enterprises to help solve social and ecological challenges faced by nations worldwide. In this article, we use Toulmin's rhetoric model to explain how European Union policy rhetoric articulates the meaning of entrepreneurship for sustainable development. Our findings demonstrate a "rhetoric mix" of argumentations through which policy rhetoric conveys three meanings of entrepreneurship—beneficiary in corrective sustainability, contributor in constructive sustainability, and opportunistic operator in assertive sustainability—and imposes shared beliefs that frame the policy discourse. In conclusion, we introduce a framework of "rhetoric mix" to advance research on entrepreneurship policy discourse and sustainable entrepreneurship. ; Peer reviewed

Several political scientists have argued that the presidential recourse to public rhetoric as amode of political influence in the twentieth century represents a significant departure from apre-twentieth-century institutional norm where "going public" was both rare and frowned upon.This article looks specifically at the changes in the substance of rhetoric that have accompanied thisalleged institutional transformation. Applying computer-assisted content analysis to all the inaugural addresses and annual messages delivered between 1789 and 2000, the author identifies andexplores five significant changes in twentieth-century presidential rhetoric that would qualifiedlysupport the thesis of institutional transformation in its rhetorical dimension: presidential rhetorichas become more anti-intellectual, more abstract, more assertive, more democratic, and more conversational. The author argues that these characteristics define the verbal armory of the modern rhetorical president and suggest areas for further research.

At this time of the year, there are the usual platitudes and rhetoric about "media freedom" in the Pacific.The Fiji Times, for example, complained in an editorial about politicians with a "misguided theory" that Fiji was not ready for a critical and aggresssive media because of the traditional system of values and its developing nation status.

This edited collection includes eleven major case studies and one general review of rhetorical contest in Australian politics. The volume showcases the variety of methods available for studying political speech, including historical, theoretical, institutional, and linguistic analyses, and demonstrates the centrality of language use to democratic politics. The chapters reveal errors in rhetorical strategy, the multiple and unstable standards for public speech in Australia, and the links between rhetoric and action. The length of Australian political speech is traversed, from pre-Federation to the Gillard minority government (2010–13), and the topics similarly range from Alfred Deakin's nation building to Kevin Rudd's Apology to the Stolen Generations. This fresh collection is intended to stimulate and advance the study of political rhetoric in Australia.

In this essay, I explore the possibilities of rhetoric as gift. I begin with the Homeric gift economy and the rhetorical resources of this economy. My use of "economy" here is not reducible to a monetary exchange system, but rather a more general system of practices orchestrating cultural identity and relations. As Georges Bataille suggests, studying a general economy may hold the key to all the problems posed by every discipline (1991, 10). For Bataille everything from geophysics to political economy, by way of sociology, history and biology, to psychology, philosophy, art, literature, and poetry has an essential connection with economy. So, too, rhetoric. Henry Johnstone once defined rhetoric as the art of getting attention (1990, 334). We cannot attend to everything at once, so something must call our attention, invite our focus, and this something is rhetoric. Rhetoric's desire to dispose its audience to invest in the object of attention connects rhetoric to economy. Rhetoric can be said to enact a disposition to invest, or a cathexis, a certain kind of savings. As such it is subject to economic movements and displacements, a dimension seen as well through Lyotard's figure of the dispositif (1993, x.).

Race, Rhetoric, and Research Methods explores multiple antiracist, decolonial forms of study that are relevant to 21st-century knowledge production about language, communication, technology, and culture. The book presents a rare collaboration among scholars representing different racial and ethnic backgrounds, genders, and ranks within the field of Rhetoric, Composition, and Writing Studies (RCWS). In each chapter, the authors examine the significance of their individual experiences with race and racism across contexts. Their research engages the politics of embodiment, institutional critique, multimodal rhetoric, materiality, and public digital literacies. The book merges impassioned storytelling with unflinching analysis, offering a multi-voiced argument that spotlights the field's troubled history with theorizing about race and epistemology. Although the authors directly address aspiring and current RCWS professionals, they model how a comprehensive consideration of race adds legitimacy and integrity to any subject of study. This co-authored work charts uncommon paths forward, demonstrating reflexive engagement with legacies that are personal and transnational, as well as with technologies that are both dehumanizing and liberating.