Rhetorical stance

Rhetoric is the art of using speech to convince or persuade. "Stance," is an individual's attitudes in emotional and intellectual matters,[1] or a philosophical position in a logical argument. Rhetorical stance would then be the position of a speaker or writer in relation to audience, topic, and situational context.[2] "Rhetorical Stance" involves taking a position, and effectively developing an argument in favor of that position, in order to persuade an audience.[3] This article describes the importance of the Author/Speaker, Audience, Context, and Purpose to one another in an attempt to convince or persuade said audience, using the tools of the rhetorical triangle and tetrahedron to help simplify the abstract idea of rhetorical stance.

Purpose

Most scholars agree that the persona, audience, and context of a rhetorical piece are all interrelated. It is also accepted by rhetorical scholars that the use of these concepts can help an author to determine which arguments and rhetorical tropes are appropriate to use in the piece that they are composing. According to James Golden, Goodwin Berquist, and William Coleman, authors and speakers can use only the arguments and communication skills available to them to convey their purpose.[3] Aristotle argues that the arguments available for any given topic are specific to that particular rhetorical situation. Lloyd Blitzer contends that the availability of arguments depends on the relationships between author, audience, context, and purpose.[4] For example, some communicators may decide to include or exclude certain points from their argument or will adjust their tone in relation to which audience they may be addressing. Many scholars agree that the utilization of rhetorical stance can help to better the argument presented, leading to a better rhetorical piece.

Author/Speaker

Wayne Booth described rhetoric as "the art of persuasion.” According to Booth, an effective author or speaker of rhetorical stance balances three essential elements within their rhetoric: speaker, argument, and audience. A speaker accomplishes this balance by using proper voice that implies character, as well as explicitly stating all pertinent arguments about the subject matter, and by taking into account the audience's distinct characteristics and personality traits. Booth goes on to say that a creator who ignores the relationship between them and their audience, and whose argument is based solely on the information they are putting out about their subject, "will produce the kind of essay that soils our scholarly journals, written not for readers but for bibliographies."[2]

Context

Authors position themselves in relation to their audience based on the relevant inter-relational contextual elements that affect the communicative situation. Brian Street argues for a broad definition of "context" to include "conceptual systems, political structures, economic processes, and so on, rather than simply a 'network' or 'interaction.'"[5] Stephen Levinson has narrower definition, which limits relevant contextual elements to immediate and observable events. Neither of these views are wrong, as context is important to rhetorical stance because it carries information from outside the direct situation or work that can help elaborate the meaning behind it.[6] Some examples of worldly "context" that could influence an author/speaker are: current affairs/politics, natural disasters, religious/social standards, or war.

The Rhetorical Triangle & Tetrahedron

Rhetorical Tetrahedron

Rhetorical Triangle

Aristotle established the classic triad of ethos, pathos and logos (the Aristotelian triad of appeals) that serves as the foundation of the rhetorical triangle.[7] The rhetorical triangle has evolved from its original, sophistic model into what rhetorician, Sharon Crowley, describes as the "postmodern" rhetorical triangle, the rhetorical tetrahedron.[8] The expanded rhetorical triangle now emphasizes context by integrating situational elements.

The original version includes only 3 points: the writer/speaker (ethos), the audience (pathos), and the message itself (logos), as shown in the bottom image to the right. The "Ethos" section represents the creator and any aspects that influence their work. The "Pathos" section is who the creator will be putting their point across to. The "Logos" section represents what the creator makes, such as their claims and information. All of these 3 points affect one another, as shown in the simpler image.

The rhetorical tetrahedron, on the other hand, carries those 3 points, along with adding context into the picture, as shown in the top image to the right. Simply put, context can help explain the "why" and "how" something is written by introducing the setting in which it was created. As seen in the more complex image, a tetrahedron is a triangular pyramid, and the rhetorical tetrahedron adds another dimension of detail to the situation or work.

Audience

According to Aristotle as well as 20th-century rhetoricians such as Golden, Berquist, and Coleman, experienced rhetors begin their process of adopting rhetorical stance with an analysis of the audience. Professional authors and speakers utilize their knowledge of the subject and establish credibility to help influence how well their message is received. Scottish Enlightenment rhetorician, George Campbell touches on this matter by explaining how one can gain power over and appeal to their audience by applying argumentative and emotional tones.[9] Aristotle emphasizes the consideration of human nature and emotion in order to achieve a successful understanding of one’s audience and the establishment of the relationship necessary for achieving persuasion.[10] According to Kenneth Burke, the author creates this impression by demonstrating an understanding of the audience’s needs and by “substantiating”[11] intellectual and empathetic relationships between oneself and the audience. Following Aristotle’s theory, Cicero explains that by adapting to the emotions of the audience, one can be successful in gaining their respect and attention.[12] Plato’s “noble aims” of rhetoric require the author to strive for a moral elevation of both author and audience.

In Academic Communities

In academia, several courses offered at institutions incorporate rhetorical stance. Speech and English departments, especially, have implemented this tactic in their educational plans. In speech classes, rhetorical stance is used when the speaker, the student presenting, is addressing the audience, his/her classmates. According to Ross Winterowd, speakers and authors adjust their rhetorical stance to accommodate a particular audience. When the speaker is talking, they alter their rhetorical stance and use various techniques for different audiences based on the particular situation.[13] There are several ways that a speaker or writer can make their audience feel a connection or relation to them. Speakers use anchorage and relay to appeal to their audience. Anchorage uses images to assist the speaker/author get specific points across, while relay uses moving images, such as videos, comic strips, etc. to do the same. A particular pronoun can make the audience feel either included or excluded. If the author says, for example, “All of us Europeans are well traveled,” it implies that all of “us” Europeans agree with the fact that "we" are well traveled. However, if a non-European reads this or listens to it in a speech, they will not feel a connection to the speaker or author, making them feel very antagonistic.[14]

In Non-Academic Communities

An author or speaker takes a rhetorical stance in all communications, not only public address, formal argument, or academic essays. Although one finds the bulk of the discussion on rhetorical stance in academia, myriad “other-than-academic communities,” such as business,[15] the law,[16] journalism /media,[17] religious institutions,[18] and politics,[19] utilize and discuss theories of rhetorical stance.

References

1. "Definition of STANCE". Retrieved 2018-09-28.
2. Booth, Wayne C. (1963). "The Rhetorical Stance". College Composition and Communication. 14 (3): 139–145. doi:10.2307/355048. JSTOR 355048.
3. Golden, James L. (1978). The Rhetoric of Western Thought. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8403-2916-4.
4. Blitzer, Lloyd (January 1968). "The Rhetorical Situation". Philosophy and Rhetoric.
5. Street, Brian (2001). Cushman, Ellen (ed.). The New Literacy Studies. Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's. pp. 430–442.
6. "Definition of CONTEXT". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved 2018-10-01.
7. Aristotle (1984). "Chapter 3". Rhetoric. Book 1.
8. Connors, Robert. "Review: "The Methodical Memory Invention in Current-Traditional Rhetoric" by Sharon Crowley" (PDF). Journal of Advanced Composition: 217–221 – via JAC.
9. Campbell, George (1988). Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address: The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press: The Nature and Foundations of Eloquence. p. 4. ISBN 9780809314188.
10. Aristotle. Rhetoric. pp. 1389–1393.
11. Burke, Kenneth (1962). A Grammar of Motives and A Rhetoric of Motives. Cleveland: The World Publishing Co.
12. Plato. Phaedrus. pp. 246a–254e.
13. Winterowd, Ross W. (1981). The Contemporary Writer. San Diego, CA: Harcout.
14. Lunsford, A.; Connors, R. (1999). The New St. Martin's Handbook. Boston, MA. pp. 26–27. ISBN 978-0312167448.
15. Ghaziana, Amin (2005). Keywords and Cultural Change: Frame Analysis of Business Model Public Talk 1975-2000. pp. 204, 523–559.
16. Phillips, Scott (2000). "Judicial Rhetoric, Meaning-Making, and the Institutionalization of Hate Crime Law". Law & Society Review: 343, 567–606.
17. McLuhan, Marshall (1967). The Medium is the Massage. New York: Random House. ISBN 1584230703.
18. Burke, Kenneth (1970). The Rhetoric of Religion: Studies in Logology. Berkeley: U of California Press.
19. Holihan, David (2004). "He's Stealing my Issues! Clinton's Crime Rhetoric and the Dynamics of Issue Ownership". Political Behavior: 262, 95–124.