I noticed that rhetoric is frequently portrayed as a “victim” in some of the readings. Its importance has diminished, and it’s frequently considered less of a discipline than others, such as literature. Booth mentions how rhetoric has been neglected, and that “there were hardly any rhetorical terms in any of the journals” (24) he came across. I question whether we need mention certain terms for rhetoric to be present or implied. It seems that the disappearance of rhetoric as the most important discipline (which Weaver mentions in “Language is Sermonic”) is really a function of its remarkable ability to branch out. Now we have speech, communication, advertising, journalism, broadcasting, literature, and the list goes on. Are these not all forms of rhetoric? I don’t believe that concentrating rhetorical studies under a single department makes them any more significant or worthy. In fact, the opposite is true, since the colorful branch of disciplines that employ rhetoric show how much we actually value it.
Defining rhetoric seems to be an equally perplexing task according to this week’s authors. In “Gorgias,” on p. 91, the character claims that Socrates’ definition of rhetoric is “satisfactory,” and the two continue to debate its definition. Is it not enough that rhetoric exists, in quite a broad fashion across many situations? Also, as evidenced in Booth’s chapter two (“A Brief History of Rhetorical Studies”), the meaning of rhetoric is not static over time.
Rhetoric is frequently referred to as “the art of,” and the sheer number of situations and phenomena that can be considered the “art of” seem to suggest that the “thing” being described is rather vague. Weaver states that “Rhetoric seen in the whole conspectus of its function is an art of emphasis embodying an order of desire” (1355). The issue of defining rhetoric, as well as explaining its supposed contemporary neglect, were salient themes for me.