Rhetorica ad You

Time for another "rhetoric blog." Mondays will probably be the day for those for the rest of the semester because I'm in my office more, and these tend to take longer. Anyhow, this week, we read up on a lot of Roman rhetoric, though I think it was mostly written in Latin (or possibly Greek), so maybe Roman rhetoric is a misnomer. It was written by Romans, at any rate. I had fun with Rhetorica ad Herennium by some unknown author. Most early rhetoric texts are very textbooky, as I noted last week, and this one's the same way, but it had some interesting differences from what we've been reading.

Firstly, a lot of the rhetorical theory that led up to Rhetorica ad Herennium and some that followed argued that a good orator or rhetorician must be a good and moral man. This reading, however, suggests that rhetoricians can use a "Subtle Approach" to introduce their speeches "when our cause is discreditable, that is when the subject itself alienates the hearer from us" (165). To me, it sounds like he's telling orators to lie, if need be. This was the principle concern that led to the term "sophist" becoming derogatory: that they were teaching the use of rhetoric towards evil means. So, we haven't seen much of this sort of suggestion in the moralist rhetoric that we've been reading.

By the way, I don't know if the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium would agree with my interpretation; I don't think he meant to suggest lying as a viable means of argumentation with his "Subtle Approach," but I still think that the suggestion is there. I'd say you could at least use his argument as a justification for deception.

I also thought this statement was weird:

"We shall make our adversaries unpopular by setting forth their violent behaviour, their dominance, factiousness, wealth, lack of self-restraint, high birth, clients, hospitality, club allegiance, or marriage alliances, and by making clear that they rely more upon these supports than upon the truth." (165, my italics)

I think it's funny that he suggests that wealth, high birth, and hospitality (a) fit in a categorization with violent behavior, factiousness, and lack of self-restraint and (b) are points of character worth attacking. It must have really sucked to be the rich, inviting offspring of the wealthy in the first century B.C.

Obviously, that take on this quote ignores the second clause that suggests that these qualities might be used by an opponent in lieu of "the truth" and that this strategy is worth attacking. Either way, I think he points out some interesting corollaries to rhetoric that can be effective means of persuasion: threats of violence, bribery, use of celebrity, etc. These behaviors have become very much ingrained in most of the rhetoric we see today (maybe not threats of violence).

I've had a sneaking suspicion for a while now that brands like McDonald's make nonsensical commercials because they know we're going to eat there anyhow (dominance). Product placement (even within other ads) and brand cooperation has all but been accepted as natural (high birth, factiousness, clients). Schwag is like currency at many events and promotions (hospitality, wealth). And celebrity endorsements are pretty much essential in advertising nowadays (club allegiance, marriage alliances). So, I think many of the concerns expressed in that quote have come to be accepted as ancillary rhetoric in today's media economy. That doesn't necessarily mean we don't appreciate a good argument or "the truth" once in a while, but we may have a harder time actually getting to it.

So, anyhow, the WBC starts Thursday, and it seems to be much less of a story this time around (in only its second iteration). I think the most publicized news I've heard so far is that A-Rod finally has something to focus on other than steroids. Good for him.

I noticed, a few days ago, the absence of Albert Pujols on the DR roster (when the team asked Miguel Tejada to play first base). I found in this story that Pujols is missing the WBC because of "insurance issues." The story is actually about Pujols not playing for the Cardinals in an exhibition against the DR. He claims it's about respect. I have to say: I admire his stance on this, but I'd much rather see him play, considering he'll face some good competition, and I might actually be able to watch it (though it doesn't look like the game will be broadcast – too bad I don't live in Jupiter, Florida).

QotD:

Do you want your MLB team's players to play in the WBC?

My take: For the most part, I'd say yeah. Firstly, it means that they're good enough to play in the WBC (which doesn't always mean much). But more importantly, I feel like the WBC is at least as good of a warm-up for MLB players as spring training is. I would, however, feel a little more squeamish about sending my team's pitchers or catchers because I'd like to see them work together as much as possible before the season. I don't have the same concern for position players.