Rhetorology: A Brief Foray

Hello skeptics,

I apologize for the delay in posts. Life is happening. No worries, I have returned.

Not only have I returned, I have returned to discuss something that is paramount in my mind: ethical communication.

I intend this post to be brief, but as this is a passion for me it is often difficult to compartmentalize.

The project I have alluded to in some other posts revolves around establishing guidelines for ethical communication and policies that value reciprocity and challenge the way that rhetorical theory is often interpreted.

My approach is guided, sparked by, and named after the concept of rhetorology as coined by Wayne Booth: a merging of rhetoric and listening rhetoric that seeks, as its purpose, to remove misunderstandings and come to a common ground with an audience (for more, I cannot recommend his book The Rhetoric of Rhetoric enough, especially the first two chapters).

One of the core concepts/policies that often accompany ethical value systems is the golden rule. Pulled directly from the book of Matthew, “do to others what you want them to do to you…” is a quote from Jesus, the concept of which is based in reciprocity and consideration with hints of justice (7:12, NCV. Also see Luke 6:31).

The Bible is not the only place you will find this wisdom. Wikipedia cites: the Greeks Thales, Sextus, and Isocrates; the Ahadith of Muhammad; the Mahabharata; the Tripitaka of Buddhism; Confucius; and even The Way of Happiness of Scientology as proclaiming this rule in some form or another. In 1993, a parliament of the world’s religions in hopes of establishing a (secular) global ethic, put forth the golden rule as the common principle for many of the world’s religions.

*Washes hands of Wikipedia*

Now, in order to attempt to get a few points across, I want to pose several rhetorical questions. Please refer to Questioning the Rhetorical Question to gauge the practice in which I am about to engage:

Would you want your audience to listen to you?

Would you want your audience to be willing to make concessions?

Would you want your audience to appreciate the concerns you have?

Would you want your audience to engage with you?

Would you want your audience to engage with you in a way that you understand?

Would you want your audience to empathize with you?

Would you want your audience to hold themselves accountable to the situation?

Would you want your audience to deceive you?

Would you want your audience to acknowledge your credibility?

Would you want your audience to look down on you?

I could go on parading statements as questions, but I will leave the inferences to you. These questions don’t need answers, they need to be considered. So too does the dichotomy which places speaker and audience in mutually exclusive roles.

Always question the motivation of a speaker if you are the audience. Question the motivations of the audience if you are the speaker. Question how those motivations might intermingle and create a better understanding for all.

Question everything.

-SS