I recently heard one of those hallway conversations that transpire in a college during the between class crunch time. A student was discussing a schedule change that would drop a logic course and add a psychology course. The listener wanted to know why such a change was necessary. The response went something like this: "Psychology teaches me things that I can actually use. Logic sucks and is completely useless." I immediately formed the opinion that this student has a potentially brilliant future in the field of politics. I believe that that Isocrates would agree with my assessment based on his statement from the Conley text. "It is much better to form probable opinions about useful things than to have exact knowledge of useless things" (Helen 5). That interplay of personal/popular opinion and impersonal/immutable fact seems to be the dynamic that drives rhetorical evolution in the current readings. There is a usefulness in rhetoric. It has ends. If it is an art, it is an applied, practical art. I almost see it as a craft. The essential forms of Plato simply are. They exist before and beyond the strictly human level of awareness. The aim of humanity is one of discovery of the forms. We may explore their meanings and significance, but they are truly grasped by only an elite. That elite audience may have understanding, but that understanding does not allow for change. I think this dichotomy between flexibility and immutability marked the two speeches of Obama and Dobson that we heard in class.



I think it is interesting that the Conley text begins a description of societies in crisis and transition. Old social and political structures were being overthrown, and the introduction of radical ideas and radically new situations were the normal conditions of the day. I was especially charmed by the notion that there were no lawyers. Everyone had to plead his own case, and persuasion of the judge was the ultimate goal--a real field day for the proponents of rhetoric. According to Augustine in Christian Doctrine, persuasion is the end of eloquence (Readings 374), and delivery of arguments in what Augustine referred to as grand style would go far in winning one's case. Plato's Socrates confronts Gorgias with a claim that the notion of teaching rhetoric was both confusing and dangerous (Rhetoric 9), but apparently the need to address legal issues created a whole new job market for speech writers. In Phaedrus, Socrates is angry over the attempts of unqualified teachers to teach the principles of rhetoric to people who are too ignorant to comprehend the nature of the art (Readings 86). I remember the time back in the 50's and early 60's. when knowing the steps to certain popular dances was considered critical to maintaining social status. Arthur Murray dance studios sprang up with the vigor of mushrooms all over the country. One such establishment was by my home. I used to watch through the front glass window of the studio as people of all sorts moved about the dance floor, frequently tripping over their own feet, and silently mouthing the "1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4" pattern of the dance. Not dancing. I can imagine that those courtroom arguments by peasants and farmers,who had been instructed in Arturous Murphros's studio of rhetoric, proceeded with a similar level of grace. Not rhetoric.



All such speculation is fun, until someone loses an eye--or perhaps his or her society. Even though there is considerable difference between the approaches of Gorgias and Protogoras, both rely on the manipulation of opinion (doxa) by playing the psychology of the crowd (remember the young student at the beginning?). Gorgias requires a somewhat passive, "beguiled" audience. Protagoras wants the "team" approach--wants his listeners to be "onboard" with the ideas. Doxa has a down side regardless of how it is formed, e.g., the disastrous public opinion that sent the Athenian general Alcibiades on a doomed military campaign based on his ability to give the people what they wanted to hear, rather than on his actual battle plans. Even though Aristotle believed that politics (and I would assume political rhetoric) should be based in reason, it still seems that rhetoric that either flatters our egos or relieves our pain is what is considered persuasive. That might be dangerous. Augustine brings the entire style issue into play with his subdued, moderate, and grand approaches. The first two are aimed at those who need simply to be "enlightened" to be motivated to respond to the prompts of the speaker. The last represents the "big guns" approach, and is aimed at the listener who knows what should be done, but is reluctant to do it. To my reading, we seem to playing with the lines between entertainment and inspiration. Applause alone is not a significant indicator of the success of the rhetoric. Compliance is the end goal. There was a lot of applause at President Obama's speeches both before the campaign, during the campaign, and since his election. He certainly entertains us, and he certainly persuaded Americans to vote for him in unprecedented numbers. But how has that really changed what the voters do after the applause has faded? Are we essentially a culture moving toward change, or are we still motivated by the fear that was supposedly the legacy of the last administration? Did we respond to the images of change and being a part of a team because we as a people needed to hear that? Dobson on the other hand--even though he sometimes is not applauded by even his own "people"--has a record of getting things done. He has an organization that influences how people think, respond, and believe on some very fundamental levels. Whether or not he is liked by the majority, it cannot be denied that he is a force to be acknowledged. He inspires compliance from a great many listeners. So, if persuasion is the end of eloquence, and the formation of opinion is tested by the emergence of compliant actions, who has a record for being the most skilled rhetorician?