Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Toward the end of his illustrious career as a statesman, Daniel Webster (1782–1852) reflected upon his life's professional accomplishments. Webster is purported to have mused, “Were I to lose everything I had, save one, I would hold onto my ability to speak in public for with that I could regain all I had lost.” Oratory, eloquence, persuasion, public speaking, public discourse, rhetoric—regardless of which term is used, the ability for individuals to articulately shape and express their ideas through oral communication has been and continues to be a critical tool to enhance leadership. Social and political change in the United States has been intertwined with oratory: the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, patriotic fervor of Patrick Henry, debates between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, bully pulpit of Theodore Roosevelt, equality calls from Susan Anthony and Frederick Douglass, “chats” from Franklin D. Roosevelt, and “dreams” from Martin Luther King Jr. Understanding this tool for leadership requires an examination of, first, the nature and study of rhetoric; second, an audience-centered approach to the practice of rhetoric; third, a view of rhetorical tools that enhance memorability; and, finally, a discussion of implications for the use of this powerful form of influence and inspiration.

The Nature and Study of Rhetoric

Aristotle (384–322 BCE), in his classic text Rhetoric, defined rhetoric as the “discovery of the available means of persuasion” (Welldon 1886, 10). While simple enough, these seven words have engaged academics from as early as the fourteenth century when courses in rhetoric were offered at Oxford University, through the opening of Harvard in 1636 (where rhetoric was a required subject) until contemporary times. A particular question for debate: Is the study of rhetoric an art or a science? As the study of rhetoric draws from the areas of philosophy, linguistics, history, and more recently from psychology, political science and sociology, the answer to “art or science” has become both—rhetorical study is truly interdisciplinary. Aristotle provided insight to the vastness of rhetoric in his classical definition through his plural use of the word means, thus suggesting that a multiplicity of approaches could be employed. Rhetoric implies choices and the individual skilled in rhetoric is well versed in a wide lexicon of options that may be employed in any given situation.

Historically, the study of rhetoric has been viewed as a humanistic/artistic venture where students examined a host of linguistic devices known as schemes and tropes. Roman rhetorical scholar Quintilian (c. 40–95 CE) noted that students would best learn the art of discourse by carefully studying “good men [sic] speaking well” so that they might have models of excellence upon which to improve. Equally important to this pedagogical value in studying “great speeches” was the intentional notion of “ good men [sic] speaking.” From the earliest of Greek and Roman classical writings, a clear sense of “good” character and an ethical standard were considered critical to the study of discourse, lest it be corrupted. To demonstrate this, Plato's (c. 427–437 BCE) Gorgias pitted the virtuous Socrates against the selfserving sophist Gorgias. Aristotle maintained that of all the means of persuasion, character (ethos) was the most effective. To better codify the educational process and inherent understanding of rhetoric, theorists began to generate models to explain the rhetorical act itself.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading