The Rhetoric of Ethics and American Politics

Although rhetoric is political, and politics are rhetorical, they are not one and the same.

The Rhetoric of Ethics and its Translation into American Politics

On the History of Rhetoric

                In examining the History of Rhetoric, the most striking continuum is rhetoric’s prominence in the field of politics in historical and contemporary society. Even though the field of rhetoric has shifted in public opinion from positive to negative several times, and its’ basic definition has been revised and expanded on over the years �" even though its field of study has been branched out to touch on almost every aspect of human society, rhetoric has always been thought of as a part of the branch of government known as politics. Here, we will examine the concepts combining rhetoric and ethics in historical philosophy and then demonstrate how these basic morals continue to shape the ethics of American political culture today.

                In order to fully understand what is meant when we use the term rhetoric, let us first look at how two of the most popular ancient philosophers have defined it. Plato first defines rhetoric as “a semblance of a branch of politics” (Plato, Gorgias), then later expands his definition to “rhetoric in its entire nature is an art which leads the soul by means of words, not only in law courts and various other public assemblages, but in private companies as well” (Plato, Phaedrus). Aristotle, on the other hand, states that “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle, Rhetoric). He also states that “rhetoric is a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics (Aristotle, Rhetoric). The working definition used here will be a combination of both ideas, with rhetoric as the means to lead souls by persuasion, with the general pretext that it is both a political science and an ethical art.

 

Rhetoric in Relation to Ethics

                By this definition then, rhetoric is a tool that is used at the discretion of its wielder. The ethics of the wielder of this tool will determine how it is used, and to what purpose. The tool itself is neither good nor bad, but the result of its use and the reason motivating the person using that tool are either good or bad in nature. Plato’s character, Socrates said, “he who teaches the art of rhetoric knows souls, and can lead them by persuasion” (Plato, Phaedrus). The reasoning behind the statement that the rhetorician must know souls is that he should know what moves them to action, what they aspire to in order to be able to persuade them into motion. As souls are immortal, worldly goods have no interest to them, thus it is human virtue that they thrive on. Justice and temperance are two virtues that are precious to souls, perhaps even the highest of human virtues (Plato, Phaedrus), while vice is a sickness in the soul �" except those who have it don’t know they are sick (Plato, Gorgias).

                The habits of people generally rotate around the poles of pleasure and pain: we seek what is pleasurable and avoid what is painful. However, not all pleasures are good. Aristotle states that pleasure is “the movement by which the soul as a whole is consciously brought into its normal state of being” (Aristotle, Ethics). As human beings, we are constantly seeking pleasure from birth, and pleasure comes first and foremost by the cessation of pain. For example, hunger is pain and eating is pleasurable because it eases the pain of hunger. Human excellence �"and therefore, virtue �" is found in the moderation of excessiveness and deficit, in the enhancement of the soul. If virtue is that which enhances goodness and happiness in the soul, the highest virtue is that action which helps another, thereby maximizing its good effect in the world.

                In stating that there is a highest virtue in pleasure, we can also assume that there are lower virtues and pleasures. In examining virtue, it appears to be the mean between excess and defect of pleasure, and that the higher virtues are the pleasures that pertain to the soul while the base ones pertain to the body. Because of this, pleasure can be a bad thing, if the fulfilling of base pleasures is perused as a sole means of existence, such as those of excessive drinking and passion. By base pleasures, we understand as those that are necessary in some measure for a person’s soundness of mind and body: food, drink, emotions and companionship of others. In both excess and deficit of these kinds of pleasures is a bad thing, something that leads the soul to vice and wickedness.

                Human excellence is said to be found in awareness and knowledge, so the virtues of these pleasures are considered higher than those of the body. These are the virtues of the mind and soul such as justice and temperance.

On Ethics, Virtue, and Happiness

                The way to measure the health of the soul seems to be in the measure of happiness and pleasure a person experiences, for “happiest is he who has no vice in his soul” (Aristotle, Ethics). In his work Ethics, Aristotle claims that “If the work of man is the working of the soul in accordance to reason, then the good of man comes to be the working of the soul in the way of excellence (Aristotle, Ethics). According to Aristotle, happiness belongs to the soul, and therefore, must be a virtue. This type of virtuous working of the soul is an action that can be learned through habituation, though is not a natural state, nor does it happen by accident. “Virtue, then, is assumed to be those habits which are such, in relation to pleasures and pains, as to effect the best results, and vice the contrary” (Aristotle, Ethics). As such, virtue must also be a mean state, with between the vices of the excessive and the deficit. Aristotle claims that “Justice it the perfect virtue, as an action that is advantageous to another” (Aristotle, Ethics). This claim follows the Golden Rule in which the virtue that produces the most happiness in the most people is the highest virtue of all.

                If Aristotle says that justice is the perfect virtue, (Aristotle, Ethics) and Plato says that it is a true virtue, the best virtue (Plato, Gorgias), and that the greatest pain is injustice �" in general, vice of the soul �" then justice must be one of the virtues that is most esteemed by human culture. In fact, Aristotle states that “if virtue is a faculty of benefice, the highest kind must therefore be those which are most useful to others” (Aristotle, Ethics). In our society today, we deem justice to be crucial in maintaining the order of a civilized world, that an organized system of checks and balances, however faulty it may be, is required to keep people morally in line.

                Aristotle claims that virtue alone is not enough for excellence of the soul, but that it must be virtuous action (Aristotle, Ethics). His reasoning was that a virtuous person could not be virtuous and increase the greater good if he is sleeping, incarcerated, or otherwise prevented from acting on his virtues. In this way, in order to be a virtuous person, the ethics of virtue must be present, but also there must be action in order to generate good.

                If vice is sickness in the soul and virtue is health, then what exactly is virtue? According to Aristotle, virtue is “Excellence of Man” of which there are two parts: intellectual and moral (Aristotle, Ethics).The intellectual part covers the awareness and knowledge of men, while the moral part covers the ethics of man. Ethics are those virtues that serve to enhance the Excellence of Man, and are thought to be beneficial to the greatest good. These virtues include such traits as honor, justice, integrity, and fairness, and are those ideas which the soul finds beneficial and uplifting. Aristotle states justice as a perfect virtue because it is an action that is advantageous to another, thereby expands its goodness outside the self onto another (Aristotle, Ethics). Plato also names justice as the best virtue through his character Socrates (Plato, Gorgias).

Aristotle states that “Justs are not natural, but of human invention, and are not everywhere the same” (Aristotle, Ethics). Justice for theft in one culture may be imprisonment, but in another culture, it may be whipping or forced labor. This idea extends to our perceptions of what ethics are, in general �" what we perceive of as human goodness that is based in our cultural values. However, the main concept of virtue is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and is similar everywhere (Aristotle, Ethics). However, not all societies value the same virtues with the same level of reverence, and so rewards and repeated actions are also based on that altering level of reverence. Most virtues are bestowed upon us in the form of praise from others �" virtues such as honor and courage �" the most good from these virtues comes from praise by others. However, justice is a virtue that we do onto others. In this way, justice is the one virtue in which we can control the outcome and reap the pleasurable rewards by ourselves by helping another person, without the help or approval of another.

 

On Persuasion and the Soul

                If rhetoric’s goal is to move souls to action by persuasion, then a rhetorician must know what it is that moves those souls to action. Since souls are moved by virtue, then a speaker must appear to have certain virtues in common to those which he speaks. Aristotle states that persuasion must be affected by one or more of the following three points. Persuasion must be affected by either: 1.) by working on the emotions of the judges [audience] themselves, 2.) by giving them [the audience] the right impression of the speaker’s character, or 3.) by proving the truth of the statements made (Aristotle, Rhetoric). Speech must not only be demonstrative and worthy of belief, but the speaker must also make his own character look right and put his hearers in the right frame of mind. There are three things which inspire confidence in an orator’s character: good sense, good moral character, and goodwill (Aristotle, Rhetoric). The audience has to trust the speaker in order to be moved by him, and that trust is based on what they judge of his character as he speaks. As the concepts of virtues �" and more specifically, those of justice �" are a purely human invention, so too is our habit of judging people based on our own concepts of virtue, and our ability to be moved to action by the symbolism of language. In this way, people judge a speaker not only by what he says, but also on how he says it and what his body and the tone of his voice are saying while he his speaking.

                 Rhetoric, at its core, involves a classification and thus, a division. Since it is a means of persuading the soul, then it must also involve the division of souls into groups. Burke states that “People identify with each other when they are the same, or led to believe they are similar” (Burke). In this way, rhetoric involves both a joining and a separation of similar aspects �" for while individuals are a collection of personal experiences; nations, cultures, and communities are groups with similar general experiences �" and thus, a similar basic set of ethics.

Experiences shape and strengthen the ethics of a person, and any facts presented to them must fit their frame of experience in the world. Burke states that “neuroscience tells us that each of the concepts we have �" the long-term concepts that structure how we think �" is instantiated in the synapses of our brains. Concepts are not things that can be just by someone telling us a fact. We may be presented with facts, but for us to make sense of them, they have to fit what is already in the synapses of the brain. Otherwise, the facts go in and then they go right back out” (Burke). It is far easier for a person to dismiss a fact because of its confusing disruption of their framework in how they understand the world then it is for a person to rearrange their framework and view of the world to fit the facts.

 

On Framing and Family

                The basic concept of framing involves using words that the intended audience likes to hear in order to gain persuasive power over them, even if what is being said is persuasion against their best interests. In America, when people vote, they vote their identity, which is not necessarily in their best interests (Lakeoff). Identities are symbolic, and people may understand and identify with them differently. Lakeoff says that “in surrounding himself with properties that name his number or establish his identity, a man is ethical.” In this way, a group of people within a democratic government will vote for the candidate which most closely relates his views.

                When we look at politics in America, there is a generally accepted symbolism of the nation as a family. Family values are important to Americans, and Burke draws the parallel between two sets of family values and the two major opposing branches of politics. The major difference between these two political branches has its roots in the division of parenting styles, which Burke names as the strict-father model and the nutrient-parent model. Each of these parenting styles has their own set of ethical and moral values, both of which are so prominently held in our culture that everyone understands the concept of a strict father figure and a nurturing parent, though most actively believe in and live one value system in favor over the other.

                The strict father model begins with a set of assumptions about the world: “The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There always will be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that the just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good” (Lakeoff).  The strict father should be a man who can protect his family and support them in a difficult world, and who teaches his children right from wrong. This includes physical punishment when a child does wrong, as the pain of punishment is seen the necessary incentive not to do wrong. “A good person �" a moral person �" is someone who is disciplined enough to be obedient, to learn what is right, do what is wright, not do what is wrong, who peruses self-interest to prosper and become self-reliant” (Lakeoff). Once children are grown, they have either learned morality and will succeed or have not and will not succeed �" however, it is the role of a strict father not to meddle once his children are grown. In a strict father’s relationship with his child, communication is one-way: “if you are a moral authority, you know what is right, you have power, and you use it. You would be immoral if you abandoned your moral authority” (Lakeoff). This translates into the father always being right, no matter what the circumstance, and the child’s duty to do as he says.

                The nurturing parent has a different assumption of the world: that it is a good place and can be made better, and our job is to work on that. Both parents are equally responsible for raising the children, to nurture their children and raise their children to be nurturers of others. Nurturance means two things: empathy and responsibility (Lakeoff). Responsibility includes protecting the child, but combined with empathy, it provides protection and tries to ensure happiness of both child and parent �" for if a parent is not happy, they will not be able to make their children happy �" this is what the Dali Lama teaches us. This translates into a lifelong commitment and two-way communication.

 

The Family Models and Politics

                This system of dividing politics by familial values divides Americans into two conflicting groups, the Democrats and the Republicans. These groups are conflicting because of the differences in the fundamental values of the family belief system that they follow �"these ethical value systems have conflicting sets of beliefs that translate into different (therefore, opposing) political values. It is clear from the brief descriptions of the two family models described that the fundamental values of one conflict with the fundamental values of the other. Let’s look at how this translates into American politics.

                The Republican Party follows the strict father model of parenting, which translates into conservative politics. Consider what the ethics of a strict father mean in translation to politics and social programs. “It is immoral to give people things they have not earned, because then they will not develop discipline and will become both dependent and immoral. This theory says that social programs are immoral because they make people dependent. Promoting social programs is immoral” (Lakeoff). According to this theory, the good people must be rewarded �" the people who have proved their discipline and hence their capacity for morality by becoming wealthy. On the flip side, this theory also assumes that those who are poor are only so because they are undisciplined and immoral, and that it is counter-productive to offer them help.

                The Democratic Party follows the other model of parenting, the nutrient-parent model, which translates into progressive politics. This translates into creating and funding social programs, and into helping others. “It is your moral responsibility to be a happy, fulfilled person who wants others to be happy and fulfilled. This is a part of what nurturing family is all about. It is a common precondition to caring about others” (Lakeoff).

                By framing social programs as morally bad in order to cut funding, the conservative group does two things: they cater to those with the strong-father parent values and also entice those with the nutrient-parent values to vote for them by using the words that frame and evoke nutritive ideas. The result is twofold: it gains progressive voters for the conservatives, and also cuts funding for social programs. Thus, the progressive political group is constantly on the defense: they are attacked on every issue by conservatives and their funds are being exhausted by trying to make up the difference by helping those in need who have been cut off of social funding by conservative tax cuts. This hinders the progressive forward movement while strengthening the conservative political movement.

 

Framing and Political Motivation

                The importance of framing cannot be stressed enough in political motivation. Framing is evoked by a set of words that are preferred by a group of people. For example, women in general like to hear things like from the heart and for the family, so when speaking to women, these words are the most effective, the most liked by that gender (Lakeoff). This leads to a branch of politics called progressive conservatism. Frames are evoked by a word or two, and encompass the ideas, emotions and ethics that follow the symbols of the words that create the framework. Frames can be elaborate, but are most effective when restricted to a word or two. This leaves the audience to take the connection and draw their own parallels to their own values based on their own experiences.          

                Traditionally, rhetoric has been thought of as the art of persuasion, but Burke argues that it is not persuasion that rhetoric is concerned with, but identification. “Rhetoric deals with classification in its partisan aspects” (Burke). Because people identify each other in groups of us and them, the us portion of the equation is people that have something in common, while the them portion divides humanity into those individuals that are ‘not like us.’ “In surrounding himself with properties that name his number or establish his identity, a man is ethical” (Burke). This goes back to what Lakeoff said about how people don’t necessarily vote in their own best interests, but rather with their identity. Since ideas are symbolic, and symbols mean different things to different people based on different past experiences, there will be a variance in the way people with diverse moral values translate the symbolism of a specified frame.  

                It is apparent that the strict father and nutrient-parent models are as much of a part of human history as it is a part of our culture today. The idea of a strict father seems to be the older of the two views, as it would have been most effective in protecting a man’s family in a world filled with dangerous animals and no teeth or claws with which to defend himself. In the Old Testament of the Bible, God is portrayed as a very strict and vengeful father. He was the hard and distant Father, who was swift to punish and slow to reward. In the New Testament, God becomes a nurturing parent, sending his son to rescue mankind from their sins. That was one of the greatest appeals of Christianity, and why it spread so quickly and so far: many religions had a fierce and vengeful god, but a forgiving and loving god appealed to people of the time on a deep level, and women in particular. This was a time when life was short and unpredictable, dependent on many things out of a person’s control.

The idea of a merciful god brought with it a sort of hope, a nourishment of the human soul in order for it to go on through hardship and toil to find the goodness in the world and to make it a better place for having been in it. In this way, a nutrient parent is an evolution of a strict father, and holds far better results in raising empathic and productive citizens of the community. It is also because of its advanced and circumstantial resolutions to individual situations that it is a very difficult method of parenting. It is far easier to spank a child then it is to find the language which she understands to explain why what she had done was wrong and what the right should be. It is simple to hit a child when she does wrong, and it has instant results �" which leads parents to believe it works. But hitting a child does far more psychological and ethical damage to the child then it does for structure and discipline, and leaves them with the impression that hitting someone else is an acceptable way to express annoyance or anger.

                In America, Lakeoff estimates that probably more than 40% of the voting public has a strict father model governing their politics with another 30-40% having a nutrient-parent model, leaving 20-30% of “swing voters” in the middle who combine the two sets of values into different aspects of their lives (Lakeoff).

 

Republican Views support Fascist Values

The interesting thing about the strict-father model is that it consists of a very similar value system to Fascism �" which is a political authority that advocates an authoritarian government. The strict father model is a step away from being an authoritarian model in its values and beliefs. “To sum up: 1.) we know, as a matter of record, that science under Fascism becomes sinister. 2.) We are repeatedly being admonished that there is a high percentage of Fascist motivation in our own society” (Burke). With rhetoric as a science, it can be misused by a Fascist government to frame their motivations in order to justify their reign and to gain momentum. Hitler and his book, Mein Kampf, is the perfect example of good rhetoric being used to evil purposes. Science in itself is neither good nor bad �" it is indifferent; only when it is used by those whose motives are to achieve a good or bad end does it achieve any sort of moral standing.

                Rhetoric is political, and politics are rhetorical �" they are both one, though not the same. Trends in human moral growth can be observed through properties in oratory discourse, and these properties have changed greatly throughout the history of Rhetoric. Behind every rhetorical movement, there is political motivation and division. Socrates was executed for “corrupting the youth” in 399 B.C. with his rhetorical discourses on ethics during the time when democratic ideas were on the rise, and Plato’s dialogues involving him have become the basis of the art and science we know of as rhetoric today. In two and a half thousand years, we can assume that Socrates has corrupted a lot of youths through Plato’s popular dialogues. The idea of rhetoric is presented broadly as the means of persuading others, and its fields involve not only the judicial courts, but daily speech as well. Aristotle goes on to redefine and articulate Plato’s ideas into a comprehensive series of written teachings on rhetoric and ethics. In a sense, he takes the broad field that Plato outlines and sharpened the details in extensive works on rhetoric, ethics, and philosophy �" ideas that are still as important and valid today as they were two thousand years ago.

 

Contemporary Rhetoric

                Contemporary rhetoric involves a dissection of past rhetoric to locate its constituent parts, using numerous examples of not only good rhetoric, but also bad rhetoric from the past. This allows for theories to be examined, refined, and then put back together so that the overall pattern works as a whole. It is the shift of a microscopic field to a larger magnification: the field of view is smaller, but the details are clearer. Much of Plato and Aristotle’s views on ethics are held in common by many people throughout the world, even if they have never read the writings, precisely because these views are embedded into our culture and society. These views have been adopted, refined, and integrated into every aspect of our society, and the symbolism that is used to describe our society also describes our top values as a culture. As Americans, we think of our government as the parent and the culture as the family �" and no matter what our family values are, we all agree that family is good, that it is worth fighting for and that it is worth the struggle it takes to make it better.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Aristotle. Ethics. 05 2012. Print. .

Aristotle. "Rhetoric." Herzberg, Patricia Bizzell and Burce. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical times to Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's , 2001. 179-240. Print.

Burke, Kenneth. "A Rhetoric of Motives." Herzberg, Patricia and Bruce. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. 1324-1340. Print.

Plato. "Gorgias." Herzberg, Patricia Bizzell and Bruce. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to Present. 2nd Ed. . Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. 87-138. Print.

Plato. "Phaedrus." Herzberg, Patricia Bizzell and Bruce. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to Present. 2nd ed. . Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. 138-168. Print. .