Exploring the Divide: Classical vs. Modern Rhetoric
Paragraph 1
The tentative emergence of a modern or a “new” rhetoric has been characterized by the attempt both to recover and re-examine the concepts of classical rhetoric and to define itself against that classical tradition… Daniel Fogarty’s important Roots for a New Rhetoric (1959) stands at a metaphorical crossroads affirming the continuing need for a viable rhetoric and sketching in the broad outlines of a “new” rhetoric that would meet that need:
Paragraph 2
[The new rhetoric] will need to broaden its aim until it no longer confines itself to teaching the art of formal persuasion but includes formation in every kind of symbol-using; it will need to adjust itself to the recent studies in the psychology and sociology of communication; and, finally, it will need to make considerable provision for a new kind of speaker-listener situation.
Paragraph 3
…The distinctions persistently drawn between classical and modern or “new” rhetoric fall under four related heads. Images of man and of society provide one area frequently cited as distinguishing the two rhetorical periods. According to many definers of new rhetoric, the classical tradition, and especially Aristotle, defined man as a “rational animal” who dealt with problems of the world primarily through logic or reason and who lived during a time characterized by stable values, social cohesion, and a unified cultural ideal. In contrast, modern rhetoric defines man as essentially a “rhetorical” or “symbol-using” or “communal” animal who constitutes the world through shared and private symbols… Here, the bases of classical rhetoric are simply inadequate.
Paragraph 4
The second distinction often drawn between classical and contemporary rhetoric – that classical rhetoric emphasizes logical proofs while modern rhetoric stresses emotional or psychological proofs – is closely related to the first. Aristotle’s image of man as a rational animal had a direct influence on his rhetoric: “Underlying the classical tradition is the notion that although men are often swayed by passions, their basic and distinguishing characteristic is their ability to reason … [Thus, for classical rhetoricians] logical argument… was the heart of persuasive discourse.” …
A third often-cited distinction between the two periods concerns the rhetor-audience relationship, a relationship said to be characterized in the classical period by the manipulative, antagonistic, one-way or unidirectional communication. The new rhetoric is conversely said to posit not an antagonistic but a cooperative relationship between rhetor and audience, one based upon empathy, understanding, mutual trust, and two-way or “dialogic” communication. In Rhetoric: Discovery and Change, for instance, Young, Becker and Pike reject what they see as the classical model of “skilful verbal coercion” and introduce instead a “Rogerian rhetoric” of “enlightened cooperation.” Douglas Ehninger labels the new rhetoric “social” or “sociological” and argues that it is an “instrument for understanding.”
Paragraph 5
The final distinction often drawn between the two periods is inextricably related to the rhetor-audience relationship just described. This distinction results from identifying the goal of classical rhetoric as persuasion, while the goal of the new rhetoric is identified as communication. In his widely influential 1936 study, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, I. A. Richards articulates this view: he old Rhetoric was an offspring of dispute; it developed as the rationale of pleadings and persuadings; it was the theory of the battle of words and has always been itself dominated by the combative impulse.
