DOCUMFNT R FS UME TE 000 529 ED 024 668 By- Brockriede, Wayne E. Dimensions of the Concept of . Pub Date Feb 68 Note- 13p. Journal Cit- The Quarterly Journal ofSpeech; v54 n1 pl -12 Feb 1968 EDRS Price MF- S0.25 HC-$0.75 (Thought Transfer), *Composition(Literary), English Instruction, Descriptors- Attitudes, SpeechInstruction,Verbal InterpersonalRelationship,Oral Communication, Rhetoric, , Communication, Interrelated and interactingrhetorical dimensions whichinfluence the outcome and effectiveness of a communication canbe identified. Interpersonaldimensions include (1) the degree of liking among personsinvolved in the rhetorical act.(2) power inthe form of charisma or a powerstructure, and(3) distance. either interpersonal or social, which separatesthose involved. Attitudinaldimensions involve those predispositions whichaffect the response to arhetorical situation.including attitudes toward the centralidea of a communicationand the ideologicalvariables evoked by the rhetoricalact--(1) unconscious assumptions.(2) the norms and values of listeners or readers,(3) ethical attitudes, and(4) philosophic presuppositions about the nature of man.Finally, the rhetorical act isinfluenced by such situational (2) the channels employed inthe communication,(3) the dimensions as (1) the format. (4) number and types of people involved,and the degree to whichthey are organized, the functions of the communication,(5) the method of communicationemployed. and (6) the contexts of time and place.(DL) JOURNAL of

PEECH

Speech Association of AmeTica

1111111111111111111.

FEBRUARY - 196F

. Volume LIV Number 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. 7

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED

_ TO ERIC A D ORGANIZATIONS ERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER." The QUARTERLYJOURNAL ofSPEECH FEBRUARY 1968 NUMBER

DIMENSIONS OF THE CONCEPT OF RHETORIC

Wayne E. Brockriede

DURING recent years a state ofcommunication. Five assumptions im- cold war has existed in the fieldplicit in this attempt should be stated of . Humanists who seek to under-explicitly from the outset. stand rhetoric primarily through the First,theconceptionofrhetoric use of historical scholarship andbe-broadly asthe study of how inter- havioral scientists who seek to developpersonal relationships and attitudes are acommunicationtheoryprimarilyinfluenced within a situational context through empirical description and ex-assumes the presence of the rhetorical perimental research have tended to seeimpulse in such diverse acts as a speaker one another as threatening enemies.Yetaddressing an audience face to face or members of these factions have the com-through , a group of peo- mon objective of studyingsimilar phe-ple conferring or conversing, a writer nomena. The student of communica-creating a drama or a letter to an editor, tion who conceives his study as focus-or a government or some other institu- ing on pragmatic interaction of peopletion projecting an image. and ideas is concerned with the rhe- torical impulse within communication Second, the concept of rhetoric must grow empirically from an observation events.1 and analysis of contemporary, as well as The purpose of this essay is to sketchpast, events.2 The dimensions should the beginning and to encourage thebe selected, developed, structured, and further development of a system ofcontinuously revisedto help explain dimensions for the study of rhetoricaland evaluate particular rhetorical acts.

Mr. BrochriedeisProfessor of Speech and Third, although the theorist, critic, Drama at the University of Colorado and Editor-or practitioner may focus his attention elect of QJS. 1 Although my treatment differs from Deanon a rhetorical act, such an act must be C. Barnlund's excellent analysis in his "To-viewed as occurring within a matrix of ward a -Centered of Com- munication," Journal of Communication, XIIinterrelatedcontexts, campaigns, and (December 1962), 197-211, the scope of my con- processes. ception of rhetoric seems similar to the scope of his conception of communication. Gerald R. Miller in his Speech Communication: A Be- 2 An argument which supports this claim havioral Approach(Indianapolis, Ind.,ig66), is developed in my essay "Toward a Contem- makes explicit (p. 12) his synonymous usage ofporary Aristotelian Theory of Rhetoric," WS, the terms rhetoric and speech communication.LII (February 1966), 35-37. 7N-

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH Fourth, the rubrics of a rhetorical actity. In a dyadic act the feelings may or are best viewed asdimensional, eachmay not be mutual. When manypeople reflecting a wide range of possible de-are involvedas in hearing apublic f,.; scriptions and notasexpressingdi-address, participating in a discussion, chotomies. or a best-seller, asingle rela- Fifth, the dimensions of rhetoric aretionship may be characteristicas when polarized, or re- interrelational:each dimension bearsan audience becomes a relationship to everyother dimension.lationships may varyas when some discussants feel affection for a leader This essay, therefore, represents an whereas others are repelled. Liking also attempt to sketch a contemporary con-differs in degree of intensity and in cept of interrelatedinterpersonal, atti- tudinal, and situational dimensions ofdegree of susceptibility to change. rhetorical act. The change or reinforcement of the a broadly conceived liking dimension may function as the primary purpose of a rhetorical act; courtship, for example, aims principally Traditionalrhetoricplacesmuchat affecting thisrelationship. Or increas- less emphasis on interpersonalrelation-ing, maintaining, or decreasing the de- ships than does the model presented ingree people like oneanother may be this paper. Even the concept of ethosa by-product of asituation which has frequently has been conceived as per-other chief aims. Or the likingrela- sonal proof functioning rationalisticallytionship, though it remains essentially as a messagevariable.3 unchanged during a rhetorical act, may What are here developed as inter-have a profound influence on whether personal dimensions may indeed func-other dimensions vary, as well as on tion in an instrumental way, having somehow they vary.4 influence on a rhetorical act which aims Power. Power may be defined as the primarily atattitudinal influence orcapacity to exert interpersonalinflu- situational appropriateness. But inter-ence. Power maybe the ultimate pur- personal dimensions themselves oftenpose or function, asin a power strug- represent the principal goals; andthegle, or it may be a by-product of or an establishment, change, or reinforcementinfluence on the controlling dimensions. of such interpersonal relationships asThe power dimension includes twopri- liking, power, and distance may exer-mary variables. cise a controlling influence on the other First, what are the kinds of power? dimensions. One is the influence a personhas be- Liking. This interpersonal dimensioncause others likehim. The word charis- poses the question: howattracted to one 4 Hugh D. Duncan stresses this dimensionin another are the people who participatehis Communication and Social Order(New in a rhetorical act? Liking differs qual-York, 1962) when he says(p. 170 that "the itatively and may refer to such continua study of how men court each other . . .will tell us much about thefunction of rhetoric in asspiritualadorationhate,sexual society." See also Kenneth Burke, Rhetoricof attraction repulsion, friendship en . Motives in A Grammar of Motives and a Rhet- oric of Motives (Cleveland, 1962), pp. 732-736. mity, and compatibilityincompatibil- I make no attempt in this essay to cataloguethe status of knowledge or to supplybibliographies For example, in Lester Thonssen and A.concerning each of the dimensions discussed. I Craig Baird's Speech Criticism (New York, 1948). shall suggest, however, a source or two which the chapter on ethos (pp. 383-391) issubtitled will develop further each of the dimensions con- "ethical proof in discourse." sidered in this essay. DIMENSIONS OF THE CONCEPT OFRHETORIC ma denotes thiskind of power whenkind each rhetoricalparticipant has it reaches a great magnitude.But per-may be lessimmediately relevant than sonal magnetism exists also inlesserknowing the relationship amongthe degrees. The power of personal attrac-power statusesof the people involved. tiveness represents a kind ofintersectionThat is, power is relativerather than of liking and power. A second typeofabsolute. The significance ofthe power regardless of power stems fromposition or role in theof a writer, for example, social system. By havingcontrol overthe amount or kind he may possess, the assignment of sanctions,the allo-depends on how much powerhe has cation of rewards and punishmentsinrelative to that of his readers.Two a social system, a manmerely by virtuequestions especially areimportant in of his office or role may bepowerful.an analysisof the power structure. How A third type is the control overthedisparate are the powerpositions of communication channels and otherele-the various participantsof an act, and ments of therhetorical situation. Thisdoes the act function toincrease, main- situational power corresponds towhattain, or decrease thedisparity? How some people callthe gatekeeper func-rigid or flexible is the structure,and tion. A fourth kind of poweris an in-does the rhetorical actfunction to in- fluence over the sources ofinformation,crease, maintain, ordecrease the sta- the norms and attitudes, and theideol-bility?6 distance ogy. Such aninfluence seems to depend Distance. The concept of on the extent towhich other peopleis related to the otherinterpersonal di- trust one's ideationalcompetence gen-mensions. One generallyfeels "closer" erally and his special expertise on mat-to those personshe likes and "farther" ten relevant to therhetorical act, onfrom those he dislikes, butthe greater their perceptions of his generalwilling-the power disparity the greaterthe dis- ness to expresshimself honestly and ac-tance. Like allother dimensions, the curately and of his specialcandor onestablishment of an appropriatedis- the particular relevant topics,and ontance (whetherdecreasing, maintaining, their feelings of confidencein theiror increasing it) maybe a rhetorical abilities to predict accurately the mean-act's primary function, anincidental ing and significance attachedto hisoutcome, or aninfluencing factor. statements and actions.5Finally, one Two kinds of distancemake up this exercises indirectly a degreeof powerdimension. One is an interpersonaldis- by having access to andinfluence ontance between each twoparticipants in other people who can exercisethe othera rhetorical act.The other is a social kinds of power more directly. So afirst Thisdimensionseemstohavebeen general variable of the powerdimen-ignored in the study of manyrhetorical situa- sion is the degree with whichpeopletions. It is only implied, partially,for example, in the public address doctrine ofethos. During participating in a rhetorical act can recent years, however, underthe headings of manifest these kinds of power. leadership and power structure, manysmall group specialists haveemphasized it. See, for A second variable is power structure. example, Dorwin Cartwright and AlvinZander, what Group Dynamics: Research andTheory, and ed. Knowing how much power of (Evanston,Ill.,1960), pp. 487-809. Among a number of useful works in the field ofpolitical 5 Kenneth Andersen and TheodoreClevenger, sociology which are relevant to anunderstand- Jr., provide an excellent synthesis ofinforma- ing of the function of power inrhetorical acts, tion on this kind of power in "A Summaryofsee Class, Status,and Power, ed. Reinhard Ben- Experimental Research in Ethos," SpeechMono- dix and Seymour Martin Lipset, anded. (New graphs, XXX (June 1964, 59-78. York, 1966), pp. 201-32, 0. SPEECH 4 THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF distance which exists within the struc-how the choice is made.Traditionally, ture of the group or groupswithin orrhetoric seems rather consistentlyto relatedtotherhetoricalactsuchhave made this sort of assumption.The groups as audiences,committees, organ-principal function of some rhetorical izations,societies,andcultures.Al-acts is interpersonalinteraction or situ- though interpersonal and groupdis-ational appropriateness, however, and tance are relatedclosely and tend gen-the influence on attitudes in themak- erally to covary, they are discretevaria-ing of choices is secondary. Attitude bles in that two persons in adiscussionmay be defined asthe predisposition group, for example, may move morefor preferential response to a situation. closely together while the group struc-Two kinds of attitudes have rhetorical ture is in the processof disintegrating?significance: attitudes toward the cen- tral idea in a choice-making situation Several questions about therole of inand the ideological structure of other interpersonal and group distance related attitudes and beliefs. rhetoricalsituations seem important. How much distance (of eachtype) is Central Idea. Several features of at- optimal in achieving certainkinds oftitudes toward the central idea of a interpersonal,attitudinal,andsitua-rhetorical situation require study. tional rhetorical functions? What con- First, although attitudes customarily ditions of the other dimensions arehave been considered as a point on a most likely toincrease, maintain, orscale, this view is inadequate. As Car- decrease the distance(of each type)?olyn Sherif, Muzafer Sherif, and Roger E. Nebergall have pointed out, a per- 2 son's attitude may be described more Controversial ideas which involve aaccurately by placing various alterna- choice among competing judgments, at-tive positions on a controversy within titudes, and actions form a necessarythree latitudesof acceptance, of rejec- part of any rhetorical act.Very often,tion, and of non-commitment.8 On the although not always, such a choiceispolicy of the United States toward the primary operation, and the variousVietnam, for example, a person may interpersonal and situationaldimen-have one favored position but place sions merely create the environmentinother positions within his latitude of which the choice is made and influenceacceptance;such additional positions are tolerable. He may hatre oneposi- 7 One of the shortcomings of the conceptof tion that he rejects more strongly than interpersonal distance is that the term is notany other but place otherpositions readilyoperationalizedintospecifiablebe- haviors. Consciously or unconsciously,however, within his latitude of rejection. Finally, people seem to have a sense of closeness orbecause he lacks , interest, distance from others; such a feeling canin- place other fluence rhetorical interaction. Thephilosophical or decisiveness, he may basis for Kenneth Burke's rhetoric isthe viewpositions within his latitude of non- that men are fundamentally divided.His con-commitment. To understand or predict cepts of identification andconsubstantiality sug- gest that one of rhetoric's functionsis to reducethe attitudinal interaction in arhetor- man's interpersonal distance from man. See,for example, Burke, pp. 543-51. Edward T.Hallical situation one must know whether treats distance literally as avariable in com-its central idea falls within thepartici- munication situations in his SilentLanguage (Garden City, N. Y.,1959), pp. 187-209. The concept of social distance isimplied in such 8 Attitude and Attitude Change: TheSocial terms in small groupresearch as group co-Judgment-Ego Involvement Approach (Philadel- hesiveness, primary groups, and reference groups. phia, 1965), pp. 18-26. DIMENSIONS OF THE CONCEPTOF RHETORIC 5 assigned to pants' latitude of acceptance,rejection,positions which are now one latitude canbe moved to another or non-commitment. recognizes, for ex- Second, the degree of interestand theone. This concept from intensity of feeling with whichthe cen-ample, that to move a person rejection to one of non- tral idea confronted in arhetorical acta position of occupies a place in whateverlatitudecommitment issignificant persuasion. all other di-A person's persuasibilityis related, of will influence potentially intensity, and mensions of that act. course, to the nature, attitude." An ego-in- Third, the way the variouslatitudesstructure of his volved person who feelsstrongly about are structuredis an influential variable. likely to change his at- Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergallidentifyan idea is less titude than one who is lessego-involved one such structurewhich they term ego- ego-in-or less intense. involvement. A person who is discussion sug- volved in a given attitude tends to per- What the preceding gests is that the nature,intensity, struc- ceive relatively few discretealternative latitude ofture, or persuasibilityof the attitude positions, to have a narrow the central acceptancesometimes acceptingonlyof any participant toward idea in a rhetorical transactionwill in- one position, tohave a broad latitude and be positionsfluence the other dimensions of rejectionlumping most influenced by them. Inaddition, the as similarlyintolerable, and to have little of each of non-commitment.9relationship of the attitudes or no latitude participant to those ofothers in the The ego-involved hawk, .forexample, situation will influencetheir interac- may accept only a strongdetermination here can be military victory, assimilat-tion logether. The issue to achieve a focused in a single question:how sim- ing all positions close to that one;and rhetorical act seeingilar are the people in a he may reject all other stands, with respect to the nature,intensity, little difference between unilateralwith- changeability of their thatstructure, and drawal and attempts to negotiate attitudes toward the ideaunder focus necessitate any genuine concessions to Or, to put the anything lessin the rhetorical act? the adversary, and labeling question in a slightlydifferent way: to than total victory as appeasement. what extent can peopleidentify with Fourth, a person's persuasibility onthe attitudes of oneanother?u act the central idea of arhetorical exist likely is a Ideology. An attitude does not is a relevant variable. How does not occur toat-in a vacuum. One idea person to respondpositively have homes tempts to changehis attitude? Thisby itself. Rather, attitudes in ideologies. Theideologies evoked in questionsuggeststhesuperiorityof influence, and may anal-a rhetoricalact the Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall other dimen- ysis. The question is not thesimplesometimes dominate, the one of howlikely is a person to movesions. favoring from "yes" to "no" or from 10 In addition, an individual'spersonality may a negotiatcdsettlementin Vietnam be one of the determinantsof his persuasibility possibility on controversialpropositions. Sce Irving L. Janis, which does not involve the Carl I. Hovland, et al.,Personality and Persuasi- of a coalition governmentin South bility (New Haven, Conn., 1959),and Milton Vietnam to one which does.It is theRokeach, The Open andClosed Mind (New York, 1960). far more complex questionof whether 11 Kenneth Burke's concept ofidentification seems to relate tothe attitude dimension as well dimension of interpersonal distance. 9 Ibid., p. 233. as to the r117

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

Severalideologicalstructures maywill, if changed, affect other attitudes. be identified. Attitudes may relate toIn addition, to understand the rhetori- other attitudes, to systems of values andcal interaction on some central idea one norms, to ethical codes, and to philo-must also consider how similar or dif- sophic presuppositions about the natureferent one person's attitudes toward re- of man, the nature of reality, the na-lated ideas are to those of other people ture of language, and the nature ofin the rhetorical act. knowledge. About each of these con- A second ideological variable is the texts two questions may be raised: Whatsystem of values and norms subscribed is the nature of the ideological struc-to by the people in a rheturical act. tures of each participant in the act?Just as a person's attitudes relate to How -imi ar or different are the ideol-his other attitudes, they relate also to ogies of the various participants? more fundamental principles which he The central idea of any rhetoricalvalues. Whereas the first relationship transaction evokes not only attitudesmay be viewed as a sort of part-to-part toward that idea but attitudes towardanalogical inference, the second isa related ideas. In recent years severalpart-to-whole(or whole-to-part) infer- theories and approaches have devel-ence. General values both evolvefrom oped: balance theory, the theory ofmany particular attitudes, and they also cognitive dissonance, the congruity hy-structure new experience in the devel- pothesis, and the social judgment ap-opment of new attitudes toward new proach.12 Although these formulationssituations.18 differ and the differences are argued One of the most important sources heatedly, one principle seems acceptedof each person's fundamental values is by most attitude theorists: man has anhis membership in small groups, organ- urge to think himself consistent,toizations,societies, and cultures. The try to achieve homeostasis within hisargument can be made that all ,ralues system of attitudes. can be traced generallytoasocial origin, but some values especially can Although relatively few persons workbe associated closely with membership out a careful formulation of an ideology inaparticularreference group which consciously monitors various at-whether small group, organization, so- titudes, each person very likely has anciety, or culture. Such shared values are implicit ideology which unconsciouslytermed norms. When a rhetorical situa- affects the development of any attitudetion involves the actuai or implied pres- in the system. Anyone attempting toence of such groups, the norms of those change one attitude of a person, there-groups predictably are going to func- fore, will profit from the admittedlytion as an ideology which will tend to difficult task of identifying that person's other attitudes and of considering how 18 In their essay "The American Value System: they may facilitate or retard such an PremisesforPersuasion,"WesternSpeech, target-attitudeXXVI (Spring 1962), 83-91, Edward D. Steele attempt and how the and W. Charles Redding state, "Values, as they exist psychologically in the mind of the audi- 12 See Fritz Heider, "Attitudes and Cognitive cnce, have been generalized from thetotal Organizations," Journalof Psychology, XVL experience of thc culture and 'internalized' into (April916), 107-114; Leon Festinger, A Theory the individual personalities of the listeners as of Cognitive Dissonance (Evanston, Ill.,:958): guides to the right way to believe or act" (p. Charles E. Osgood. Percy Tannenbaum, and84). Karl R. Wallace argues that general value George Suci, The Measurement of Meaning (Ur-premises function as the substance of rhetoric bana,Ill.,1957);andSherif,Sherif,and as good reasons which support propositions or Nebergall. value judgments. Sce "The Substance of Rhet- DIMENSIONS OF THE CONCEPT OF RHETORIC 7 sel limits for attitudes of group mem-through scientific analysis?1° How each bers.14 person in a rhetorical act answers these A third kind of ideology is the ethicalquestions, and the degree to which the variable which raises two questions:various answers are similar, will influ- ence how attitudes interact. Whatpersonalmoralityorpublic ethic guides the interaction of attitudes? Is the code of conduct acceptable to 3 others who participate in the rhetorical A rhetorical act occurs only within a act? A transaction of ideas viewed assituation, and the nature of that act unethical by someone with whom ais influenced profoundly by the nature person tries to interact willhave ad-of the encompassing situation. Further- verse effects on many ofthe other di-more, on certain ceremonial occasions mensions.15 situationaldimensions dominatethe A fourth ideological variable consistsact. A speaker's function in a funeral of a person's philosophic presupposi-oration, for example, may be merely to tions about the nature of man, themeet the expectations of the occasion. nature of reality, the natureof lan-Six situational dimensions form a part of guage, and the natureof knowledge.the conceptual framework advanced in This variable probably functions rela-thisessay:format, channels,people, tively rarely as the primary goal of afunctions, method, and contexts. rhetorical act, perhaps only when philos- Format. The essential concern of this ophers engage in dialogue, but it es-dimension is how procedures, norms, tablishes a frame of reference withinand conventions operate to determine which attitudes interact. Is a man anwho speaks and who listens. object to be manipulated or a decision- Formats fall into two general types maker in the process of making radicalwhich anchor the ends of the dimen- choices? To what extent does he be-sion. At one extreme is a polarized sit- hrve rationally? To what extent is hisuation in which one person functions rhetorical behavior determined for himas speaker or writer and others function and to what extent does he exercise freeas listeners or readers. At the other will? Does one take an Aristotelian, aextreme is a type of conference situa- Platonic, or a phenomenalistic stancetionin which the functions of the various participants rotatefreely on the questionof the nature of reality? be- tween speaking and listening. How does man acquire knowledge? To what extent does he come to know Formats vary with respect to the de- through a priori intellection, throughgree of flexibility permitted rhetorical revelation, through intuition, throughparticipants. In some situations, for ex- empirical observation,ample in written and electronicdis- memory, through course, a rhetorician has little oppor- existentialexperience,or through tunity to revise his original plans within the act, although he may utilize feed- oric: Good Reasons," QJS, XLIX (October1963), 239-249. back in designing subsequent acts in 14 gee A. Paul Hare, Handbook for Small Re-a campaign. In other situations a rhet- search (New York, 1962), pp. 23-61. 15 Edward Rogge, inhis "Evaluating the Ethics of a Speaker in a Democracy," QJS, XLV 16 The importance of the philosophic dimen- (December1959),419-425,suggeststhat the sion of rhetoric is well argued by Otis M. Walter standards used to evaluate a speaker's ethics bein "On Views of Rhetoric, Whether Conserva- those established by the audience and the society tive or Progressive," QJS, XLIX (December of which it is a part. 1963), 367-382. , ,

8 THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH orician has maximum opportunity toby the interpersonal dimensions of lik- observe the reactions of others and toing, power, and distance; by the atti- makeappropriatedecisionsaccord-tudestowardthecentralidea and ingly.17 toward those related to it; and by the Channels. The role of channels inother situational dimensions of format, a rhetorical actis manifested in threepeople,functions, method, and con- variables. First,isthe communicationtexts. conveyedverbally,nonverbally,or Third,isthe rhetorictransmitted through a mixture of the twomodes?directly or indirectly? A direct channel Radio speaking and written messagesis a system of communication in which are instances ofthe verbal channel; aone person relates to someoneelse with- silent vigil and pictures employ the non-out the interference or aid of athird verbal channel; and face-to-facespeak-person or a mechanicaldevice. The ing, television, and books whichfea-oral interpretation act, the speaker who ture graphic materialsillustratethereaches the newspaper reader via a mixed mode.18 reporter, the tape recording,television, Second, if language is employed, isand the two-step flow of communica- it in oral or written form?Althoughtion all illustrate the indirect channel.29 the distinction between these twochan-But indirectness admits of degrees. Me.; nels needs no clarification,19 theirmodessages may be transmittedthrough only of transmission require analysis.Tradi-one intermediary person or agency, or tional rhetoric has long studied deliverythey may follow a circuitous track, as as one of the canons.Although studentsin a typical rumor, between its origi- of written composition haveiiaid farnator and its ultimate, and perhapsin- less attention to the study oftransmit-definite, destination.21 ting messages, such features as theselec- People. How rhetorical situations are tion of paper, binding, cryptology,andpopulated forms six variables. One con- the like may influence theinteractioncerns the number ofinteracting people. between writer and reader morethanAre they few or many?22 the persons playing eitherrole recog- A second variable is the number of nize. Delivery, whether in oral orwrit-groups which functionin the situation, ten channel, illustrateswell the primarywhether as audiences or conferences. idea of this essay: that eachdimensionThe range is from one to many. A relates to every otherdimension. De- 20 The two-step flow of communication and livery will influence and beinfluencedthe concept of opinion leadership has consid- erable applicability to rhetoric. See Elihu Katz 17 See David K. Berlo, The Process ofCom- and PaulF.Lazarsfeld,Personal Influence munication(New York,1960),pp.111-116. (Glencoe, Ill., 1955) and Elihu Katz, "The Two- Ironically, in public address, a formatwhich Step Flow of Communication: An Up-to-Date offers considerable opportunity forcommunica- Report on an Hypothesis," PublicOpinion tive flexibility, the role of feedbackhas been Quarterly, XXI (Spring 1957), 61-78. analyzed very little. 21 The classic study of rumor is Gordon W. 18 Marshall McLuhan's The Medium is theAllport and Leo Postman, Psychology of Rumor Massage (New York, 1957) is a notable attempt (New York, r947). to make the nonverbalcode as important in a 22 I am inclined to include theintrapersonal book as the verbal. communication of self-address within the scope 19 Joseph A.DeVito's study of "Compre-of rhetoric. An individual's roles may interact hension Factors in Oral and WrittenDiscourse intrapersonally and attitudinally in a variety of Skilled Communicators," SpeechMonographs, of situational contexts in ways closely analogous XXXII (June 1965),124-128, concluded thatto the interpersonal and attitudinalinteraction written discourse involved a more difficult vo-of two or more persons. For support of this cabulary,simplersentences,andagreaterposition, see Barnlund, 199-201, and Burke, pp. density of ideas than did oral discourse. 561-563. DIMENSIONS OF THE CONCEPT OF RHETORIC 9 speaker may address oneparticular Some questions of situational func- audience or many audiences,eithertion seem to apply both to the inter- simultaneously or consecutively. A per-personal and to the attitudinal aspects son may participate in a conferenceof a rhetorical act. To what extent are which operates virtually as a self-con-interpersonal relationships and/or atti- tained unit or in a conference involvingtudes to be reinforced or changed? What multiple groups. degrees of intensity of reinforcement or A third variable has to do with thechange does the situation call for? If degree to which the people areor-change is to function, in what direction? ganized. The range is from a virtual Other questions relate directly to the absence of organization to the status ofinterpersonaldimension. Are people a highly structured and cohesive refer-trying primarily to relate, identify, dis- ence group. engage, or in other ways to interact A fourth variable, closely related towith others in the situation, or all they the third, involves the degree of homo-trying to express their "selves" con- geneity among the participating people.jointly? Are they trying to court, please, They may exhibit a high degree ofsatisfy, tolerate, dissatisfy, or derogate homogeneity, they may be similar onone another? Are they trying to change some and different on other properties,or reinforce the power disparity or or they may differ so much as to consti-power structure of the situation? Are tute essentially different groups eventhey trying to increase, maintain, or though they participate in the samedecreasesocialor interpersonaldis- situation.23 tance? Is group maintenance or group Fifth, participantsina rhetorical sit-cohesiveness a relevant situational func- uation may vary widely in their degreetion? of awareness of their roles and in their Still other questions relate directly degree of involvement in the situation.to three kinds of attitude influence. Sixth, those who people a rhetoricalFirst, a person may present a message situation engage in a range of relation-with a designative functionto present ships to that situation. One, some, many, or all of the participants may regardinformation, describe, define, amplify, clarify, make ambiguous, obfuscate, re- themselves or be regarded by others as view, or synthesize ideas. Second, some- depersonalizedstimulusobjects;asone may present a message with an members or agents of a culture, insti-evaluative functionto praise, make tution, or group; as performing a role; commentary, hedge, criticize, or blame as projecting an image; asmanifesting some person,object,situation, judg- with a set of properties; or as selves ment, or policy. Third, someone may radical choices to make or commitmentspresent a message with an advocative to uphold. Functions. The functions of a rhe-functionto solve a problem, create indecision, reinforce a present choice, torical situation may be viewed from afoster delay, choose a change alterna- general perspective or along interper- tive, resolve a conflict, propose a com- sonal and attitudinal dimensions. promise, or stimulate action. 23 The effect of a group's homogeneity and The functions of rhetorical situations receptivity on the integration and polarization of an audicncc is admirably discussed in Charlesappear far more complex than implied H. Woolbert's pioneer monograph "The Audi-by the traditional categories of inform, ence," Psychological Monographs, XXI, No. 92 (June 1916), 37-54. entertain, and persuade.

, - 4N-r4000

10 THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH Method. Any situational function isin-the-largeisto be is an important manifested instrumentally through aissue. Should the form become clearly number of message variables. Theseevident in the discourse, or should it constitutethe methodological dimen-fulfillits function unobtrusively and sion of the rhetorical act. Method isnot call any special attention to itself? less often than other dimensionsthe The form variable may also be viewed ultimate function of the act; typicallymicroscopically. This level of analysis it plays the instrumental role offacili-includes a consideration of the logical tating whatever dimension isprimary.connection between the material pre- Method includes the materials pre-sented and the ideas advancedwhich sented, the form in which they arecallsfor the student of rhetoric to structured, and the style in which ma-understand the logic of rhetorical in- terials and form are conlmunicated. teraction and the modes of reasoning Three questions about the materialappropriate to such interaction.25It to be presented seemimportant. Howindudes a recognition of the structure much data should be presented?Whatwhich joins the ideas advanced into a kinds of data should beemployed?pattern which amplifies or supports the From what sources shouldthey be de-central ideawhich calls for an under- rived? These questions, of course,havestanding of the patterns of expository nosimpleanswersuniversallyap-and argumentative discourse, the anal- plicable. ysis of a controversy intoitsissues, The form #ariable may be analyzedinand the methods of problem-solving two ways. A distinction canbe nudeand negotiation.26 betweenasortofform-in-the-large Specific formal structures may be rec- which permeates the rhetoricalmethodognizable immediately to others in the and a more microscopic set of structuresact and utilized in predictable ways, which develop. The rhetorical act mayor they may be new and lessobvious. be transacted through some conven-Furthermore, the two levels of form in tional medium like an essay, aplay, ora discourse, the macroscopic andthe a speech. Arhetorician may fulfill ex-microscopic, may function harmoniously pectations by using identifiableformstoward the same end or constitute in- in typical ways, or he may create newcongruity. Form, whether large or small, forms or employ old forms in new ways.may be designed to facilitateinforma- Whether forms are appropriately new ortion transfer or to disrupt it; to create old and whether theirdevelopment isa relatively narrow range ofmeanings appropriately conventional or eccentric, experience 25 If one accepts the central idea of this essay of course, depends on the that rhetoric is a system of interrelated dimen- and expectations of the otherpeoplesions, he must conclude that a rhetorical logic method maymust accommodate the function of dimensions in the rhetorical act. The other than the one concerned with formal rela- rgpresentastraightforwardmanage-tionships among propositions. Irrelevant to rhe- ment of materials todevelop a centraltorical analysis is any logical system which as- sumes that man is only rational and that men idea directly, or reflect anindirect or-do not vary, that ideas can be divorced from deringfor example, through the use their affective content and from their ideological contexts, and that the only situation is that of of irony." How prominentthe form-the logician talking to the logician. 20 Rhetoricians have tended totreat these 24 For en excellent analysis of rhetoricalirony,various organizational patterns, like logic, as in . see Allan B. Karstetter,"Toward a Theory ofvariant structures, without due regard for the Rhetorical Irony,"Speech Monographs,motttotality of the rhetorical situationits people, (June 44), 162-178. its functions, and its contexts. 0 DIMENSIONS OF THE CONCEPT OFRHETORIC it and attitudinal responses or tomaxi-situational dimensions. Thesubstance mize ambiguity; to present anoptimalof a rhetorical act is rarelylocated in amount of materialefficiently or to aimthe situation: it morecharacteristically and atti- at redundancy; toachieve identificationfocuses on the interpersonal of the situa- or alienation; toreinforce meanings andtudinal categories. Aspects attitudes or to change them;and totion, including context,although not increase or decrease the intensityoffundamental or ultimate, however, can feelings toward the ideas. alter decisively the other categoriesand the act. Style,likeform, may be viewedhence change the substance of macroscopically or microscopically.Rhe- In addition, time functionsin another torical style may be looked atfrom theway. Each rhetorical acthas some larger point of view of broad symbolic strategy,setting and fits into one or more on- a style-in-the-large.I take this concerngoing processes.29 For example; anovel to be behind muchof the writing ofmay be a partof a movement or of Kenneth Burke.27 Or it maybe analyzedseveral movements, a representationof by looking at smaller unitsof analysisan ideology orseveralideologies,a at the level ofthe phoneme, word,moment in the careerof the writer, a sentence,or paragraph.Perhaps thespecimen of some formal or stylistic writing of modern linguists mayprovidetendency, a phase in some long-term better ways of analyzing stylemicro-interpersonal relationship with a set scopically than rhetoricianshave fol-of readers, et cetera. Severalquestions lowed traditionally.29 may suggest someof the ways a rhe- Many of the questionsraised abouttorical act may relate toits contexts. form appear to applyalso tostyle,Does an act occur relativelyearly or Whether looked at large orsmall, style,relatively late in one or moreprocesses? too, provokessuch issues as efficiencyTo what extent is the act congruous the act of informationtransfer, clarity vs. am-with its larger framework? Does biguity, conciseness vs.redundancy, con-play one role in one contextand a fidence vs. uncertainty,and identifica-different, and perhaps conflicting,role tion vs. alienation.The issues can bein another? resolved only by studyingthe particular interaction of the otherdimensions in 4 each unique rhetorical act. Important to the studentof rhetoric Contexts. The contextsof time andis the question ofpoints of view. A place may alter invarious ways howrhetorical act will be perceivedquite other dimensions functionin the act.differently by each personwho partici- . In this regard contextistypical ofpates in it, andstill differently by each person whoobserves and criticizesit 27 Burke, for example, says(p.567)thatfrom "the outside." Here, aselsewhere, rhetoric "is rooted in anessential function of language itself,...the use of language as a"meanings are in people," notin dis- symbolic means of inducingcooperation in of rhetoric must try beings that by nature respond tosymbols." Forcourses. Students Burke, rhetorical analysisis an attempt toto determinehow the various partici- unearth the essential linguisticstrategies of the rhetorical agent. which display a con- 29 In "A LinguisticAnalysis of Oral and 29 Two recent books (December, 1962), textualorientationto rhetoricare Wallace Written Style," WS, XLVIII Fotheringham, Perspectives onPersuasion (Bos- 419-422, JaneBlankenship applied the system of Ellingsworth and analysis which Charles C. Friesdescribed in histon,1966) and Huber W. English (New York,Theodore Clevenger,Jr.,Speech and Social book The Structure of Action (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967). 1952). 12 THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH pants and observers have perceived the The practitioner may use such an dimensions of the act and to discoverinterrelational analysis before, during, the extent to which such perceptionsand after a transaction as a guide to the differ. The points of view of the rele-decisions he must make to give himself vant people become part of an impor-the best chance of interacting with tant dimension of the. act. others as he wishes. The consideration of point of view The critic may profitably identify the may have differentimplicationsforsingle most compelling dimension of a theorists, as compared with participantsrhetorical act under consideration and and critics. The theorist tends to bethen investigate how that dimension interested in generalizations at the high-interrelates with others which appear est level of abstraction he can achieve, whereas participants and critics tend toto be relevant. For example, a critic be interested in making decisions orstudying Nikita Khrushchev's interac- judgments about one very particulartion with the American public during and unique act. his 1959 visit to this country might Perhaps the most important singlefocus primaryattention on Khrush- characteristic of rhetoric is that it is achev's reduction of interpersonal dis- matrix of complex and interrelatedtance between himself and his hosts variables of the kind discussed in thisinorderto see howhis dis- paper. The theorist cannot meaning-tance-reducing rhetoric related to new fully pluck from the system any singleAmerican images of Khrushchev person- variable and hope to understanditally along liking and power dimensions; apart from the others. How can oneto his attempts to make attitudes and understand style, for example, withoutideologies consubstantial; and tohis knowing how it interrelates with poweruse of various rhetorical situations for structure, with distance, with attitudesthese functions. If a critic accepts the and ideologies, with the demands offundamental premise that each rhetori- format and contextin short,withcal act or process is unique, that dimen- every other dimension of the act? Grosssions interrelate in a way to create a generalizations about stylistic character-unity never achieved in the past or in istics which ignore the assumption thatthe future, then he commits himself style functions very differently whento a search for a new way to select, placed in different combinations withstructure, and weigh dimensions for the other variables simply will not do. each new act he criticizes. Unfortunatelyfortheprognosisof theoreticaladvances inrhetoric,the My hope is that the dimensions de- combinations and permutations of thescribed in this essay may provide a alternatives afforded by the various di-framework for theoretical development, mensions are so many as to approachpractical decision-making, and critical infinity. But methods will have to beanalysis. developed to pursue the sort of interre- lational kind of analysis which an ade- twentieth-century victory over problems of dis- organized complexity. Science must, over the quate theory of rhetoric requires.30 next fifty years, learn to deal with these problems of organized complexity." See "Science and 30 Warren Weaver has argued that scienceComplexity," in The Scientist Speaks, ed. War- must "make a third great advance which mustren Weaver (New York, 1945), p. 7.Implicit be even greater than the nineteenthcenturyin my essay is the belief that rhetoric represents conquest of problems of simplicity orthea problem of "organized complexity."