RHETORIC AS REALITY CONSTRUCTION CHARLES WILLIAM KNEUPPER A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 1973 /Approved by Doctoral Committae: //¿T Department of Speech Graduate School Representative BOWM nSEEH sum UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Iq © 1974 CHARLES WILLIAM KNEUPPER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED )b ABSTRACT This study developes a ’’new1’ philosophy of rhetoric. It is premised on an examination of classical rhetorical theory and contemporary rhetorical theory. It is based on a dynamic view of language function. Ultimately it rests on the symbol creating and symbol using capacities of the human mind. This study surveys the history of the classical rhetorical tradition and the direction of contemporary rhetorical theory. It investigates the relationship between language and thought, perception, and action. It views rhetoric as the process through which reality constructs are formed and shared. Social reality is a product of this rhetorical process. Social reality is a human creation. Rhetoric is the process through which it is created, maintained or transformed. •o When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies. Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams, this may be madness. To seek treasure, where there is only trash, this may be madness. Too imuch sanity may be madness. But maddest of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be. THE MAN OF LA MANCHA DEDICATED TO: Marvin Troy Hunn Sally Miller Gearhart Janis Lynn Hilbert Carl William Jeske Gary and Juanita Eckles <1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... iii CHAPTER I: THE DEVELOPMENT AND DECLINE OF THE CLASSICAL RHETORICAL TRADITION ................. 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 2 CLASSICAL RHETORIC'S RISE TO PREEMINENCE ...................... 3 THE MIDDLE AGES: DIFFUSION AND DECLINE ........................ 5 RENAISSANCE: THE DISMEMBERMENT OF RHETORIC ............... 7 THE REVIVAL OF RHETORIC ............................................................... 9 RHETORIC'S REVIVAL UNDER THE FIELD OF SPEECH ............ 10 INADEQUACY OF THE CLASSICAL TRADITION.................................. 14 A NEW BEGINNING.................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER II: DIRECTION IN CONTEMPORARY RHETORIC ... 23 I. A. RICHARDS .................................................................................... 24 RICHARD M. WEAVER.............................................................................. 26 KENNETH BURKE ................................................ 29 CURRENT SCHOLARSHIP ........................................................................ 32 TRENDS IN CONTEMPORARYR HETORIC .............................................. 33 CHAPTER III: LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT .................................... 39 WHORFIAN HYPOTHESES ........................................................................ 40 EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR LINGUISTIC DOMINANCE ................. 47 RELATED PERCEPTION RESEARCH ..................................................... 49 IMPLICATIONS OF LINGUISTIC RELATIVITYAAND LINGUISTIC DOMINANCE FOR RHETORIC............................... 52 LANGUAGE AND RHETORICAL THOUGHT ............................................ 54 LANGUAGE AND ACTION........................................................................ 55 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 56 11 CHAPTER IV: SOCIAL REALITY CONSTRUCTION ........................ 59 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 60 REALITY....................................................................................................... 60 KNOWLEDGE AS HUMAN CONSTRUCTION.............................................. 62 HUMAN ACTION AND REALITY CONSTRUCTS .................................... 65 SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED REALITY..................................................... 69 THE REFLEXIVITY OF SOCIAL REALITY......................................... 72 UNIVERSES OF DISCOURSE ................................................................... 78 ALTERNATIVE REALITY CONSTRUCTIONS ......................................... 81 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CLASSIFICATION....................................... 84 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 85 CHAPTER V: REALITY MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION.......................................................... 91 INTRODUCTION............ .............................................................................. 92 UNIVERSES OF DISCOURSE: FURTHER EXPLICATION............... 93 REALITY MAINTENANCE ............................................. 99 REALITY RECONSTRUCTION.................................................................... 103 RHETORICAL VISION............................ 109 SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 110 APPENDIX............................................................................... ..................... 114 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ........................................... 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY 116 ill INTRODUCTION The purpose of this dissertation is to provide an initial development of a "new” philosophy of rhetoric. This philosophy which views rhetoric as reality construction is implied by some contemporary rhetorical theory, but is unrecognized in classical rhetorical theory. The philosophy is based on a consideration of the symbol creating and symbol using capacities of the human mind. It views language as the dominant social symbolism which channels thought and directs action. Social reality is a product of human symbolic interaction. Social reality is possible only insofar as symbols are shared betwean people and utilized to direct thought and action. Through rhetoric, symbols are created and communicated. Through rhetoric, social reality is created, maintained and transformed. The philosophy being developed is "new” to rhetorical theory. However, the insights of this philosophy are not without a strong intellectual tradition. Throughout the dissertation I will draw upon this tradition which includes scholarship in contemporary rhetorical theory, critical philosophy, philosophy of language, phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, general semantics, the sociology of knowledge, and socio- and psycholinguistics. CHAPTER I: THE DEVELOPMENT AND DECLINE OF THE CLASSICAL RHETORICAL TRADITION 2 INTRODUCTION: Rhetoric is an ancient and venerable art. In Western Civilization its earliest theoretical formulation is attributed to Corax and Tisias, Sicilian Greeks of the fifth century B.C. Yet the practice of Rhetoric is primordial "since it belongs to speech and must have been practiced, o to some extent . wherever language existed." The critical formula­ tion of the Art was based on the observation of its practice. Referring to critical formulation, Professor of Classics, George Kennedy indicates that "in its origin and intention rhetoric was natural and good: it produced clarity, vigor, and beauty, and it rose logically from the 3 conditions and qualities of the classical mind." The reliance of ancient civilization on oral communication in a political system which "operated through the direct speech of the citizens" produced an inter­ est in Rhetoric.^ Because Rhetoric was significant to both the individual and society, it is not surprising that it received serious consideration and criticism from Plato, defense from Aristotle, and expansion from Cicero and Quintilian, to mention only major theorists. Because of the relevance of rhetoric to the individual citizen in the conduct of his political activities, it follows that rhetoric would play "the central role in ancient education.Edward P. J. Corbett,who traces the history of classical rhetoric from the fifth century, indicates that "during most of that time, rhetoric was a prominent, and for long stretches the dominant, discipline in the schools.From it’s status in ancient education it seems reasonable to conclude that rhetoric was 3 generally valued as a useful and productive art. Today, rhetoric (at least as a term) is not generally valued. John H. Mackin suggests that: Nowadays rhetoric is a bad word. If you want to put someone’s writing down, just call it rhe­ torical. If you want to deflate an opponent and reduce him to sputtering rage, dismiss his argu­ ments as mere rhetoric. The term today more often than not means fancy language concealing emptiness.? The devaluation and consequent decline of rhetoric is an intriguing phenomena. One which should immediately prompt the question: Why? While a definitive analysis of this phenomena is beyond the scope and purpose of this work, I would suggest that the phenomena may be plausibly explained as a function of historical accident and flaws within the classical rhetorical tradition. In this chapter I shall survey the development and decline of the classical rhetorical tradi­ tion and present a partial analysis of the theoretical basis of its decline. CLASSICAL RHETORIC'S RISE TO PREEMINENCE Before considering the decline of rhetoric, let us briefly con­ sider the development of the classical rhetorical tradition. George Kennedy suggests that despite slight deviations, "the history of ancient rhetoric is largely that of the