Creating the Ideal Citizen: Rhetorical Education and the Public Sphere Brett Lunceford, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Communication Department of Communication University of South Alabama 1000 University Commons Mobile, AL 36688, USA Office: 1.251.380.2822 Department: 1.251.380.2800 Department Fax: 1.251.380.2850 Email: [email protected] Paper presented at the 2009 Jack Miller Forum for Civics Education. An informed, active citizenry has been a vital component of a democratic society since the days of Plato and Aristotle.1 Yet it is not enough to be informed of current events or to act in response to those events; citizens must have the rhetorical skills to decipher these events and effectively articulate their judgments to others. This essay argues for a reclamation of rhetoric as an essential component of civic education and preparation for citizenship. In current usage, rhetoric is often used to denote empty speech; in reality rhetoric is anything but empty. People use rhetoric to make sense of the world symbolically; through rhetoric, people define themselves and their relationships to others, cast blame or praise on individuals and groups, ascribe motives for actions, and interpret events. Empirically observable phenomena are the province of the sciences, but phenomena that are perceptible only through our symbolic representation of them—such as nation states, political identity, and religious ideologies—are firmly in the domain of rhetoric. Rhetoric is a discipline whose star has waxed and waned through history. In the full essay, I provide a thumbnail sketch of this, beginning with the Greeks and Romans, and through the Middle Ages, but in the interest of time, I will focus mainly on where we are today and where I think we should be going. Today, rhetoric remains the forgotten liberal art, even in schools professing to offer a liberal arts education. Generally housed in speech communication departments or combined with composition in English departments, the teaching of rhetoric is often relegated to whatever is taught in public speaking courses. This seems a pale shadow of what rhetorical education could (and should) be. Of course there are courses in rhetorical theory and criticism where students are taught the many nuances of the rhetorical tradition, but these are generally upper division courses designed for specialists. Students enter these courses with little expectation of what they will learn; rhetoric has become a dark art, and the study of ancient rhetoricians is often viewed as rightly relegated to the dustbin of history. Rhetoric is the study of how humans function in a symbolic world and the world is becoming increasingly mediated and thus more infused with symbols. Even our entertainment is a complex web of product placements, fashion advice, and reinforcement of social norms and values. Barry Brummett states that the goal of rhetorical theory is “to teach people how to experience their rhetorical environments more richly.”2 I propose that the goal of rhetorical theory at this point should simply be to help people understand their rhetorical environments more completely. We are in danger of having an entire generation that is culturally literate, yet lacking in the ability to decode the underlying message of the rhetorical artifacts that surround us all. Thomas Benson explains, “Rhetoric critics inquire into meaning, not simply in an artifact but also in the pragmatics of that artifact: that is, in how a human being can, or did, or should use that artifact.”3 Stephen Lucas puts it another way: “The benefit of close textual analysis is that it allows the critic, in essence, to ‘slow down’ the action within the text so as to keep its evolving internal context in sharp focus and to allow more precise explication of its rhetorical artistry.”4 In a world that seems to move at light speed, such skills would serve citizens well. I propose that there are four aspects of citizenship that rhetorical education can help develop: the ability to understand information; the ability to understand how people are moved to action; the ability to balance private wants with the public good; willingness to participate. It seems that educators are able to teach the first and second facets and are able to instill a sense of ethics and understanding that will help with the third and fourth facets. As the public sphere becomes increasingly multicultural and transnational, citizens must develop rhetorical sensitivity concerning the messages that surround us and become skilled in the art of persuading others and effectively communicating their ideas. Civic education, then, must provide a greater understanding of how people are moved—mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Yet it is not enough to simply teach the methods of the propagandist. We as educators must also instill in citizens a sense of ethics. In the information age, knowledge is becoming de-centered and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find anything resembling doxa, or the shared ideals and beliefs of a people. As educators, we should help students develop the critical thinking skills required to determine what course of action would be most beneficial for society as a whole. This requires that we as educators help students to develop an ethical framework within which to make decisions of public concern. Few issues requiring public deliberation are simple black and white choices. Rather, there are often shades of grey that become obscured in the way we discuss the issue. As students develop greater knowledge of how we use language to shape our perceptions of issues, they will be better prepared to ask questions that will reveal these shades of grey. By discouraging either/or thinking and encouraging critical evaluation of issues, it is more likely that multiple perspectives will be addressed. Yet all of this education is of little value if citizens do not exercise their right to participate in the public sphere. Active participation is essential because, as Stephen Frantzich explains, Democratic governments are based on the principle of responsiveness to the needs and desires of those who make their needs and desires known. Just as democracy is not a spectator sport, it is also clear that one is unlikely to win if one does not play.”5 As citizens develop rhetorical skills and exercise these skills in the public sphere, they will be better able to affect change in their communities, their nations, and the world. I have argued that rhetoric is a fundamental element of civic knowledge. So where do we go from here? I think that the Romans were on to something when they enshrined rhetoric, grammar, and logic as the core elements of education in the trivium. These skills are foundational to citizenship. Without the ability to think logically and speak correctly and persuasively, one will have little power in the public sphere. However, in today’s increasingly fractured university systems, we tend to focus on creating specialists, sometimes at the expense of shaping well-rounded individuals. Yet, the skills of rhetoric are transferable to all disciplines. For example, Nalini Ambady and her colleagues found in their study of malpractice claims that “both for general and orthopedic surgeons, those who were judged to be more dominant were more likely to have been sued than those who sounded less dominant. Voice tone alone, judged from mere 40-second slices of speech, can distinguish between claims and no-claims surgeons.”6 Such studies suggest that even professions deemed outside of the humanities can benefit from more rhetorical education. One possible way to accomplish this rhetorical education is to encourage universities to require rhetorical theory in the liberal arts curriculum. However, this is unlikely to happen, as professors and university administrators tend to resist change. Yet what I propose may be a bit more radical and far reaching. Much as universities have implemented writing across the curriculum initiatives; I suggest that rhetoric across the curriculum is equally important. After all, rhetoric is the discipline without a discipline, having no subject matter of its own. It is apparent how one could easily integrate rhetorical theory into political science, sociology, English, and cultural studies, but as the example previously mentioned demonstrates, one could just as well integrate rhetoric with the sciences. These are the practical applications which are so important to the current generation of students who are concerned mainly with how a given course will assist them in their jobs. However, the real underlying aim of such a program would be to create a citizenry that has possesses the rhetorical sophistication that will allow them to function effectively in a culture of slogans, sound bytes, and ideographs. Language can conceal and reveal, and in the service of slogans and ideographs, it often seems to conceal. We need a citizenry that is able to ask appropriate questions of those who make our laws and allocate our resources, but this requires that citizens possess the rhetorical sensitivity to see past the black and white framing that is often favored by our elected officials and recognize that there are often many shades of grey. President George W. Bush, for example, often painted issues in terms of “you’re either with us or you’re against us.” One is either a supporter of the troops or a supporter of terrorism. In argumentation, such arguments fall into the classification of false dichotomy. Yet they seem so powerful in the moment, perhaps because we tend to seek our own self interest when confronted with a choice. A free society requires a citizenry that can critically evaluate such absurd arguments as “opposition to the war effort is un-American,” and other arguments that deny nuances. Free society requires a citizenry that is able and willing to devote mental energy to the pressing concerns of the day.