Week 1: Herrick

As a whole field, rhetoric is confusing. Maybe confusing isn't the right word, but convoluted might be. Also, the definition is always changing, and no matter what one person says about rhetoric, someone tries to persuade you from that definition. It's a sort of irony, because people are being persuaded on what persuasion means!

Anyways, the part I found the most interesting was when Herrick stated that "Just a few years ago Booth wrote that he believed rhetoric held 'entire dominion over all verbal pursuits. Logic, dialectic, grammar, philosophy, history, poetry, all are rhetoric.'" (Page 2). I think this is interesting because it shows that rhetoric (even if we can't agree on a set definition) is all around us. Even Herrick, or Booth, is using rhetoric in that quotation. One facet, history, is a good example of rhetoric. Rhetors often use history as a means of persuasion. For example, people will point to Vietnam to talk about the War on Terrorism we are fighting today. This is a (whether good or bad) way of using history to try to shape an idea (the War on Terrorism). Here, we even see that grammar is used as rhetoric as well. Because the term "War on Terrorism" is a form of rhetoric. There is a different connotation when the phrase "War on Terrorism" is used compared to "War in Iraq." "...on Terrorism," makes it seem like it is patriotic, and the war is something we should support. It's subtle, but shouldn't be overlooked.

One other thing that Herrick made me realize is that a lot of things may be considered rhetoric, but there needs to be a distinction between good and bad rhetoric. For example, Herrick says that rhetoric is "(1) planned, (2) adapted to an audience, (3) shaped by human motives, (4) responsive to a situation, (5) persuasion-seeking, and (6) concerned with contingent issues" (Page 8). Although there can be debate on these (and there certainly was), I think that most of them can be resolved by saying that "good" rhetoric follows these guidelines. If someone puts on the first jacket they see and it is unplanned rhetoric, I would argue that since it wasn't planned, it wasn't "good." Also, if rhetoric doesn't take into account the audience, the situation, or contingent issues, it seems like the rhetor isn't doing a good job of conveying their point. If they are speaking to teenagers like college students and not connecting, it surely can't be considered "good" rhetoric. Likewise, if rhetors don't take into account cultural situations, they could offend and disconnect with certain members. I would argue that this is "bad" rhetoric.

Again, I'd like to reemphasize that Herrick did a good job of clouding my definition of rhetoric. But, I think it was thought-provoking. I have come to realize that there needs to be a distinction between "good" and "bad" rhetoric. Likewise, I think that Herrick demonstrated that rhetoric is everywhere and ever-changing.