Rhetorical criticism analyzes the symbolic artifacts of discourse—the words, phrases, images, gestures, performances, texts, films, etc. that people use to communicate. Rhetorical analysis shows how the artifacts work, how well they work, and how the artifacts, as discourse, inform and instruct, entertain and arouse, and convince and persuade the audience; as such, discourse includes the possibility of morally improving the reader, the viewer, and the listener. Rhetorical criticism studies and analyzes the purpose of the words, sights, and sounds that are the symbolic artifacts used for communications among people.[1]
Foss's work provides the foundational introduction to various theories of rhetorical criticism in a practical and useable manner that could be used by both those new to the field and those needing a refresher course. Foss might know some rhetorical criticism, but she doesn't know how to edit. She used student essays as examples. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice by Sonja K. Foss 'Rhetorical criticism is the investigation and evaluation of rhetorical acts and artifacts for the purpose of understanding rhetorical processes' (5.
The arts of Rhetorical criticism are an intellectual practice that dates from the time of Plato, in Classical Greece (5th–4th c. BC). Moreover, in the dialogue Phaedrus (c. 370 BC), the philosopher Socrates analyzes a speech by Lysias (230e–235e) the logographer (speech writer) to determine whether or not it is praiseworthy.
Criticism is an art, not a science. It is not a scientific method; it uses subjective methods of argument; it exists on its own, not in conjunction with other methods of generating knowledge (i.e., social scientific or scientific).
![Rhetorical Criticism Foss Rhetorical Criticism Foss](/uploads/1/0/7/2/107206099/232277426.jpg)
The academic purpose of Rhetorical criticism is greater understanding and appreciation in human relations:
By improving understanding and appreciation, the critic can offer new, and potentially exciting, ways for others to see the world. Through understanding we also produce knowledge about human communication; in theory, this should help us to better govern our interactions with others.[3]
Rhetorical analysis[edit]
What is called 'rhetorical criticism' in the Speech Communication discipline is often called 'rhetorical analysis' in English. Through this analytical process, an analyst defines, classifies, analyzes, interprets and evaluates a rhetorical artifact. Through this process a critic explores, by means of various approaches, the manifest and latent meaning of a piece of rhetoric thereby offering further insight into the field of rhetorical studies generally and into an artifact or rhetor specifically. Such an analysis, for example may reveal the particular motivations or ideologies of a rhetor, how he or she interprets the aspects of a rhetorical situation, or how cultural ideologies are manifested in an artifact. It could also demonstrate how the constraints of a particular situation shape the rhetoric that responds to it. Certain approaches also examine how rhetorical elements compare with the traditional elements of a narrative or drama.[4]
Foss Rhetorical Criticism Pdf
Definition[edit]
Generally speaking, the average audience member lacks the knowledge or experience to recognize rhetoric at first glance. Therefore, one of the more important functions of rhetorical studies is to determine whether an artifact is inherently rhetorical. This involves the identification of the exigence, rhetor's constraints, audience, and the artifact's persuasive potential.
Classification[edit]
Criticism also classifies rhetorical discourses into generic categories either by explicit argumentation or as an implicit part of the critical process.[4] For example, the evaluative standard that the rhetorician utilizes will undoubtedly be gleaned from other works of rhetoric and, thus, impose a certain category. The same can be said about the examples and experts quoted within the work of criticism.
Classical genres of rhetoric include apologia, epideictic, or jeremiad but have been expanded to encompass numerous other categories.
Analysis[edit]
Within the realm of rhetorical criticism, analysis involves examining structure and analyzing how the individual rhetorical and communicative elements work within the context of the artifact. Rhetorical criticism is an art that involves the rhetorician developing strong reasoning for their judgement.[5] The rhetorician must act as a rhetorical critic of their own work, they must examine the necessity of their research as well as the analysis. A rhetorician must also be able to defend the method of their analysis and the accuracy of their research.[1]
Interpretation[edit]
Closely related with analysis, interpretation widens the scope of the examination to include the historical and cultural context of the artifact. A rhetorician should, at this point, draw comparisons with other established works of rhetoric to determine how well the artifact fits into a particular category or if it redefines the constraints of that category as well as how the elements illuminate the motivation and perspectives of a rhetor. Rhetorical criticism can then be broken into judgment and understanding. Judgment is concerned with determining the effectiveness of the information and the strategies of presentation that leads to the success or failure of the artifact. The understanding is drawn from the acknowledgment and acceptance of what has been presented.[5]
Evaluation[edit]
The purposes of rhetorical criticism fall within three evaluative categories: academic, ethical, and political. Academic purposes seek to further the process of rhetorical study. Ethical purposes attempt to reveal implicit cultural values or unethical manipulations. Political purposes involve revealing hegemonic power structures in order to expose oppressive discourses or give voice to marginalized groups. Rhetorical criticism has gained more recognition and importance in the past forty years, especially in the academic field. This increase in interest has led to colleges and universities devoting more courses to the study of rhetorical matters such as rhetorical criticism.[6]
Approaches[edit]
[7][8]
- Neo-Aristotelian (This perspective is sometimes also known as The 'Traditional' Perspective)[9]
- Ideographic (or Ideological)
- Fantasy-Theme
- Feminist
- Generic
- Generative
Notable scholars[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ ab'Rhetorical Criticism'. WikiMedia. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
- ^Kuypers, Jim A. (2009). Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. p. 14. ISBN978-0-7391-2774-2.
- ^Kuypers, Jim A. Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action. p. 13.
- ^ abJasinski, James (2001). Sourcebook on rhetoric: key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc. ISBN0-7619-0504-9.
- ^ abKuypers, Jim (2009). Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action. Lexington Books. ISBN9780739127735.
- ^Hart, Roderick (2005). Modern Rhetorical Criticism. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
- ^Foss, Sonja K. (2004-01-01). Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Waveland Pr Inc. ISBN1-57766-318-7.
- ^K., Foss, Sonja. Rhetorical criticism : exploration and practice (Fifth ed.). Long Grove, Illinois. ISBN9781478634898. OCLC1002141333.
- ^Hill, Forbes I. (2005), 'The 'Traditional' Perspective', in Kuypers, Jim A. (ed.), The Art of Rhetorical Criticism, New York: Pearson, pp. 72–81
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhetorical_criticism&oldid=999168153'
“When new measures spring forth and the familiar, failed, traitorous, subservient, corrupt [people] and tyrants are rejected, then the opportunity for the cultivation of the pure soil will increase in its scope and the seeds of this plant will take root deep in the good land, primarily the lands of the Arabs, and the land of revelation and the messages, and the land of prophets. God says: “Like a goodly tree, whose root is firmly fixed, and its branches reach to the heavens. It brings forth its fruit at all times, by the leave of its Lord” [Koranic verse].
Then, everything will become possible on the road of goodness and happiness that is not defiled by the feet of the invaders or by their evil will or the corruption of the corrupt among those who have been corrupted and who spread corruption in the land of the Arabs…Good people and those who are distinguished by their faith and by their faithful, honorable stands of jihad will become the real leaders of the gathering of the faithful everywhere on earth…” (Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 57).
– Saddam Hussein, February 26 1991 speech regarding the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.
Rhetoric is the art of effective or pervasive speaking, according to The Oxford Dictionary. It is synonymous with communication. The way that we communicate is a subject of study in itself, as it is used in our every day lives. Rhetoric developed as a way of better communication, so that it can be more effective. Rhetorical criticism is studying this effectiveness.
There are different methods to rhetorical criticism, including neo-Aristotelian, cluster, ideological, generative, and more. The most commonly used is the neo-Aristotelian method, which will be used to evaluate Hussein’s speech. This method, “applies characteristics to the role of a source of communication to explain the nature and effects of a communicative act” (Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective, 20). In other words, rhetorical criticism evaluates the effectiveness and possible effectiveness of speech, words and literature.
Each piece of writing or speech is meant to be interpreted in a certain way. Upon defeat after the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq withdrew from Kuwait and Saddam Hussein made the earlier speech. His speech was meant to be interpreted by his people in a certain way. The effects of his speech are studied through rhetorical criticism.
Many can write a speech full of rhetoric and inspiration; others can write an effective speech. “When new measures spring forth and the familiar, failed, traitorous, subservient, corrupt [people] and tyrants are rejected, then the opportunity for the cultivation of the pure soil will increase…” The rhetoric here suggests that the world has been corrupted, presumably by the United States and alike nations, and that Iraq and the Muslim religion have an obligation and purpose to purify the world. Be aware, this speech is after the defeat and withdrawal from Kuwait. Hussein is responding to the defeat in a way that suggests they will have other opportunities to fulfill their obligations and this was like a lost battle. This was his purpose in this quote – but was it effective?
“Good people and those who are distinguished by their faith and by their faithful, honorable stands of jihad will become the real leaders…” For Muslims, this strikes a sense of pride and accomplishment with their decisions. This kind of rhetoric is similar to what many use in other cultures as well. Throughout his entire speech, much longer than the above quoted, Hussein makes similar statements.
![Rhetorical Criticism Foss Rhetorical Criticism Foss](/uploads/1/0/7/2/107206099/523549118.jpg)
To analyze the effectiveness of Hussein’s speech, a rhetorical critic would look at the invention, organization, style, and delivery. As for invention, his actions are commonly justified by the Koran which justifies his actions with Arab people – this personalizes his speech so it is relatable with the Arabs. Iraq has long considered Kuwait to be their land, adding more justification to his actions. So far, in regards to invention, Hussein has justified his actions with the Arabs and given them a common enemy: the western world. When reading his speech or listening to it as an Arab, it would feel personable and compassionate. Notice also that his speech does not exclusively appeal to Iraq but all of the Arab nations. (Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 53)
The above quote is organized to appeal to the Arabs and generate hatred for the western nations. A rhetorical critic would see this as an effective tool: Hussein’s goal is to gain support. By generating a common enemy with a common religion, many follow. He strategically organizes his entire speeches for a purpose; just as most do.
Foss Rhetorical Criticism 5th Edition
Hussein’s speech was written in classical Arabic – a language known to all Arab nations as it is both taught in schools and the language of the Koran. A Muslim reader or listener is able to understand Hussein and gain respect for him as a religious leader because he used this style in his speech. (Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective, 21; Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 54).
The delivery of Hussein’s speech was inspirational because he seemed passionate about the topic. A rhetorical critic listening to his speech would agree that to the Arabic people, it was satisfying and motivating. It would be similar to a leader or president giving an inspirational speech. To them, he was their leader and a well respected Muslim.
In her book, Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, Sondra K. Foss from the University of Colorado at Denver argues as a rhetorical critic that Hussein’s speech was effective in meeting its goal. “Although many Arab nations did not go to the aid of Iraq, Hussein was successful in obtaining some sympathy from Muslim nations as well as other nations around the world” (55). She argues that the invention, organization, style and delivery of his speech were strategic and successful. In other words, the speech was effective to the readers and listeners of Iraq and the Arab nations.
It would be inadequate to discuss rhetorical criticism without mentioning Herbert Wichelns and his speech, “The Literary Criticism of Oratory” (Readings in Rhetorical Criticism, 3-27). In his essay, Wichelns analyzes older ways of criticism and describes a new way using what is referred to now as rhetorical criticism and the neo-Aristotelian method. This brought new light to critiquing literature, speech, and their effectiveness.
Knowing the non-Aristotelian method of rhetorical criticism can help writers be more effective and help readers better understand literature and writing pieces. Andrew King, a Louisianna State University graduate, wrote in his article (referring to Wichelns’s essay) The State of Rhetorical Criticism, “In the decades after the appearance of that article, rhetorical criticism became a central pillar of writing and research…criticism also assumed a key role in the social sciences and the humanities” (365).
Rhetorical Criticism Sonja Foss
Works Cited & Further Reading
Brock, Bernard L., and Robert Lee Scott. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1980. Print. (Call #: PN4061.S37 1990)
Burgchardt, Carl R. Readings in Rhetorical Criticism. State College, PA: Strata, 2010. Print. (Call #: PN4061.R43 2000)
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2009. Print. (Call #: PN496.R49 2009)
King, Andrew. “Interdisciplinary Perspectives On Rhetorical Criticism: The State Of Rhetorical Criticism.” Rhetoric Review 25.4 (2006): 365-368. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
Murfin, Ross C., and Supryia M. Ray. The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Print.
Rhetorical Criticism Textbook Foss
Ott, Brian L., and Greg Dickinson. The Routledge Reader in Rhetorical Criticism. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print. (Call #: PN4096.R68 2013)