I found the social
functions of rhetoric to be extremely interesting. I also think that in some
ways they may be a little controversial, specifically the functions of testing
ideas and shaping knowledge. Before I get to those, I would like to cover the
other functions.
If a speaker meets
his obligation to his audience by researching his topic and presenting facts,
then the sharing of that information is beneficial. However, that doesn’t
always happen. This is where the persuading of others comes in. The old adage
“Never let the facts get in the way of a good story” can apply here. Effective
speakers can convince audiences of falsehoods as well as truths. This
possibility puts a little bit of an onus back onto the audience to check the
validity of a speaker’s arguments.
At this point I come
to testing ideas and shaping knowledge. While good speakers will generally reject
ideas that are illogical or can’t be supported with facts, some speakers will
shape the facts to support ideas. This is where the audience must step in and
demand well-reasoned and well supported arguments. The double edged sword that
is the shaping of knowledge is where one must tread lightly. Truth cannot be
dependent on anything. Consensus cannot be used to determine facts. While
rhetoric can be used to disseminate facts, it cannot be used to produce them,
in any sense.
Thus I enter the
dangerous areas of community building and power distribution. A community that
is built on a foundation of strong facts, that support their system of beliefs,
will have real power in it citizenry to be distributed. Conversely, a community
whose ideas and beliefs are built on poorly reasoned ideas based on half-truths
and lies will eventually fall apart.
It's sad that bending the truth has become a component of the spread of information. Whether hyperbole, statements out-of-context, or even a flat-out lie, it's what we're faced with when we look at information being presented. It has come down to not the speaker doing their research any longer, but instead the listener doing the research. If they are unable to give us straight facts, then we are basically obligated to see what is and isn't true.
ReplyDeleteThe intelligent person knows they must determine 'truth' for themselves even when presented with compelling rhetoric. I believe the issue is really not lack of knowledge by of the need for verification but even more so where to find unbiased facts.
ReplyDeleteFor the one's who wants the honest truth, there must be awareness of the sources these facts are gathered from. There also must be an understanding of the basis used for interpreting these so called 'truths'. There are many different angles of facts that are presented to audiences and used as an advantage by the speaker. It takes a decent amount of discernment to see past all of these things.