For all human beings, the reality we experience on a daily basis is the product of our language. Language allows people in every culture to categorize and conceptualize reality, define it in rational terms, and ultimately, to help create it. More importantly, it enables people to communicate with each other about this physical realm we all share. Reality itself can be describd as a function of language; reality is an analog of language. Words and symbols represent reality. As Gerard Hauser writes in Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, “The hallmark of human intelligence is our ability to use symbols to create and share meanings.”

John D. Ramage employs a fictional persona (the “supercilious twit”) in his book Rhetoric: A User’s Guide to illustrate just how essential rhetoric is to our daily lives. Writing satirically as the ‘Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperson’ (A-RS), Ramage makes use of extreme irony to summarize the four major (genuine) objections to rhetoric as a legitimate field of study.

The greatest fallacy of the A-RS’s case is that his entire argument is rhetorical. He would not be able to argue against rhetoric without the use of rhetoric. Pretending to be anti-rhetoric is ultimately another rhetorical strategy.

As the A-RS points out, the act of vilifying an opponent’s effective use of language by characterizing it as rhetoric, oratory or puffery has been going on for over 2,000 years. This assertion implies that eloquent language is inherently meaningless, or even deceitful. Rhetoric is what your opponent uses against you. On the other hand, you are just speaking the plain truth and calling it as you see it…

The ‘rhetoric of anti-rhetoric’ refers to many of our public figures, especially in politics and the media, who consciously try to distance themselves from the negative uses of dishonest rhetoric while presenting themselves as intrepid truth-tellers. They use topos in their arguments to align themselves squarely with the public interest. In this way, good rhetoricians demonstrate that they are aware of the enormous power of symbolic language as a vehicle for deliberation, refutation, and unfortunately – for mass manipulation as well. Just ask Rush Limbaugh.

I will focus primarily on objection number two: “rhetoric panders to the masses.” The A-RS concludes that, “rhetoricians win over audiences by embracing their most fallacious beliefs and most irrational fears…” According to the ‘twit,’ rhetoricians are under absolutely no obligation to discover any ultimate truths. The sole motivation of a successful rhetor is to simply win over the masses by any means necessary.

The argument that rhetoric influences people cannot be refuted outright. Rhetoric is fundamentally designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. The term ‘lowest common denominator’ comes to mind; but use of the word ‘pander’ here is deliberately ironic and problematic. While this claim may in some respects be valid, the negative connotation exposes an openly elitist posture regarding the quest for knowledge and the ultimate Truths which we are all entitled to seek. The argument that rhetoric should not be considered a ‘serious’ science simply because it is available for anyone to use – not just a privileged few – is arrogant and discriminatory. It also denies the majority’s right to access the same knowledge-base which otherwise would not be available to the uninitiated.

A further rebuttal to this fictional argument is that no branch of science is obligated to teach The Truth. None of the ‘real’ sciences impart any absolute Truths, either – just theories and conjecture. Indeed, science itself could reasonably be considered a pseudo-religion. Modern science is quite rigid and subjective in many ways, and certainly most unclassified scientific research is dependent upon external economic pressures – as opposed to research purely for the sake of knowledge – such as the need for continued funding. Furthermore, scholarly research and other, more ‘pure’ methods can still be used to distort the truth, or even lie.

Rhetoric is rarely taught in schools today, and this situation has greatly contributed to the general public’s inability to think critically. These conditions are highly advantageous to the elite. As noted author, blogger, and climate advocate Joseph Romm points out in his book, Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln and Lady Gaga, “We are bombarded daily by rhetoric…from those who wish to persuade us or manipulate us.” He argues that we cannot adequately defend ourselves against this constant manipulation if we are unable to recognize it.

Rhetoric will continue to have a profound effect on society, yet most of us choose to remain indifferent to the extent that our reality is being created for us rather than by us. We have been ‘branded’ from birth and trained to be good consumers until we die, but rarely do we ever question the nature of our existence. Sadly, in our culture, thinking too much about anything is seriously discouraged.

And finally: what’s wrong with trying to persuade the masses, anyway? Sure, rhetoric can be used for evil, but so can everything else. Rhetoric aspires to achieve more noble goals. It seeks to change society for the better by helping us discover fundamental truths about ourselves and about the world we live in. Rhetoric removes disagreement from the arena of violence and transforms it into a discussion – a necessary requirement for any democratic society. The choice is ours: do we solve our problems with a bullet, or by engaging in rational discourse?