In this post I will compare and contrast the three modes of rhetorical thinking: narrative, dialectic and rhetoric. All three disciplines require us to reason in different ways. I will also briefly discuss symbols.

Narratives are stories, traditions, legends which transmit the accepted, agreed upon norms in any given society. A social narrative transfers, maintains and updates the moral values which play an integral role in every culture on planet earth.

Narratives are very important for framing the non-critical perceptions of the community. They do not involve abstract thinking generally. Narratives serve society by giving it fidelity and coherence; they are something that virtually everybody can agree upon and conform to.

The problem is that narratives don’t necessarily have to be based on reality. Good examples from our culture include the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

Indeed, the belief systems of all organized religions could arguably fall into this category as well…

The dialectic approach is not reality-based in any way. The dialectic mode uses abstract generalizations, not actual events. This technique examines and debates the logic of all cultural norms, assumptions and premises.  Dialectic provides the clash of conflicting ideas about the basic principles of life. Dialectic demands that we think critically about important issues.

Dialectic arguments bring us into the realm of scientific inquiry and theoretical thought. The dialectic approach is concerned with finding the ultimate truth to the extent it can be determined, taking an argument to its logical conclusion. It does not necessarily lead to action.

The ultimate goal of rhetoric is to induce and coordinate social action. Rhetoric is based on appeals which advise us about belief and conduct in a particular case. Rhetoric also invites us to interpret reality in terms of hypotheses and prudent conduct.

Rhetoric employs several different methods to make an effective case. The basis of rhetoric is the two-sided argument. Rhetorical arguments attempt to evolve moral, emotional and rational commitments based on real-world problems in a larger context by asking questions from both sides of every issue. Rhetoric is targeted at specific circumstances and is dependent upon public opinion. Rhetorical events are occurrences situated with larger contexts of heritage – in other words they rely on the standards currently agreed upon by the audience.

Much of rhetoric is based on the ad populum argument: an appeal to the widest possible audience. The point is simply to make the best case. The actual truth of the matter is secondary – if not totally irrelevant.

One of the primary goals of rhetoric is to encourage social action and positive change. The obvious downside of rhetoric is the power of propaganda to create and manipulate public opinion. Rhetoric gets a bad rap because of the inherent power of words to inspire the masses. It can be used for both good and bad, of course.

Virtually everyone who is able to communicate uses rhetoric in their everyday lives. Certainly, it is deployed most effectively in the domain of law and especially politics. Rhetoric can be used effectively by anybody who is well-versed in the art of persuasion, however – not just the experts – even if their arguments are totally fallacious or at worst, completely false. From Plato to the Bible, to Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and MLK on one side; Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Charles Manson, Jim Jones and GOP strategist Howard Luntz on the other – history has shown that rhetoric is an effective means of motivating people into action.

The use of symbols is an important aspect of propaganda as well. We cannot overstate the importance of symbols in our society. The hallmark of human intelligence is our ability to use symbols to create and share meanings. Symbols create powerful visual messages which can be deciphered in all languages and cultures, from corporate logos to the sign of the cross.

Narratives present ideas in the form of stories; dialectic deals with abstract generalizations and the ‘Big Picture’, while rhetoric seeks to advise us about our beliefs or conduct in specific cases, and it is crucial in creating and influencing public opinion. Recent examples include the current debates on the environment and the increasingly vicious fight over gun control.

One thing is for certain: the argument will be won or lost through the effective use of rhetoric.