campbell (1971) the process of rhetorical criticism

8/12/2019 Campbell (1971) the Process of Rhetorical Criticism

1/6

ChapterOne

with the relationships between man and man.17All rhetorical theorizingattempts to answer one or more of these questions.

RhetoricalCriticismRhetorical criticism is the deJcription, analysis, interpretation, and

evaluation of persuasive uses of language. These stages in the criticalprocess have three general purposes: (1) to describe discourses ac-curately and perceptively so that the unique qualities of individual dis-courses or genres of discourse become clear to the reader; (2) toanalyze nternal elements and stratagems of discourses, and to describethe relationship between discourses and their cultural contexts and thepersuasive orces impinging on them; (3) to make evaluative judgmentsof discourses based on explicit criteria so that the grounds for evaluationare apparent to the reader. Well-done, thorough criticism increases thereader's capacity to appreciate rhetorical discourses and enables thegeneral audience to make informed and deliberate judgments based onpersuasive discourse. In addition such criticism improves the quality ofpersuasive discourse in society, and tests and modifies both theories ofrhetoric and critical systems.ls Unfortunately there is far too littlecriticism of contemporary persuasion; and when it appears, such criti-cism is available only to limited, usually academic, audiences. t is evenmore tragic that powerful political figures, such as the President andVice President, attack critical efforts despite the essential part thatcareful criticism plays in the decision.making process of a democraticsociety.

1?Some of the essays exploring ethical sta4dards may be _f-ound n^ Bichard L.Johanneien, ia.., ntnti and'Persiasion (New York: Random House, 1967)'rBAn innovaiive statement of the naiure of rhetorical criticism may be foundin I-a*ienci Roienfield, ,,The Anatomy of Critical Discourse," Speech Monographs,Vol. 25 (March 1968), pp. 5G-69.

TheProcessf Rhetorical riticismIn its final form rhetorical criticism is the result of a three-stageprocess: The critic locates the unique characteristics of a discourse orgroup of discourses; he analyzes the internal workings of the discourseand its relation to its milieu; and he selects or creates a system ofcriticism to make evaluative judgments of its quality and effects. Thethree stages are not distinguishable in a written criticism; the criticmust go through these stages in preparation of his critique. In the finalcriticism each process is integrated into a coherently developed struc-ture. There is no guarantee that performing these steps will make a"great" critic, but the chance of producing insightful and creative criti-cism is greatly increased.The critical approach used in this book rests on a strong peisonal

commitment to organic or situational criticism in contrast to formularyor prescriptive criticism. The prescriptive approach to criticism appliesa formula or set of prescriptions to all discourses. For example, suchcriticism frequently examines discourses in terms of the classical canonsof invention, disposition, style, and delivery and the classical modes ofproof-logos, pathos, and ethos. The critic of contemporary rhetoricaldiscoursemusi make a consciousdecision about the system of criticismhe intends to use. For some discourses traditional precepts constitutean ideal and workable critical system. For many others, especially in thecontemporary American milieu, they are inappropriate. Traditional,rationalistic theory, in keeping with its classical origins, is committedto the values of reason, order, and law. These values are being chal-lenged today in rhetorical acts which argue that power holders use such13


2/6

ChapterTwo

values to rationalize injustice and oppression. The contemporary criticmust examine and develop critical systems to interpret and understandsuch rhetoric in ways that do not inevitably force him to censure itspurposes and stratagems.lThe organic approach to criticism is concerned with the specific goalsof particular persuaders in speciSc contexts; it views rhetorical acts aspatterns of argument and interaction that grow out of particular condi-tions. In such an approach the critic applies critical categories that growout of the nature of the discourse, and he adapts the critical system toreveal and respond to the peculiarities of the discourse.Conflict between the two approaches need not be irreconcilable. Goodcriticism is often the result of selection and application of the formulamost suitable to the discourse under consideration. Three broad criticalsystems are outlined in chapter 3. In one sense these are formulas orprescriptions that iepresent options for the critic. But for many dis-courses the critic must invent a critical approach adapted to the dis-course or genre he intends to evaluate. The critiques of the Paul Ehrlichessay,Black Protest rhetoric, and, to some extent, the Nixon, Agnew, andWald addresses llustrate such invention.

DescriptiveAnalYsis:The First Stageol CriticismThrough descriptive analysis, he first stage n the critical process, hecritic attempts to discover the unique and defining characteristics thatmake a discourse or genre distinctive. At the completion of this stage,the critic will be familiar with the nuances of the discourse and will beaware of the rhetorician's selections of language,structure, arguments,and evidence. He will have excellent grounds for determining the rhet-orician's purpose and the responses that rhetorician seeks from hisaudience. The critic will also have extracted information to determine

the role the speaker or writer has chosen to play, the ways he perceivesand selects his audience, and his choice of persuasive strategies.The stage of descriptive analysis is entirely intrinsic; that is, thecritic makes descriptive statements solely on the basis of the content ofthe discourse itself. He uses outside materials only to determine theauthenticity of the text. At this stage the critic ignores information aboutthe context, the audience, the author, and the occasion' Rather he isconcerned with the elements of tone, purpose, structure, and strategy;he concentrates on the supportive materials and the relationship betweenrhetorician and audience implied in the text itself.

1 For discussion of the conflict between traditional rhetorical .ory_ and con'temporary rhetoric, ."" noUiii L. Scott and Donald K. Smith, "The Rhetdric ofConirontition," Quarterly Journal of Speech, VoI. 55 (Februaty 1969),

pp' 1-8'

Ihe.Processof RhetoricalCriticism

ToneThe term tone refers to those elements (primarily language elements)that suggest the rhetorician's attitude toward his audience and hissubject matter; Statements about tone are inferences drawn fromstylistic qualities. The critic may describe tone in an infinite number ofways: as personal, direct, ironic, satirical, sympathetic, angry, bitter,

intense, scholarly, dogmatic, distant, condescending, tough" or realistic,"sweet" or euphemistic, incisive, elegant, and so on. Each such Iabelshould reflect, as accurately as possible, whether the language is abstractor concrete, socially acceptable or unacceptable, technical or colloquial;it should reflect sentence Iength and complexity. The critic should alsobe prepared to support each label with evidence from the discourse thatshows most clearly the general attitudes of the rhetorician toward theaudience and the subject. For example, the tone of "The Generation Gap"is generally incisive and cutting, often satirical, quite personal (givinginformation about the author), and very direct. The section of criticismdiscussing stratagems and uses of language in the Agnew speeches isbasedon a descriptive analysis of the tone of those discourses.Purpose

The term purpose refers to the argumentative conclusions, particu-larly the major conclusion, or thesis, of the discourse and the reasonsand explanations that justify it. Analysis of purpose usually requiresan outline of the argumentative structure which states the major ideasand diagrams their relationships. In many discourses the argumentativeconclusion,or thesis, s explicitly stated, as in Nixon's Vietnam address.In others, such as in Agnew's speeches, here is an apparent purpose-to question whether the concentration of the mass media represents athreat to the dissemination of information and decision making in thissociety-and an implicit purpose-to alienate large segments of thepopulation from media outlets critical of administrative policy. Theimplicit purpose is closely allied to the tone of the discourse.In an analytical description of the implicit purpose the critic attemptsto determine the kinds of responses that the author seeks from hisaudience or from different parts of his audience. Such purposes mayinclude the traditional goals of acceptance and understanding or such"radical" goals as shame, confrontation, polarization, and alienation.For eiarnple, confrontation of Anglo-Americans and evocation of shameand guilt are essential parts of the purpose of "A Letter to the Worldfrom Jerusalem." The rhetorician's implicit purposes are related to hisperceptions of the audiences he addresses.Eldridge Cleaver has differentpurposes for black audiences and white audiences; Ben Yisrael has dif-ferent purposes for Jewish audiences and non-Jewish audiences. For


3/6

16

instance, although heYisrael provides manyand himself.Slruclure

Chapter wo

confronts and shamesbases for identification

Anglo-Americans, Benbetween this audience

The term structure refers to ttie torm of the discourse, the method ofits development, and the nature of its movement. The critic should de-scribe how and why the discourse develops, how it creates expectationsin the audience, whether it promotes a senseof inevitability, and howthe speaker or writer constructs a context for materials that follow.The kinds of structure in rhetorical discourses are numerous, and a rhet-orical act usually employs more than one form. The method of develop-ment may be narrative-dramatic, historical-chronological, logical orpragmatic (problem-solution, cause-effect, or effect-cause), topical(analysisby a number of facets or perspectives),or taxonomical (divisionof a process into its relevant parts). These forms are not mutually ex-clusive; the discourses n this book all use a combination of them.The structure of the discourse s important because t represents therhetorician's choice of the most significant perspective on the subject,issue, or section of reality he wishes to examine. A historical-chrono-logical form emphasizes development over time. A narrative-dramaticform reflects an organic view of reality and assumesthat vicarious shar-ing of integrally related experiences s essential to the understanding ofa concept or situation. A problem-solution form emphasizes the needto disc over a concretepolicy in order to resolve a troublesome situation'A cause-effect forin stresses he prediction of consequences.A topicalform selects certain facets of the subject and suggests that othersare relatively unimportant. A taxonomical form focuses on the interre-lationships between the parts of a process or between the parts and thewhole. Each structural form represents a choice of perspective thatemphasizescertain elements of the material over others. The writer orspeaker uses the structural form to develop the discourse in order tosupport his point of view and lead most directly to his desired goal. Forexample, an understanding of the structural form and method of develop-ment of Wald's address is probably the most important factor in dis-covering the unique qualities of that discourse.With the exception of addressesusing a narrative or historical struc-ture, an outline of the major ideas and arguments of the discourse is ahelpful critical technique for determining structural form. An outlinemay also serve as a basis for testing the coherence and validity of therhetorician's arguments. Because he critic is concerned with ideas andconclusions rather than topics a full-sentence outline is best to use. Atthis stage of analysi s the chronological order in which ideas appear inthe discourse s not important; the critic reorders concepts so that rea'sons and conclusions appear in logical relationships. At times the critic

The Process f RhetoricalCriticism

may need to experiment with alternate forms to discover which one, orones, most accurately and completely reflect the'patterns of develop'ment.Supporting alerials

The supporting materials of a discourse are the explanationq, illustra-tions, statistics, analogies, and testimony from lay and expert personsused to clarify ideas, to verify statements, and to make concepts vividand memorable. In descriptive analysis the critic is not concerned withtesting the validity, reliability, and credibility of support materials be-cause such processes require the use of extrinsic sources, At this stagehe is concerned with describing the support materials and analyzingtheir functions in the discourse.Each form of evidence serves different proof functions. To the degreethat an audience can identify with the Persons or events, a detailedexample is a vivid, personal, dramatic method of illustrating a principle,concept, or condition. Its primary function is psychological identifica-tion, for one example has only limited demonstrative value. In mostinstances a single case of anything is not adequate grounds for drawinga conclusion; it may turn out to be an atypical situation, even a remark-able coincidence or accident. Illustrations, like dramas, serye to "clotheideas in living flesh," and their greatest strength is in their concrete im-pact on individuals. Extended examples also serve to introduce narra-tive-dramatic form into a discourse.Analogies, or comparisons, function primarily for the purposes ofprediction; they connect what exists and is known with what is in thefuture and is unknown. Figurative analogies (comparisons betweenthings unlike in detail but similar in principle) operate the same wayto connect the known, familiar, and simple with the unknown, unfamiliar,and complex.Expert testimony or authoritative evidence provides criteria, stand-ards, or principles to interpret data. Such evidence ncreases he inter-pretative capacities of an audience nexpert in the area being discussed.In addition authoritative evidence demonstrates that experts share therhetorician's perspective or attitudes. Instances of lay testimony gener-ally serve the same functions as examples.Statistical evidence demonstrates the frequency of occurrence ofphenomena.Used in conjunction with examples, statistics provide evi-denceof the typicality of the examples and the size or scope of a prob-lem. Statistical evidence s strengthened by cultural preference for thequantified and scientific; but becausestatistics are often dull, the audi-encemay have difficulty absorbing or retaining such data.In descriptive analysis the critic describes the support materialsused in the discourse and their functions' He also considers how thesupporting evidence is related to the tone, purpose, and structure of the


4/6

ChapterTwo

discourse. Different structural forms require different kinds of support-ing materials, and the rhetorician may select a structure to avoid certainevidential requirements. For exarnple, Nixon's speech on Vietnam is sostructured that it requires moral or ethical justification rather thandemonstrations of feasibility and practiceility. The selection of a struc-tural form to emphasizecertain.kinds of evidential questions is closelyrelated to the descriptive analysis of strategies.Strategies

The description of strategies determines how the rhetorician shapeshis material in terms of the audience and his purposes. Strategies in-clude selection of structtrral form, arguments, and supporting materials.They also include choice of language, use of definitions, and repetitionof key words and phrases. The critic might consider certain questionsto determine the rhetorician's strategies: What elements in the discoursecreate com.mon grounds between the rhetorician and his intended audi-ence? What attempts does the rhetorician make to label or relabel, de-fine or redefine, strtrcture or restructure the experienced reality of the au-'dience? IIow does the speaker or writer atternPt to provide new experi-ences for the audience? What changes in evaluation or association doeshe seek? fn this book the critiques of Black Protest rhetoric and Agnew'sspeeches est illustrate use of the concept of strategies.Audience

The speaker or writer constructs his discourse for particular individ-uals or groups. In descriptive analysis the critic concentrates on theways the rhetorician's discourses "select" an audience or audiences'The critic locates staternents that indicate the rhetorician is aware of.more than one audience.He decideswho will compose the actual audi-ence and what part of that audience will be alienated by the discourse.He also determines the sorts of people the arguments are constructedfor and examines the supporting materials.Rhelorician

At this stage the critic is concerned with the relationship betweenthe discourse and the identity the rhetorician creates for himself throughthe discouise.2 What is the function of the discourse for its author?How does it serve to create an identity for him? To what degree doesthe discourse serve as self-expressionor self-persuasion? f the discoursewere the only piece of evidence available from which to determine the2A major work concerning the identity the author creates in his discourse isWayne C,-Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (C]ricago: University of Chic-ag-o Press,196i). See also Iiichard B. Grege, "The Ego-Function of the Rhetoric of Protest,"Phitosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 4 (Spring 1971), pp.7l-91.

TheProcessf Rhetoricalriticism 19

character of the author, what inferences could be made about him?Discourses serve to reveal the attitudes and beliefs of their authors'The rhetorician's views of man, truth, and society may reveal thephilosophic position or perspective from which he speaks'3Descriptive analysis, the first stage in the critical Process, is almost

entirely intrinsic and organic. As textual analysis it is designed to focusattention on the discourse. At this basic stage in the critical pr6cess thecritic gathers the data that will provide the basis for subsequent analysisand interpretation. Therefore care and thoroughness at this stage isextremely important. In the criticism of rhetoric information and com-mentary about rhetoricians, contexts, and audiences are relevant andappropriate only insofar as they shed light upon the rhetorical dis-course.

Historical-ConlextualAnalYsis:The Second Stage of Criticismunlike the stage of descriptive analysis, which is almost entirely in-trinsic and organic, the second stage of criticism examines the extrinsicelements of discourse. This stage requires further research. The criticfirst acquires information about the historical-cultural context, therhetorician, the audience, and the persuasive forces operating in thesceneand then determines why the rhetorician made the choices of tone,purpose, srrucrure, and strategies analyzed in the descriptive stage of thecritical process.The extrinsic elements-the external limitations, constraints, or in-fluences on the rhetorician's choices-affect "the rhetorical problem," nwhich emphasizesrhetoric as goal-directed behavior intended to producecertain responses.A discourse is the rhetorician's solution to a problemhe perceives n a particular context, that is, the rhetorician's attemPt to"encompass a situation." The elements of the rhetorical problem repre-

sent the obstacles that prevent the author from accomplishing hispurpose mmediately and easily.Theseelements nclude the audience, hehistorical-cultural context, other persuasive forces, and the rhetoricianhimself.Audience

At this stage the critic is concerned with discovering as much informa-tion as possible about the persons actually exposed o the discourse.The3Two excellent discussions of the critical process of examining- philosophicpositions *"V U" founa ln-lnomis Nilsen, "Intelpretative Function of the Critic,";"d l;;6h-"Bruo, l;p"uii. d;;t-;iritellectuil Revelation," western speech'Vol. 2l (Spring 1957), p. 70-83.uFor'trirth6r ai.iirsiion "f-ihe rhetorical problern,--see^ obert Cathcart, Post'Com-iintcitiore (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966)'pp' 3G39'

ii::;ilJl


5/6

ChapterTwo

medium (television, radio, print, live presentation, and so on) throughwhich the audience participated in the rhetorical situation is importantin determining the characteristics of the actual audience. Whether agiven audience was exposed to the entire discourse, to excerpts, or to ariedited version is also an important point. The attitudes and beliefs ofthe audience-discovered through research information about age, oc-cupation, political affiliation, cuitural experience, education, interests,economic status, and social class-affect their attitudes toward therhetorician and the issue and provide insights into the rhetorician'schoice of persuasive strategies. The audience's degree of involvementwith the issue and their feelings (apathy, ignorance, hostility) toward theissue, the rhetorician, and the purpose of the discourse are also particu-larly relevant.Historical-Culturalontext

To interpret a rhetorical act, the critic needs information about theimmediate social context in which the act occurred, the particular oc-casion, and the place of the discourse in the ongoing dialogue of theculture. What events served to focus public attention on the issue dis-cussed? What is the relationship between the discourse and the occa-sion? What events preceded and followed the discourse? What are thesocial, political, and economic pressures on the rhetorician and theaudience? What is the social or cultural attitude toward this issue?How is the issue related to the ongoing American dialogue about liberty,equality, freedom, brotherhood, free enterprise, and so on?Persuasiveorces

Closely related to the historical-cultural context are competing per-suaders and alternati ve policies and positions. The thorough critic deter-mines what information about the issue was generally disseminatedthrough influential media and considers whether and how the rhetoriciandealt with alternative policies. He also discovers what groups are inconflict with the rhetorician's position and what groups are associatedwith it. In addition the critic considers whether the rhetorician attemptsto associate (or disassociate) himself and his position with (or from)other groups or causes and tries to discover possible reasons.Rhetorician

Extrinsic analysis allows the critic to discover information about therhetorician's experience, knowledge, and prior rhetorical actions. Is therhetorician generally recognized as an expert on this subject? Whatstatements has he made in the past that limit his choices in this case?

The Process l RhetoricalCriticism

What associations or interests influence the rhetorician's choices (fi-nancial interests, constituency, ideology, ambitions)? With what otherissues and causes is the rhetorician associated? To what extent is thediscourse the work of ghost writers?

Supporting aterialsIn the second stage of criticism the critii should test the validity,

reliability, and credibility of the supporting evidence: How accurateare the citations? What sources does the rhetorician use? Are the sup-porting materials adequate and typical evidence? During this stage ofthe critical process the critic should consider all the tests applicablefor the particular types of evidence.sHowever, if a critic were to applythese criteria strictly, most discourses n this book would appear seriously flawed. In this respect the least flawed would be the discourses ofPaul Ehrlich and Jo'Freeman. Other discourses, particularly those ofBlack Protest rhetoric and of Ben Yisrael, should be examined dif-ferently because of their use of dramatic form, allusion, and definition.

InterpretaliveAnalysis:The Third Stage of CriticismIn the third stage of critical analysis the critic selects or creates asystem of criticism and determines criteria for interpreting, evaluating,and making his final judgments on the rhetoric. He bases his decisionson his intrinsic descriptive analysis and extrinsic analysis of the histor-icaL-culur aI con e ct.White the first stage of criticism focuses on the discourse and thesecond stage focuses on the context and scene, the third stage focuseson the critic, reflecting his interests and biases. George Bernard Shawonce wrote that "all criticism is autobiography," and other theorists

have recognized hat criticism is persuasive discourse. (In a sense rhe-torical criticism is entirely reflexive; all critical processesused to eval-uate a discourse should also be used to evaluate the criticisms of thatdiscourse.Although the discussion of the first two stagesof the critical processindicates strongly that the critic must test his judgments against thediscourse and against research from other sources, "good" criticism isnot objective and impersonal; it is evaluative. It makes clear and un-mistakable judgments about the quality, worth, and consequencesof5For an examination of the tests of evidence in the second stage of the criticalprocess, see Robert P. Newman and Dale R. Newman, Evidence (Boston: Hough-ton Mifflin Company, 1969).


6/6

GhapterTwo

the discourse.6 However, 'lgood" criticism can be distinguished frorn"poor" criticism in sgveral ways. First, whether it makes positive ornegative judgments, "good" criticism increases the reader's understand-ing and appreciation of the discourse it criticizes. Second, in "good"criticism the reader can clearly identify the criteria the critic uses as abasis for his evaluations. In sho4t good critics identify the system andstandards they use, and their criticism is coherent and consistent sothat the reader recognizes the grounds for critical judgments. Third,"good" criticism makes a contribution to the ongoing dialogue about therole of persuasive discourse in a humane society. It deals with ethicaland moral questions and gives the reader a glimpse of an "ideal"rhetoric.In light of his descriptive and historical-contextual analyses, the criticshould consider the following questions as a general guide in selectinga critical syste'm for interpretation and in choosing critical standards.First, what distinctive characteristics of this rhetorical act should beemphasized and high-lighted in a critique? The purpose of criticism is tohelp the reader become a more appreciative, insightful audience forpersuasivediscourse.This question is crucial if criticism is to reveal thediscourqe, explore its peculiarities, and expose its internal workings.It focuses critical attention on artistic elements in the rhetoric andencourages the critic to produce innovative and creative criticism. Thisquestion was extremely influential in the choice of the critical techniquesapplied to Ehrlich's essay and was somewhat influential in the selectionof techniques used in the criticism of Black Protest rhetoric and theaddressesof Wald and Agnew.Second, does the rhetorician suggest criteria for judging his work?Frequently the authors of persuasive discourses suggest standards forevaluation, which are inherent in statements of their beliefs about theproper analysis of an issue and the purposes of their discourses. Thisquestion suggeststhat the critic should take the rhetorician "on his ownterms." The influence of the question is particularly evident in thecritique of Nixon's address.Third, what critical system will allow the critic to focus on thecriterion or criteria that seem most significant in responding to thisdiscourse or genre? This question assumes hat in some cases he criticwill decide that certain judgments or evaluations of the discourse needto be made. Perhaps he deems the work highly unethical, a significant

6 The necessity for judgment and evaluation in rhetorical criticism is cogentlystated by Lawrence W. Rosenfield, "The Anatomy of Critical Discourse," SpeechMonographs, Vol. 35 (March 1968), pp. 5G69. The notion that rhetorical criticismneed not be judgmental is suggested in Jerry Hendrix, "Rhetorical Criticism:Prognoses for the Seventies-A Symposium," Southern Speech lournal, VoI. 36(Winter 1970), p. 1&1. Mark Klyn, r'16*"rd a Pluralistic Rhetorical Criticism," inThomas R. Nilsen, ed., Essays on Rhetorical Citicism (New York: Random House,1968), pp. 143-157, objects to the narrow evaluative limits prescribed by neo-Aristotelian criticism.

The Process f RhetoricalGriticism

violation of the truth criterion, a unique approach to a complex ethicalproblem, a distinctively aesthetic work, or a major reinterpretation ofan issue or value system. In each case he should seek a critical systemthat will allow him to explicate and justify his conclusions most in-telligently and cogently. The critique of Black Protest rhetoric showsthe influence of this question as does the use of Northrop Frye's conceptof "genuine speech" in the criticism of Agnew's addresses.

Fourth, what critical system would be most antagonistic in its judg-ment of the rhetoric or most sympathetic in its assessments?The ques-tion is designed to make the critic self-aware and self-conscious, toforce him to consider alternative critical conclusions that might bereached on different grounds. The two criticisms of Richard Nixon's"Checkers Speech" by Barnet Baskerville and Henry E. McGuckin, Jr.illustrate contrasting critical systems and evaluations.* This questionfocuses the critic's attention on what the discourse is and is not, toinduce him to pause and question the fairness of his standards. It alsomakes ht n aware of both positive and negative grounds for rating thediscourse. The two critical approaches used on Wald's address, andthe divergent judgments reached, illustrate the influence of this ques-tion.

These ft ur questions underlie the three stages of the critical process.They represent the bases for selecting critical systems and criteria. Thethree stages of the process culminate in the act of formulating andwriting a piece of rhetorical criticism. The finished written documentis itself a rhetorical act that can and must be criticized. I have suggestedthe purpose of criticism and indicated that these purposes function ascriteria for distinguishing "good" criticism. Test your criticisms, mycriticisms, and the criticisms of others by these purposes, and developother standards for judgment." See page 57.

campbell (1971) the process of rhetorical criticism

Documents