Rhetoric, at its core, is the art of effective communication. It’s the strategic use of language, symbols, and imagery to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience. While often associated with grand speeches and political campaigns, rhetoric’s influence permeates every facet of our lives, from casual conversations to online interactions, shaping our understanding of the world in profound ways. To grasp the significance of rhetoric, we must first delve into its classical foundations, exploring the interplay of logos, ethos, and pathos, before examining its modern manifestations and the ethical considerations it raises in contemporary society.

Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, laid the groundwork for our understanding of rhetoric in his seminal work, aptly titled “Rhetoric.” He identified three primary modes of persuasion: logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos appeals to logic and reason, employing facts, statistics, and well-structured arguments to convince an audience. It’s the realm of data-driven analysis and rational deduction, aiming to persuade through the sheer weight of evidence. For instance, a climate scientist presenting research findings on global warming to advocate for policy changes is employing logos. Ethos, on the other hand, centres on the credibility and character of the speaker. It’s about establishing trust and authority, convincing the audience that the speaker is knowledgeable, reliable, and has their best interests at heart. A doctor, by virtue of their profession, possesses an inherent ethos when discussing medical matters. However, ethos can also be cultivated through demonstrating expertise, sharing relevant experience, and displaying integrity. Arete, demonstrating virtue or moral excellence, also enhances ethos by emphasizing character. Pathos appeals to the emotions, seeking to evoke feelings such as empathy, fear, anger, or hope to sway the audience. A charity advertisement depicting a child in need, for example, uses pathos to elicit compassion and encourage donations.

These three appeals rarely operate in isolation. They are most effective when interwoven, creating a persuasive tapestry that resonates on multiple levels. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech masterfully exemplifies this synergy. King’s moral authority as a civil rights leader (ethos) was undeniable. His logical arguments about racial injustice (logos) were compelling. But it was his powerful use of imagery, metaphor, and emotional appeals to justice and equality (pathos) that made the speech truly iconic and deeply moving. The relationship between these three elements is dynamic and context-dependent. A speaker must carefully calibrate their approach, considering the specific audience and the desired outcome, an idea further developed by Lloyd Bitzer in “The Rhetorical Situation,” which emphasizes the interplay between audience, purpose, and context.

However, the rhetorical toolkit extends beyond logos, ethos, and pathos. Kairos, the appeal to timing and context, emphasizes the importance of delivering the right message at the right moment. A well-timed joke can diffuse tension, while a poorly timed one can offend. Telos refers to the purpose or goal of the communication, the desired outcome the speaker seeks to achieve. Mythos taps into shared cultural beliefs, values, and narratives to create a sense of collective identity and belonging. A politician invoking a nation’s founding principles, for instance, is employing mythos. Peitho represents the act of persuasion itself, encompassing all the techniques used to influence others. Nomos appeals to social norms and conventions, while Eunoia emphasizes the speaker’s goodwill and benevolent intent towards the audience. These are not an exhaustive list but give a flavour of the wider range of tools used.

Other elements such as Topos are the general themes or “places” that speakers use to develop arguments. For example, using the idea of “justice” or “freedom” as a starting point for a political argument. Enthymeme is a rhetorical syllogism, where part of the logical structure is implied rather than explicitly stated, requiring the audience to fill in the gaps. For example, “He must be guilty as he has no alibi” the unstated premise is that an innocent person would have an alibi. This is a fundamental part of how we reason and persuade in everyday life. Praeteritio is a rhetorical device where a speaker emphasizes a point by claiming not to talk about it, for example, “I’m not even going to mention my opponent’s dishonest behaviour.” Anaphora and Epiphora are the repetition of words or phrases at the beginning or end of successive sentences for emphasis. An example of Anaphora is “We will fight for justice. We will fight for freedom. We will fight for equality.” Aporia is a rhetorical device where the speaker expresses uncertainty or doubt, often to engage the audience or appear open-minded. For example, “I’m not sure how much more the people can endure this.” Framing is the way information is presented to shape perception, for instance, by describing “tax cuts” as “tax relief,” the issue is framed as though it were a problem that needed solving. Priming is preparing the audience to think in a certain way by exposing them to related concepts beforehand, for example, showing images of happy families before discussing public safety measures. Metanoia is a rhetorical device where the speaker retracts a statement to refine or soften it, for example, “I shouldn’t say he’s dishonest—let’s just say he is not entirely trustworthy.” Polysyndeton and Asyndeton are the use of excessive conjunctions or the absence of them for stylistic effect. An example of Polysyndeton is “We lived and laughed and loved and left.”

While often criticised, especially by Plato, the Sophists were instrumental in democratising rhetoric, making it accessible beyond the aristocracy. They emphasized the importance of adapting one’s arguments to specific audiences and situations (kairos), a concept that remains central to effective communication today. They believed that rhetoric was essential for navigating a complex world where absolute truth might be elusive, and skill in persuasion was necessary for individuals to advocate for themselves and their interests.

Stasis theory is a powerful tool for analysing and constructing arguments. Briefly defined, stasis theory is the process of identifying the core issues in a debate and how it helps to determine where disagreement lies (e.g., in the definition of terms, the facts of the case, the values at stake). In a debate about immigration, one side might focus on the definition of “illegal immigrant” (stasis of definition), while the other might focus on the economic impact of immigration (stasis of quality).

The use of language and style to enhance communication, Elocutio, which includes diction, tone, and figurative language, is closely tied to ethos and pathos, as style affects emotional engagement and credibility. Perlocution is the effect or outcome of a speech act on the audience, such as persuasion, inspiration, or provocation. Illocution is the intention behind the speaker’s words, such as making a promise or issuing a command.

In today’s digital age, rhetoric has transcended the limitations of classical oratory. Visual rhetoric, the use of images, videos, memes, and even emojis function as rhetorical tools, conveying complex arguments and evoking strong emotional responses. These all play equally significant roles. Social media posts, advertisements, memes, and even emojis are all imbued with rhetorical intent, seeking to influence our thoughts, emotions, and behaviours. This is particularly evident in the realm of politics where filter bubbles caused by the algorithms used on social media serve to create echo chambers where users only see content that confirms their existing biases, leading to increased polarisation and making constructive dialogue more difficult.

The Rhetorical Advantage: Elite Education and the Shaping of UK Political Discourse

The corridors of power in the UK are often dominated by individuals who have passed through a particular educational pipeline: the prestigious public schools (which, confusingly, are private, fee-paying institutions) such as Eton, Harrow, and Winchester, followed by degrees like Classics or Politics, Philosophy, and Economics (PPE) at Oxford or Cambridge. This educational pathway, far from being a mere accident of birth, provides a specific type of training, one that is deeply intertwined with the art of rhetoric and its strategic deployment in public life. It is a training that, while ostensibly promoting critical thinking and eloquence, can also be seen as equipping a select few with the tools to dominate political discourse, often advocating for policies that benefit a privileged minority rather than the broader public. It is necessary to be aware of and recognise these issues in order to be more able to make informed decisions when presented with political arguments.

The “debating culture” fostered within these institutions is central to this phenomenon. Public schools often have long-standing debating societies that rigorously train students in the art of argumentation, often modelled on parliamentary debate. This training emphasizes not only the ability to construct logical arguments (logos) but also the mastery of delivery, style, and the strategic use of emotional appeals (pathos). Students learn to think on their feet, parry verbal attacks, and deploy rhetorical devices with confidence and flair. The emphasis is often on winning the argument, rather than a collaborative search for truth and this is replicated in the adversarial style of discourse in the House of Commons. However, critics argue that this “Oxbridge” debating style can prioritize quick wit and superficial cleverness over deep understanding and thoughtful analysis, rewarding glibness rather than genuine insight.

At Oxford and Cambridge, this training is further honed through participation in renowned debating societies like the Oxford Union and the Cambridge Union. These societies, with their rich history and prestigious alumni, provide a platform for students to engage in high-level debates on topical issues, often in front of prominent guest speakers. The format of these debates, with their emphasis on wit, quick thinking, and persuasive delivery, can favour style over substance. This is a system that rewards those who are already comfortable and fluent in the language of power, those who have been steeped in the rhetorical traditions of the elite from a young age.

The study of Classics, with its focus on the oratory of ancient Greece and Rome, further reinforces these skills. Students dissect the speeches of Cicero and Demosthenes, analysing the techniques used to sway audiences and win arguments. Similarly, the PPE degree, often considered a “finishing school” for aspiring politicians, provides a strong grounding in political philosophy, economic theory, and the art of policy argumentation. It equips students with the intellectual framework and rhetorical tools to engage in high-level policy debates, often from a perspective that prioritizes market-based solutions and individual liberty over collective well-being.

The consequence of this specialized training is a political class that is often highly skilled in the art of persuasion but may be less attuned to the lived experiences of the majority of the population. They are adept at framing debates in ways that serve their interests, deflecting criticism, and appealing to the emotions of the electorate while simultaneously appearing to be acting in the interests of the population as a whole. This can lead to policies that exacerbate inequality, dismantle social safety nets, and prioritize the interests of corporations and wealthy individuals over the needs of ordinary citizens.

Examples of this phenomenon in UK politics are numerous:

• Brexit: The Leave campaign, spearheaded by figures like Boris Johnson (Eton and Oxford) and Michael Gove (Oxford), masterfully employed rhetorical techniques to sway public opinion. The aforementioned “Take Back Control” slogan, with its potent appeal to national sovereignty and its implication that control had been lost to an external, undemocratic force (the EU), was a rhetorical triumph. The infamous “Breaking Point” poster, while widely condemned, effectively tapped into anxieties about immigration. These tactics, honed through years of elite education and debate, proved more effective than the Remain campaign’s fact-based arguments about the economic risks of leaving the EU.
• Austerity: The Conservative-led governments’ austerity policies, implemented in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, were championed by figures like David Cameron (Eton and Oxford) and George Osborne (St. Paul’s and Oxford). They successfully framed austerity as a necessary measure to reduce the national debt, employing the metaphor of the nation as a household that needed to “balance its books.” This framing, while economically dubious, resonated with a public accustomed to thinking about finances in personal terms. Critics argue that austerity disproportionately harmed the most vulnerable members of society while failing to address the root causes of the financial crisis.
• David Cameron used his authority to try and persuade the public that remaining in Europe was best for the country’s economy. Cameron was a member of the infamous Bullingdon Club whilst at Oxford University. A club known for its wealthy members, and boisterous drinking sessions often ending in vandalism for which the club members would pay for the damage on the spot, relying on their wealth and privilege to protect them from further action.
• Boris Johnson often uses Latin phrases, and complicated language to confuse his opponents and create an impression of superior education. This can be seen as a deliberate tactic to use his education and verbal dexterity to his advantage. In 2019 during a general election campaign, he hid in a fridge rather than face the questions of a TV reporter.
• Jacob Rees-Mogg, educated at Eton and Oxford is known for his strong support of Brexit. He frequently uses his knowledge of Latin and historical precedent to add weight to his arguments. In 2019 he caused outrage when he suggested that the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire lacked common sense and should have ignored the London Fire Brigade’s instruction to “stay put.”

These examples highlight how individuals trained in the elite institutions of the UK have not just risen to positions of power but have also shaped the very terms of political debate. Their rhetorical skills, honed through years of practice in privileged environments, can be used to great effect, often masking the underlying ideological assumptions and potential consequences of their preferred policies.

Consider the Brexit campaign in the UK. The Leave campaign’s slogan, “Take Back Control,” was a masterpiece of concise rhetoric. It employed pathos by appealing to a sense of lost sovereignty and national pride, while simultaneously tapping into anxieties about immigration and economic insecurity. The accompanying visual rhetoric, such as the infamous “Breaking Point” poster depicting a queue of refugees, further amplified the emotional impact, stoking fear and resentment. While the Remain campaign focused on logos, highlighting the economic risks of leaving the EU, their arguments often lacked the emotional resonance of the Leave campaign’s messaging.

The use of rhetoric in propaganda is particularly insidious. Throughout history, propaganda has employed rhetorical techniques to manipulate public opinion, often with devastating consequences. Nazi propaganda, for instance, relied heavily on pathos, using fear and hatred of Jewish people to incite violence and justify discriminatory policies. They also employed a distorted form of logos, presenting pseudoscience and manipulated statistics to support their racial ideology. In the digital age, propaganda has become even more sophisticated, with deepfakes, targeted social media campaigns, and the spread of misinformation online posing significant threats to democratic discourse. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, where personal data was harvested from millions of Facebook users to create targeted political advertisements, demonstrated the power of combining psychological profiling with micro-targeted rhetoric to sway voters.

However, rhetoric is not inherently manipulative or deceitful. It is a tool that can be used for good or ill, depending on the intentions of the speaker and the context in which it is employed. In the hands of skilled communicators, rhetoric can be a powerful force for positive change. Environmental activists, for instance, use pathos to highlight the urgency of climate change, employing vivid imagery and emotional appeals to inspire action. They also use logos, presenting scientific evidence and data to support their claims.

The rise of online debate and discussion forums has created new challenges and opportunities for the application of rhetoric. Individuals with high verbal IQs, characterized by their strong vocabulary, quick thinking, and adeptness at verbal reasoning, often excel in these environments. They can craft compelling arguments, dissect opposing viewpoints, and use language with precision and flair. However, high verbal IQ can also be used to deploy manipulative rhetorical tactics. The potential for “verbal bullying” or using superior language skills to dominate and silence others should be considered when discussing the ethical considerations of rhetoric. It is also important to avoid using broad, sweeping generalisations when describing groups of people.

The video referenced earlier highlights five such tactics commonly used in online debates: Ad Hominem Attacks, where personal insults are used to discredit an opponent rather than addressing their argument; Psychologising, where the speaker attributes hidden motives or psychological drivers to their opponent, shifting the focus from the argument to presumed intentions; Manufacturing Consensus, where a group floods a discussion with supportive comments to create the illusion of widespread agreement; Ridicule, where serious discussions are deflated by turning them into jokes or drama; and Red Herrings, where the speaker distracts from the main point by focusing on irrelevant details.

These tactics, while often effective in swaying an audience, are ultimately detrimental to productive discourse. They undermine the principles of fair argumentation and hinder the pursuit of truth, as outlined by Jürgen Habermas in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere where he sets out the concept of the public sphere as a space where individuals can engage in rational-critical debate about matters of public concern. Recognising and resisting these manipulative techniques is crucial for fostering a more rational and informed online environment. Demonstrating practical judgement and wisdom in action, Phronesis, is a component of ethos that shows competence and reliability.

It is crucial, therefore, to develop a critical awareness of the ways in which rhetoric is used in political discourse. By understanding the techniques employed by those in power, we can better discern the true motivations behind their arguments and challenge policies that perpetuate inequality and serve the interests of the few at the expense of the many. Only then can we hope to create a more equitable and democratic society, where the art of persuasion is used not to manipulate and deceive but to foster genuine understanding and promote the common good. This awareness is also essential to prevent the manipulation of public opinion.

In conclusion, rhetoric is an essential tool for understanding how we communicate, persuade, and make sense of the world around us. By studying its principles, from the classical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos to the more nuanced techniques employed in modern communication, such as stasis theory and the concept of the enthymeme, we can become more discerning consumers of information and more effective communicators ourselves. Delving into resources like Edward Corbett’s Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, Chaim Perelman’s The New Rhetoric, Kenneth Burke’s A Rhetoric of Motives, George Lakoff’s Metaphors We Live By, Richard Weaver’s The Ethics of Rhetoric and Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: A Critical Sourcebook edited by Carolyn Handa provides a deeper understanding of the breadth and depth of this field. In an age of information overload and digital manipulation, a critical understanding of rhetoric is not just an academic exercise; it is a vital skill for navigating the complexities of the 21st century. It empowers us to engage in informed and productive discourse, to resist manipulation, and to contribute to a more just and informed society. The ability to wield rhetoric ethically and effectively is, therefore, not just a skill but a civic responsibility.

Suggested Reading List:

• Aristotle. Rhetoric. (Classical foundational text)
• Bitzer, Lloyd. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 1, no. 1, 1968, pp. 1–14. (Understanding context and audience)
• Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press, 1969. (Identification and shared motives in persuasion)
• Corbett, Edward P.J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. Oxford University Press, 1999. (Comprehensive guide to classical rhetoric)
• Fisher, Walter. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. University of South Carolina Press, 1989. (Narrative paradigm)
• Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. MIT Press, 1989. (The concept of the public sphere and rational-critical debate)
• Handa, Carolyn (ed.). Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: A Critical Sourcebook. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. (Visual rhetoric in digital contexts)
• Kerferd, G. B. The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge University Press, 1981. (The Sophists and their approach to rhetoric)
• Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, 2003. (The role of metaphor in shaping understanding)
• Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. (Modern rhetoric and argumentation)
• Weaver, Richard M. The Ethics of Rhetoric. Hermagoras Press, 1985. (Ethical dimensions of persuasion)

This list provides a starting point for exploring the vast and fascinating field of rhetoric. Each of these works offers unique insights into the art of persuasion and its impact on our lives.