On Rhetoric

Rhetoric today is at the same time feared and resisted, and making a huge resurgence. The idea that people can be persuaded was something that medieval societies to the post modern leaders of today have been concerned about. It is much easier to say that anything can be deemed right or wrong, good or bad,  and people will generally  obey the laws based on this premise. To a certain extent this works, with rulers using rhetoric to convince people that their reign is noble and righteous, while keeping the valuable and useful skill of persuasion to themselves and denying its importance. You can see this in the dictatorial regimes of Asia and Africa, the Arab Spring being a fresh crack in the facade. "Yes dictatorships are not ideal, but without me our nation will lose its independence to Western economic powers. You need me to keep blank from becoming a slave to America." And it is a persuasive argument, but one that is paid for in blood. At the same time, what is happening in the world of rhetoric is that with all the information sharing and technological advances of the privileged, more and more people are understanding the idea of rhetoric as a skill and a tool. They may not call it by name any more, but people all over know that they need to try and read through the lines. Advertising bombards us constantly, and people learn to read what is important information and what is just somebody trying to sell us something. We know that certain advertisers and corporations support specific political interests and ideologies. We know that Rupert Murdock is the owner of Fox and that he is a major political asset for the right. So more and more we see through rhetorical displays that used to have a bigger influence on the public. This understanding of the power of persuasion has influenced people to express themselves through new outlets like this blog. Most recently we have seen powerful employers of rhetoric such as Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak fall from command. Too many people were dissenting. People were being persuaded by convincing arguments that these regimes were not the only alternative to chaos and fundamentalism, and that democracy was worth dieing for. Now we hope that this new rhetoric of structural possibilities can be realized by the many.