The rhetorical theory we have read about in class thus far
has only partially examined the connection between rhetoric and power. Almost
every era we have studied has recognized rhetoric’s role in social mobility,
but has not taken the consideration as far as the creation of a society with
ideal rhetorical practices. For example, rhetoric began as the practice of
defending one’s rights to what they considered theirs; thus, someone more
convincing or given a better opportunity for persuasive action would be able to
gain more than those without such affordances. Eventually, people of the
renaissance era sought the study of rhetoric because it allowed them to gain
power within their social circle and within politics. Centuries later, the
study of rhetoric was utilized as a tool against class mobility at Harvard University;
by expecting students to adhere to certain communicative guidelines, people of
lower classes who had received different education from the society’s elites
could be barred from progressing in the academic sphere. Thus, the study of rhetoric
has always been about power; however, what these ideas lack is a focus on how
rhetoric can upset the balance of power for entire classes of people; they explain
how one gains power, but they do not expose the way in which others’ rhetoric
takes power away from those already disenfranchised. Many thinkers of contemporary
rhetoric sought to fill in these gaps in understanding.
One such scholar is JΓΌrgen Habermas. Born in 1929, he is one
of the scholars Herrick credits as being one of the influential rhetorical thinkers
of the 20th century—despite not writing explicitly about rhetoric. He
was one of the many scholars who questioned the trend of using hard science
alone as a tool for understanding human nature and society. Habermas asserts
that a rational society is built upon well-equipped individuals communicating
under the assumption that they are equal in value and power; in other words,
for society to function in a healthy and logical manner, all people must be able
to experience the same amount of liberty and opportunity in speech, while also
being educated on civil discourse and, I assume, the topics which they want to
discuss.
This idea represents a utopia in many senses—for people to
have these kinds of freedoms in all situations at all times, inequality must be
extinguished, and many people regard a society of these conditions as being idealistic
and the material of fiction. In many ways, I agree that this represents an
unreachable utopia. A perfectly equitable society is probably impossible—I
think there will always be some kind of inequality somewhere. However, that
doesn’t mean it’s bad or unreasonable to fight for a future built on justice
and equality. Even if the goal is never fully realized, any improvement to the
treatment of human beings on systemic and individual levels is valuable and
worthwhile. Thus, though the perfect society built by Habermas may never be brought
fully into reality, it is a worthwhile use of time to make efforts towards
building such a society. Ideal rhetoric from this framework, then, cannot be
disconnected from activism, social change, and power. One cannot fight for the
implementation of ideal rhetoric without also fighting for the rights of the
less privileged.
I think the reason this is important right now is the
balance between protecting the masses and allowing individuals’ freedom of
speech. Censorship is dangerous—the people who enforce censorship are those already
in power, and they use their abilities to pursue their agendas, and often,
these agendas are not purposed to alleviate suffering, but rather, to procure
more power for the elites. It is important, then, to give the individual the
right to say what they want when they want. However, this comes at a price.
This price in the 21st century is the mass spread of misinformation
and the toleration of prejudice. Because people are expected to be able to
speak their minds, no matter how hateful, they are given the ability to
discriminate in words and in writing against others, and frequently, these “others”
are those who already suffer because of preexisting inequalities. The problem
with this idea—that hateful speech is okay—is that people’s words don’t live in
a vacuum. When people communicate ideas, they influence others, and deepen
their own beliefs. By saying some group of people is lesser than another, the
speaker is necessarily saying it is okay to discriminate against them—and encouraging
this exact thing.
So, what’s the answer here? Do we allow some censorship to
keep people safe? Do we allow inequality to continue to be reinforced by people’s
words?
I don’t think we can settle for either end of that spectrum—in
the long run, what we need is tangible, foundational societal change. Just like
Habermas proposed, rational society is built upon people having equal access to
speaking their minds. However, what rational society also entails is the
baseline understanding that all people are equal. If it is assumed by all that
everyone is the same in worth, then there wouldn’t be a need to censor anyone—if
the norm is a lack of hate, then there is no hate to cover up or disallow. Thus,
I think that by creating a society which is predisposed to speak in a way which
values equity, many of the questions surrounding ideal rhetoric are answered. Of
course, that raises the question of how we make such a society…
Thus, here is a question for you: how does rhetoric need to
function to shape society into such a utopia? How does our current public discourse
need to change to foster such a future?
