Page 128 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 128
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
Rhetoric as the creative study of (strategic) social behaviour
Here we conceive of rhetoric not as a static repository of creating persua-
sive – often identified as manipulative and thus suspicious – text-prod-
ucts but as an instance of social intelligence: sensitivity (Hart and Burks
1972, 1975) and behaviour (Aczél, 2015). It can provide the individual with
the skills of adapting to a community and the abilities of self-actualiza-
tion and empathy towards others. Hence, it includes the ethical and cog-
nitive skills or know-how (Struever, 1998; Booth, 2003) necessary to in-
terpret and influence social situations. The environment for rhetorical
sensitivity is created by human relations and social situations that have af-
fective as well as cognitive components (Aczél, 2016). Rhetorical sensitiv-
ity is a character of interpersonal communication that “best promises to
facilitate human understanding and to effect social cohesion” as Hart and
Burks (1972, p. 75) contended. They describe the rhetorically sensitive per-
son as an individual who willingly characterizes himself or herself as “an
undulating, fluctuating entity, always unsure, always guessing, continual-
ly weighing [potential communicative decisions]” (Hart and Burks, 1972,
p. 91).
They conceive of rhetorical sensitivity as an attitude towards encod-
ing that has five constituents: (1) the acceptance of human complexity as
a necessary and desirable condition, (2) the avoidance of communicative
rigidity, (3) the consciousness of both the speaker’s position and the con-
straints of the other within the interaction,(4) the ability to distinguish
and decide upon the communicability of different ideas, and (5) the open-
ness towards alternatives in making an idea clear (Hart, Eadie, Carlson,
1975, pp. 3–5). According to the Hart et al. (1980, p. 9) summary, “rhetor-
ical sensitivity is a function of three forces: how one views the self dur-
ing communication, how one views the other, and how willing one is to
adapt oneself to the other.” Hence, this sensitivity entails attention (ob-
servation), reflection and sensitivity to norms and deviations: to whatever
is unique, different, disparate or identical.
Rhetorical behaviour is a feature of participative, articulate, re-
sourceful, emphatic and active citizens who, while they strive to realize
their interests, are also social beings capable of defining their own goals
in accordance with the enhancement of collective values. This behaviour
is indispensable in the processes, debates and cooperation that creatively
nurture co-existence, foster socialization and ensure cultural continuity.
The lack of rhetorical behaviour may also be reflected in a specific era by
an individual’s lack of self-esteem and the sense of being “superfluous,” of
public gloom, and collective distrust. Therefore, learning rhetorical per-
126
Rhetoric as the creative study of (strategic) social behaviour
Here we conceive of rhetoric not as a static repository of creating persua-
sive – often identified as manipulative and thus suspicious – text-prod-
ucts but as an instance of social intelligence: sensitivity (Hart and Burks
1972, 1975) and behaviour (Aczél, 2015). It can provide the individual with
the skills of adapting to a community and the abilities of self-actualiza-
tion and empathy towards others. Hence, it includes the ethical and cog-
nitive skills or know-how (Struever, 1998; Booth, 2003) necessary to in-
terpret and influence social situations. The environment for rhetorical
sensitivity is created by human relations and social situations that have af-
fective as well as cognitive components (Aczél, 2016). Rhetorical sensitiv-
ity is a character of interpersonal communication that “best promises to
facilitate human understanding and to effect social cohesion” as Hart and
Burks (1972, p. 75) contended. They describe the rhetorically sensitive per-
son as an individual who willingly characterizes himself or herself as “an
undulating, fluctuating entity, always unsure, always guessing, continual-
ly weighing [potential communicative decisions]” (Hart and Burks, 1972,
p. 91).
They conceive of rhetorical sensitivity as an attitude towards encod-
ing that has five constituents: (1) the acceptance of human complexity as
a necessary and desirable condition, (2) the avoidance of communicative
rigidity, (3) the consciousness of both the speaker’s position and the con-
straints of the other within the interaction,(4) the ability to distinguish
and decide upon the communicability of different ideas, and (5) the open-
ness towards alternatives in making an idea clear (Hart, Eadie, Carlson,
1975, pp. 3–5). According to the Hart et al. (1980, p. 9) summary, “rhetor-
ical sensitivity is a function of three forces: how one views the self dur-
ing communication, how one views the other, and how willing one is to
adapt oneself to the other.” Hence, this sensitivity entails attention (ob-
servation), reflection and sensitivity to norms and deviations: to whatever
is unique, different, disparate or identical.
Rhetorical behaviour is a feature of participative, articulate, re-
sourceful, emphatic and active citizens who, while they strive to realize
their interests, are also social beings capable of defining their own goals
in accordance with the enhancement of collective values. This behaviour
is indispensable in the processes, debates and cooperation that creatively
nurture co-existence, foster socialization and ensure cultural continuity.
The lack of rhetorical behaviour may also be reflected in a specific era by
an individual’s lack of self-esteem and the sense of being “superfluous,” of
public gloom, and collective distrust. Therefore, learning rhetorical per-
126
