Here’s a breakdown of Aristotle’s Rhetoric in relation to other theories of influence, its criticisms, and a comparison with Burke’s perspective:

1. Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Other Theories of Influence

Aristotle’s Rhetoric:

• Focus: Concerned with the art of persuasion in public settings (e.g., law courts, political assemblies, ceremonial occasions).

• Key Elements:

  • Ethos: The speaker’s credibility and character.

  • Pathos: Appealing to the audience’s emotions.

  • Logos: Using logic and evidence to support arguments.

• Influence: Aristotle’s theory explores how speakers can effectively influence audiences by appealing to their reason, emotions, and perception of the speaker’s character.

Social Judgment Theory (SJT):

• Focus: How individuals make judgments about persuasive messages and their positions relative to their own beliefs.

• Key Concepts:

  • Latitude of Acceptance: The range of positions an individual finds acceptable.

  • Latitude of Rejection: The range of positions an individual finds unacceptable.

  • Latitude of Non-commitment: The range of positions an individual finds neither acceptable nor unacceptable.

• Influence: SJT suggests that persuasive messages are most effective when they fall within an individual’s latitude of acceptance.

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM):

• Focus: Two routes to persuasion: central and peripheral.

• Key Concepts:

  • Central Route: High elaboration, careful consideration of arguments.

  • Peripheral Route: Low elaboration, reliance on heuristics and peripheral cues.

• Influence: ELM suggests that the effectiveness of persuasive messages depends on the level of elaboration the audience engages in.

Comparison:

• Aristotle: Provides a broad framework for understanding persuasion in public settings, focusing on the speaker and the audience’s perception.

• SJT and ELM: Offer more specific models of how individuals process persuasive messages, emphasizing cognitive processes and individual differences.

2. Criticisms of Aristotle’s Rhetoric:

• Limited Scope: Criticized for its focus on public rhetoric and its lack of attention to other forms of persuasion (e.g., advertising, interpersonal communication).

• Focus on the Speaker: Accused of being too speaker-centric, failing to fully address the role of the audience in the persuasive process.

• Emphasis on Logic: Some argue that Aristotle overemphasizes the role of logic and reason, neglecting the power of emotions and non-rational factors.

• Lack of Ethical Considerations: Aristotle’s focus on effectiveness can be seen as lacking ethical considerations, potentially leading to the manipulation of audiences.

Most Damaging Criticism: The most damaging criticism is likely the accusation of neglecting ethical considerations. Persuasion can be used for both good and bad purposes, and it is important to consider the ethical implications of using rhetoric.

3. Burke’s Perspective on Incongruity and Aristotle’s Metaphor:

• Burke’s Incongruity: Burke emphasizes the use of incongruity (the unexpected, the surprising) to create a sense of “identification” with the audience. This allows the speaker to challenge existing assumptions and perspectives, leading to a deeper understanding and potential persuasion.

• Aristotle’s Metaphor: Aristotle views metaphor as a way to clarify and illuminate a subject by drawing a comparison to something else. He focuses on the logical and explanatory power of metaphor.

Comparison:

• Shared Ground: Both Burke and Aristotle recognize the power of language to create connections and influence thought.

• Key Difference: Burke emphasizes the role of incongruity in fostering identification and challenging assumptions, while Aristotle focuses on the logical and explanatory functions of metaphor.

4. Burke on Identification and Persuasion:

• Identification: Burke believes that persuasion is built on a sense of “identification” between the speaker and the audience. This involves creating common ground, shared values, and a sense of belonging.

• Why It Matters: Without identification, there is no basis for connection or shared understanding. Persuasion relies on the audience’s willingness to see themselves in the speaker’s message and to accept their point of view.

Key Takeaway:

Burke’s emphasis on identification highlights the social and emotional aspects of persuasion, emphasizing the importance of creating a sense of connection and shared values. This perspective adds a layer of depth and complexity to our understanding of how rhetoric works.