Rhetoric is often viewed as a means to persuade people to behave or think in a specific manner. Stanley Fisher goes a bit further and points at other aspects of this field that have a deeper influence on the development of the human being and the entire society. The renowned scholar identifies these aspects in his discussion of the difference between philosophy and rhetoric. The author believes that philosophy is a study of truth, while rhetoric is concerned with appeals to people’s emotions and wants, as well as the form rather than the content (Fish, 2004). Fish (2004) notes that people make a “skewed” choice when considering such alternatives as philosophy and rhetoric, so they replace the objectivity with a world where language extends the limits and creates new realities (p. 386). This paper dwells upon the major aspects of the position of Stanley Fish regarding rhetoric.
Truth and Persuasion
One of the major aspects of the scholar’s position is associated with the essence of philosophy. The researcher notes that it stands for the truth that is “unvarnished and straightforwardly presented” (Fish, 2004, p. 386). Philosophers are regarded as those who unveil the truth about human society and life itself. However, it is possible to go beyond the boundaries of the discipline and focus on reality and objectivity. Fish (2004) juxtaposes two linguistic worlds where, on the one hand, everything is represented objectively, and, on the other hand, the language is used to substitute “the forms of reality” (p. 386). In simple terms, the scholar identifies two possible modes of language use.
Form and Content
These two models are another central aspect of Fish’s position regarding rhetoric. The scholar states that people may use the language to express their ideas and describe the real world. However, rhetoric is seen as a discipline that teaches people to use the language in other ways. Instead of presenting facts, the speaker tries to convince people that something is real. Frank (2013) also addresses this point, recollecting his adolescent experiences. He claims that students were exposed to diverse debates that became a common form of discussion. Frank (2013) stresses that these debates had harmful effects on young people who were taught to argue different things, taking diverse positions. The focus was not on defending their views and trying to make people follow with the help of their own commitment and belief. The major point was always in arguing and using various rhetorical means to convince, without believing or even having any position on the discussed topic.
New Realities
One of the most striking and valuable insights related to Stanley Fish’s position is related to the way rhetoric ‘transgresses’ the limits of the real world. The scholar states that the language is utilized as a tool to create a new reality and replace the real world with this new paradigm. It may seem impossible for such a phenomenon as the language to alter something real, the real world. However, Fish (2004) managed to see what is actually happening these days. The objective world is changing due to people’s transformed attitudes towards objective things and events. For centuries, food was a means to survive, but the language has contributed to the evolution of food that has become a representation of the way of life. Healthy food is not a simple phrase referring to a range of products, the two words now stand for the culture of people having certain values and behavioral patterns.
On a larger scale, linguistic influence can be traced in the political world arena. For instance, Noorani (2005) claims that President Bush and his administration transformed the way reality is perceived. It is possible to add that they even “transgressed the limits of representation” and made their truths replace the objective reality (Fish, 2004, p. 386). Noorani (2005) describes the way Bush’s administration created the world where the good was opposed to terrorism, and where countries had to choose the camps. Instead of a human society with multiple views, norms, and perspectives, the then-president created a world where people had two options and paradigms. Countries and individuals were offered two alternatives, fighting against terrorism or being defeated by the righteous troops. The creation of this reality enabled Bush to justify the war in Iraq and other military campaigns the country has been involved in since then. This ideology is also employed in different parts of the world.
People’s Choice
Finally, Fish (2004) also states that people have already made their choice, which can have negative implications. The Fish (2004) uses the word ‘skewed’ that reveals his position on the matter. The author prefers the real world with its complexity rather than the enticing appeal of rhetoric. It is possible to assume that the scholar regrets that people choose to be deceived, instead of facing reality straightforwardly. Frank (2013) claims that Americans are encouraged to argue rather than communicate since their childhood. They have become accustomed to deceiving and being deceived.
Marketing builds on this framework and utilizes rhetorical instruments to create realities and shape people’s behaviors and worldviews. Marketers make customers believe that they need certain products and services. In reality, people’s wants tend to replace their needs, which contributes to the development of a consumerist society. The limits of the real world are transgressed in diverse ways in people’s day-to-day life as well. Numerous objects that can be found in people’s dwellings acquire new meanings.
For instance, a new car is not a vehicle necessary for surmounting distances. For many, it is a way to express their identity, especially if it is a hybrid or Tesla. The language people use when discussing their purchase extends the boundaries of the real world and often creates a reality where people are divided. In this case, people are divided into responsible preservers of the world and irresponsible destroyers exploiting natural resources. Moreover, when the representatives of one of the camps are trying to persuade their opponents, they also create a new reality that often stems from the focus on the form rather than content. When debating on complex issues, the focus on the form tends to distract people, encouraging them to make the ‘skewed’ choices.
Conclusion
On balance, it is possible to state that Stanley Fish shed light on the peculiarities of modern society and the use of rhetoric as a road to a new world. The scholar believes that modern people create discourses that transform the real world. Americans are taught to use the form to change their attitude to the content, which makes people see the world differently. These changes are specifically visible in the business and political terrains. Marketers and politicians affect people’s minds, trying to achieve their own objectives. Living in a world of multiple and often opposing realities may be problematic; therefore, it is time for human society and every individual to learn how to exist in the new paradigm.
References
Fish, S. (2005). Rhetoric. In B. R. McLaughlin & B. Coleman (Eds.), Everyday theory: A contemporary reader (pp. 380-405). Pearson/Longman.
Frank, T. (2013, April). Easy chair: Broken English. Harper’s Magazine, 6–9.
Noorani, Y. (2005). The rhetoric of security. The New Centennial Review, 5(1), 13–41. Web.