Rhetoric can be marked by a significant development since the beginning of the 20th century as literary theorists began to reconsider and elaborate on the ideas of ancient and medieval scholars. In his works, Fish distinguished between homo serious and homo rhetoricus. Using Lanham’s concepts, Fish (1990) views homo serious as a person, who lives in a homogeneously real society and has a central self. This person also has an irreducible identity, and the society he or she lives in stands “out there” independently. In turn, homo rhetoricus is defined as a person with a dramatic and changing reality. This species’ identity depends on “the reassurance of daily histrionic reenactment”, while they manipulate the reality instead of discovering it (Fish, 1990, p. 96). The author also describes a rhetorical person as one who may have different values, playing games, and being an actor.
In their book that is called “Nudge”, Thaler and Sunstein (2008) discuss homo sapiens and homo economicus from the perspective of behavioral economics. Namely, the authors try to understand the psychology that impacts economic decisions that are made by humans. The homo economicus perceives the world rationally and thinks about maximizing his or her happiness and overall well-being. Most importantly, they know how to achieve it and have perfect rationality to make decisions. On the contrary, homo sapiens can be identified as a product of evolution, having learned behaviors and acting less reasonably. Managers, doctors, employers, and many other people are choice architects since their approach to patients and employees impacts their behaviors. This distinction is similar to seeing the human mind as consisting of two categories, such as understanding and will (Borchers & Hundley, 2018).
The appeal to rationality is the main parallel that can be noted between the identified paired oppositions. Thaler’s views on rationality are similar to those of Fish (1990), but he expresses his opinion on this matter quite simply. Fish (1990) wrote that he rejects any attempt to present the evidence that human nature is irrational. According to him, reality itself is made, but it is not discovered, which means that there are isolated units of beliefs that form specific realities. In this connection, it represents rationality as a completely consistent entity. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) express this idea by stating that people are not complete idiots, while they are not hyper-rational machines as well. In other words, both works point to the need to consider reality from the point of paying attention to both rationality and senses as the forces that drive people’s behaviors.
Another parallel can be drawn towards future predictions regarding the development of human nature. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) guess that homo economicus would evolve into homo sapiens, meaning that economics is likely to be more responsive to human behavior. Specifically, they suggest that homo economicus would begin to lose their IQ and become slower in learning. The economists would focus on studying human cognition and emotion to become better at distinguishing between normative and descriptive theories. Accordingly, it is possible to suggest that homo serious would transform into homo rhetoricus, and scholars would be more engaged in exploring what motivates homo rhetoricus persons. Since the appeal to emotions and feelings is more valued by homo rhetoricus and homo economicus, the necessity of persuading arguments would increase (Borchers & Hundley, 2018a). Therefore, the reality can be perceived as a utility in which choice architects act to connect with people and improve the quality of their lives.
The difference between these paired oppositions is probably in their contribution to understanding human behavior. Fish’s ideas seem to set dilemmas that are difficult to address. For example, the author states that truth, beauty, and goodness are used to recognize the world, but they are artificial creations that are based on personal conceptions. On the contrary, Thaler made a significant contribution to the study of the problems of self-control and intertemporal choice. There is a planner-doer model to explain the meaning and influence of self-control on human behavior. This model assumes that the individual has two identities, the relationship between which is built per the principal-agent model. A planner makes plans for the future, being guided by rational goal-setting; and the actor is focused on the present day. The planner tries to force the actor to maximize lifetime utility by using willpower, forcing them to act within rules that limit freedom of choice. This model has been confirmed by studies of people’s behavior when choosing a retirement plan (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
To conclude, the main parallel between homo serious/homo rhetoricus and homo sapiens/homo economicus is the appeal to rationality. Both Fish and Thaler aim to better understand human behaviors in terms of their perceptions of reality. The future development of humans is another parallel since both authors provide their views on the transformations. Ultimately, the contribution of these concepts is different: while Fish lacks a clear connection to practice, Thaler is more apparent regarding how choice architects can act to achieve well-being and happiness.
References
Borchers, T., & Hundley, H. (2018). Postmodern approaches to rhetoric. In Rhetorical theory: An introduction (pp. 317-339). Waveland Press.
Borchers, T., & Hundley, H. (2018a). Rhetoric, Science, and argumentation. In Rhetorical theory: An introduction (pp. 87-111). Waveland Press.
Fish, S. (1990). Rhetoric. In F. Lentrichia & T. McLaughlin, Critical terms for literary study (pp. 87-112). Chicago University Press.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.