Rhetoric and Propaganda: How Far Is Rhetoric From Propaganda? Research Paper

Introduction

Communication is one of the major pillars of the development of human societies and the progress of humanity. People share knowledge and experience to inform newer generations or other groups about the most effective ways to address challenges. However, communication has also been aimed at making others behave in particular ways or make certain decisions.¹ In many ways, persuasion has had a favorable effect on the development of society. Rhetoric has been one of the oratory instruments employed to persuade the audience. Rhetoric is also referred to as the art of persuasion as speakers utilize skillful means to achieve their objectives. Propaganda is also associated with the persuasion that can target diverse spheres of people’s lives.² This paper dwells upon the difference between rhetoric and propaganda with a focus on the political agenda.

Defining Rhetoric

In order to understand the essence of the two terms, it is important to consider the available definitions and meanings assigned to rhetoric and propaganda in the modern world. The term rhetoric was coined by Plato in response to Sophists’ philosophy that was different from the philosopher’s paradigm.² The word is derived from the Greek word rhetoric meaning the virtuosity of orator.² Plato introduced the word to refer to “relativistic language games that he accused Sophists, such as Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiphon, and Isocrates of pursuing”.^{2 (p156)} Plato saw his opponents’ methods as instruments to persuade and impress with the focus on the form rather than content. The philosopher insisted that Sophists tried to persuade people and make them believe in their postulates that were devoid of meaning and corrupted young people’s minds. Ironically, he utilized similar tools against Sophists such as the so-called strategy of naming and shaming that depreciated other philosophers’ arguments and their personal characteristics.

However, Plato’s approach was rather reconsidered by his famous student and follower, Aristotle, who had a more positive view of rhetoric. Aristotle concentrated on rhetoric as a means to provide sound arguments to support claims.³ While Plato saw rhetoric as the dangerous power of words, his student believed words’ power could have a positive influence on society as it would enhance reasoning and making correct decisions and choices. Aristotle stressed that rhetoric could be used to reveal the truth in a clearer way “through the construction of persuasive argumentation”.^{2 (p. 157)} In simple terms, the Aristotelian approach is positive and focused on the provision of clear and effective arguments to support the speakers’ claim to make it understandable for the target audience. The major goal of rhetoric is not to deceive or confuse but support with evidence and bring the central point to the fore. This stance of a good person speaking well was the central component of rhetoric, as seen in the Medieval world.²

It is noteworthy that the Middle Ages and the epoch of Enlightenment could be characterized by the Aristotelian model with specific stress on morality. For example, George Campbell, who was one of the influential thinkers of the eighteenth century, paid substantial attention to the moral facet of rhetoric and its positive effect. He stated that rhetoric attempted to present “a lively and beautiful representation of a suitable object” and awaken “all the tenderest emotions of the heart”.^{1 (p. 93)} However, Campbell’s vision of rhetoric is defined by the peculiarities of that age, although in practice, people used rhetorical tools without minding “tenderest” emotions.

Orators, be it a politician or even a clergy person, tended to evoke rather negative feelings, including but not confined to fear, reproach, and disgust. The gap between theory and practice has persisted into modernity. The Aristotelian interpretation has prevailed for centuries and still remains the primary perspective on the matter. At the same time, in practice, some conventions are not followed, which is specifically illustrative in the case with such type of rhetoric as propaganda.

Modern views on rhetoric are mainly linked to Aristotle’s framework. Kenneth Burke, an influential thinker of the twentieth century, who developed the modern model of rhetoric, concentrated on reasoning rather than deceit. Burke claimed that rhetoric was “a grammar that models the dynamic aspect of creative expression”.^{4 (p. 51)} The philosopher emphasized that rhetorical means were employed to convey messages in an imaginative and effective way. Rhetoric was one of the ways to reach the audience and make the speaker’s appeal clear and persuasive. The power of persuasion has a positive meaning as it is utilized with an intention to unveil the truth and help people behave in proper ways, equipped with knowledge. Such positive perspectives regarding rhetoric are generally accepted in a modern global society. People see it as common and natural to use diverse devices and rhetorical instruments to inform and persuade people in different spheres of social and personal life.

Defining Propaganda

Propaganda is mainly associated with rather negative connotations, although many researchers note that it can be seen as a neutral concept under certain circumstances. Miles² asserts that propaganda is, by all means, rhetoric due to its focus on persuasion. One of the definitions of this term includes such aspects as persuasion and its purpose. Thus, propaganda can be seen as an intentional effort to persuade individuals to think and act in the ways desired by the speaker using diverse means and media.² The purpose is placed to the fore, so the speaker concentrates on persuasion rather than the truth.

Notably, propaganda is often misleading and can even be deceitful. Compared to rhetoric that aims at bringing the strongest proof to support claims, propaganda is associated with providing disinformation.² The speaker can also manipulate data and try to evoke certain emotions (usually negative). The principal objective is to persuade, and any means is seen as appropriate. All these methods are used to make the audience share some values and make certain choices.

It is acknowledged that propaganda can be traced in various areas of modern life, including but not confined to politics and business.⁵ Political propaganda has attracted much attention in academia due to its fundamental effects on countries and the entire world, which was specifically visible in the twentieth century. It is noteworthy that the negative connotations of propaganda were questioned in the first part of the twentieth century. Edward Bernays stated that the morality or overall evaluation of propaganda depends on the worldview of the evaluator.⁵ For instance, a politician’s address can seem propaganda, a negative and manipulative, as well as immoral, claim for a person who does not support the corresponding views. However, the politician’s supporters would find the same message as positive and moral.

Different definitions of political propaganda exist and highlight diverse aspects of the phenomenon. For example, political propaganda can be defined as “propaganda activities that are held for political purposes or interests”.^{6 (p. 7)} Clearly, the purpose and outcomes are seen as central elements of propaganda. Another definition produced in the 1930s is more comprehensive as it sheds light on some instruments as propaganda is regarded as “the management of the attitude of others through the manipulation of symbols”.^{6 (p. 7)} The moral evaluation is not included, but the means of persuasion are explained in a straightforward manner. Political propaganda is widely accepted as a type of rhetoric from Plato’s perspective.

Modern researchers are still debating as to the essence of propaganda and whether the term can be applied to spheres other than politics. Some try to narrow this concept down stating that propaganda is “a subcategory of persuasion” that tries to “convey an ideology to an audience”.^{7 (p. 2)} Hence, ideological components make political propaganda stand out against other types of rhetoric activities.

Contemporary researchers see political propaganda mainly as the primary instrument of authoritarian regimes, while democratic societies also resort to this type of rhetoric in their political activities. On the one hand, authoritarian regimes employ propaganda (and often hard propaganda) to strengthen their power or show their ability to suppress.⁸ Therefore, the focus of this type of activity is on manipulation. Platonian concepts of rhetoric prevail, and speakers try to persuade and even deceive receivers.² On the other hand, politicians in democratic societies may also use some elements of propaganda, but they utilize a more Aristotelian approach.^{5, 9} In both cases, speakers concentrate on outcomes and are ready to use diverse means (including manipulations) to achieve their goals.

Instruments and Media

Campbell’s Four Goals of Rhetoric

One of the major similarities between rhetoric and propaganda is the model both types of persuasion are based on. This framework was suggested by George Campbell, who contributed considerably to the theory of rhetoric.¹ The thinker identified four goals of rhetoric: enlightening understanding, pleasing the audience’s imagination, moving the passions, and influencing people’s will. The primary difference between rhetoric and propaganda lies in the focus and the use of facts.

In rhetoric, the four goals are achieved through the provision of facts and the focus on reason, as well as emotion. For instance, democratic leaders tend to use accurately when pleasing their voters’ imagination and enlightening understanding. Otherwise, one of the pillars of effective rhetoric will not be followed as the credibility of the speaker may be corrupted.^{1, 5} In contrast to this, propaganda is characterized by the manipulation of facts and the emphasis on the emotional aspect. Autocratic leaders and dictators, for example, do not pay attention to credibility or rather ensure it without using facts. They mainly provide one-sided information and even insult their opponents in different ways and make sure that people have no access to another perspective.^{2, 6, 8} It becomes clear that although identical frameworks can be used in two types of persuasion, the means are very different, which leads to quite different outcomes.

Words for Rhetoric

Language remains the primary means of communication between people. So, speakers utilize words to persuade their listeners and articulate their messages clearly. Modern rhetoric is associated with the use of certain structures and devices that are mainly grounded on five canons of rhetoric (including “invention, arrangement, style, delivery, and memory”) and Aristotle’s model of proof.¹ Invention is the first stage that involves the identification of the topic and the materials to support the claims. Arrangement refers to the structure of the speech, and style is associated with the language and diverse devices utilized to reach the audience. Delivery is an important aspect that refers to the presentation of the speech. Verbal and nonverbal instruments are employed to make the delivery effective. Finally, memory was initially an important component of rhetoric as orators were trained to memorize considerable amounts of information to be successful. For instance, Aristotle does not include this canon in his discussion of rhetoric.¹ The major focus of orators was on the use of language and numerous verbal tools.

Aristotle paid specific attention to the provision of proof as he emphasized the role rhetoric played in oratory art, which was making the truth vivid. The philosopher described three artistic forms of proof, such as ethos, pathos, and logos.¹ These three elements are widely used in the modern world, and speakers make sure all these components are included to ensure the effectiveness of their messages. For example, U.S. presidents have been using these instruments to appeal to the nation.¹⁰

Aristotle believed that the major goal of speaking was to “connect emotionally with the audience”.^{10 (p. 1)} Thus, the central aspect was the ethos, which is the credibility of the speaker. Pathos was another major point to focus on when addressing people. The ability to understand the emotional state of the audience and use the right mood was the core of the success. Finally, the logos could be seen as the media to resonate with the audience’s mood. These were words and diverse literary devices, making speech more effective. Thus, emotions, credibility, and the choice of the right words could be seen as the linguistic pillars of rhetoric.

Words for Propaganda

As mentioned above, propaganda is a form of rhetoric, so it is but natural that similar tools are utilized. Language is also the primary means of communication for speakers trying to inflict their views and make their audience behave in particular ways.² However, due to the different goals, propaganda differs from rhetoric. The focus is also on ethos and pathos, while logos serve as the means to address the former two aspects. At that, manipulation, disinformation, and even aggression can be utilized in political propaganda. The degree of deceit increases with the intensification of the authoritarian regime.⁸ The polarization of rhetoric is a feature of political propaganda.

For example, authoritarian regimes concentrate on the negative sides of their opponents, conceal their own flaws and sometimes crimes, use emotionally loaded speeches, and often insult the target of their verbal (and sometimes military) attacks. The leaders of North Korea have employed such tactics for decades.¹¹ They have tended to verbally insult American leaders and the representatives of the western world. They have concentrated on the creation of an atmosphere of hatred to achieve their goals.

An illustration of such hatred-based political propaganda (English-language propaganda) in North Korea deserves specific attention. North Korean leaders articulate messages in English, addressing both their own nation and the rest of the world.¹¹ Their propaganda ranges “from insulting to bellicose to ludicrous”.^{11 (p. 97)} North Korean politicians verbally insult American presidents and many other western leaders, which aims at delivering their message regarding the might of their political regime as opposed to democratic approaches. Their speeches are emotional and highly negative, the truthfulness of provided facts is not their concern.

Another vivid illustration of the peculiarities of such negative political propaganda is Hitler’s speeches and addresses to the German people. The Nazi dictator manipulated facts, deceived listeners, appealed to such negative emotions as fear and hatred, as well as tried to enhance his credibility in diverse when addressing different target audiences.³ Hitler changed the vocabulary in his speeches depending on the target audience just as he did with the topics chosen to resonate with his listeners’ stance.

The Media

In addition to language, it is important to analyze the peculiarities of rhetoric and propaganda, depending on the channels employed. The modern world offers numerous types of media for speakers making their audiences closer. Television, print media, and, of course, the Internet are the major sources of information and channels of communication.¹ Rhetorical instrument are utilized for communicating messages through these platforms. Political propaganda is widely represented in all forms of media as politicians and people trying to affect the masses try to employ any means to achieve their goals.

The Internet can be regarded as one of the major domains for appealing to the target audience. Borcher and Hundley examined the role Internet plays in modern communication through the lens of Foucault’s perspective of power.¹ The renowned thinker stated that there was no single center of power, but rather local centers of power, which can be illustrated by the influence different websites have on the public. Although governments and large corporations have a significant effect on the masses, anyone having access to the Internet can exercise power as well. Discourse is central to the production of power as seen by Foucault.¹ Since the Internet can be seen as a platform for sharing ideas and information, it is the media for creating, contributing to, or destroying discourses.

This terrain is specifically lucrative for political propaganda as the use of artistic forms defined by Aristotle can serve the speaker to the fullest.^{2, 5, 10} It is easy to deceive the receivers of the message regarding the speaker’s credibility, and it is easy to manipulate data due to the peculiarities of the Internet.⁷ This peculiarity of the digital world, makes people cautious as to the information they consume, so the use of rhetoric in the Aristotelian way is somewhat problematic. The speaker should ensure the ethos is properly established to be able to utilize pathos and logos effectively. Nevertheless, there is quite a limited difference between rhetoric and political propaganda as related to the media utilized to appeal to the audience. Both forms are present in different societies reaching audiences through various channels, with the Internet being the primary media nowadays.

Visual Forms

In addition to language, visual means of communication have been widely used for communication for centuries. These tools are not void of rhetoric aspects, so it is important to consider this instrument of persuasion as well.¹² Visual messages are characterized by the use of the artistic forms described by Aristotle. The sender of the information uses their credibility, creates an emotional load, and provides some factual content. It has been acknowledged that visual rhetoric is associated with a stronger emphasis on emotions rather than rational components.¹² It may seem that some visuals are free from any artistic forms other than logos as a photo of a person or an event is nothing more than a reflection of reality. Nevertheless, even a photograph is shaped by the photographer’s perspective, as well as the angle to look at it. Moreover, any picture can only depict a moment that tends to have multiple meanings that are beyond the scope of that particular visual.¹

Although images can articulate and shape meanings, speakers (or message senders) tend to combine visuals and textual data. For instance, when analyzing images that are used in newspapers, it is clear that they rarely, if ever, have a neutral effect.¹³ In many cases, these visuals serve as an enhancement for a certain idea or theme conveying quite particular ideas. In politics, these effects are also employed frequently as politicians try to create their images with the help of visuals.¹ In propaganda, visual messages tends to be more one-sided and emotionally loaded. The focus is on the creation of a positive image of the regime or the necessary ideas.⁸ At the same time, negative and often non-existent features of the regime’s opponents are depicted.¹¹ Again, rhetoric is associated with the focus on rational elements, and political propaganda is linked to emotional aspects. It is possible to note that images employed in rhetoric are more factual and neutral, while visuals utilized in propaganda are related to emotions.

Outcomes

Obviously, the major outcome of rhetoric and propaganda is the target audience’s required behavior. However, the effects of the two types of persuasion differ in a significant way. When it comes to propaganda, it can lead to quite prompt and intense reactions as people are wired to follow the speaker.^{2, 6} For instance, Chinese society is exposed to hard and lasting propaganda that resulted in their readiness to work hard, to endure hardships, and stand up to foreign enemies.¹⁴ The audience is willing to react in a way expected by the speaker, but this effect is quite short-term.⁸ Research shows that people exposed to hard propaganda may be affected and display the necessary behavioral models, but in the long run, they disbelief propaganda and stop being persuaded. This effect is not found as related to rhetoric because people’s reactions are not as extreme and are not prone to rapid and dramatic changes.

This difference can be explained by the fact that rhetoric is grounded on the truth and helps people see the truth more (or less) clearly. Nevertheless, propaganda is often far from reality, so there are no or hardly some reasonable grounds at all.⁶ According to positivists’ and rationalists’ views, when people see the truth, they “do not need to be persuaded of anything” as persuasion is important when “there is neither formal truth nor objective fact”.^{15(p. 25)} It is possible to argue that masses may be driven from the truth by rhetoric or propaganda or fail to see it due to the lack of access to information or their peculiarities of cognition. However, the world built on lies and manipulations inevitably fades away, which has been proven many times by the fall of dictatorships and diverse political and economic regimes that were not based on the truth. Irrespective of hard propaganda and the creation of alternative reality, people managed to see and understand the truth.

Is Nudging Appropriate?

In view of the outcomes of propaganda and rhetoric, it is possible to briefly consider some aspects related to nudging. Nudging has become a new element of persuasion utilized in different spheres. This can be seen as a new level of pathos when applied to rhetoric. Nudging is associated with influencing people’s decisions, and behaviors based on people’s psychological features.¹⁶ It has been noticed that some words or images (as well as colors, postures, and even intonations) have a particular effect on individuals’ minds.¹⁷ These pre-programmed reactions are utilized to achieve established goals. For example, a smile is perceived as something positive, and it evokes the corresponding feelings leading to particular reactions.¹ Rational choice are substituted by those based on emotions and even instincts.

Propaganda is characterized by extensive use of nudging due to the focus on emotions and irrational choices. An illustration of the use of nudging as related to propaganda is Chinese society, where people are motivated to use specific technologies.¹⁸ The current trend signifies increasing attention to nudging, even in democratic societies. Officials and researchers are trying to introduce nudge-based incentives aimed at addressing some of the most burning issues. It is suggested that people could be encouraged to have healthier lifestyles and responsible behavioral patterns through nudging. For instance, healthy eating can be facilitated by displaying goods in certain ways, so restrictions and bans will be unnecessary.¹⁶ Consumers can be guided to the right choice by affecting their minds in different ways. The opponents of such views argue that nudging restricts individual freedoms, so it is unacceptable in a democratic society.

Apart from this argument, it is necessary to draw people’s attention to short-lived outcomes to such a focus on irrational aspects. As mentioned above, when people’s actions are grounded in emotions and lies, individuals learn the truth quite rapidly, and the effect can be quite the opposite. Even if people are motivated to be more responsible for a comparatively short period of time, they may choose irresponsible ways, responding to manipulations. Hence, the central difference between rhetoric and propaganda makes it clear that some persuasion means can hardly be applied in this or that context.

Conclusion

On balance, it is possible to state that the primary difference between rhetoric and propaganda is related to the use of facts and emotional load. Rhetoric is characterized by the focus on facts and helping people to see the truth clearly, but some deviate from this approach. Many speakers may use diverse rhetorical devices to achieve their goals, paying little attention to the truth. The most extreme deviation is closely linked to propaganda that aims at reaching particular goals by manipulating facts and evoking strong (often negative) emotions. Political propaganda is often associated with the most striking examples of deceit. Dictators and autocratic leaders try to use propaganda as the major tool to hold power. Although it may seem that propaganda has a more considerable effect on people, rhetoric is still more effective. Propaganda can lead to immediate required reactions, but this effect is not lasting. People are more willing to make rational choices, so when they see manipulations, they try to choose options other than expected.

References

1. Borchers T, Hundley H. Rhetorical theory: an introduction. 2nd ed. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc.; 2018.
2. Miles C. Rhetorical methods and metaphor in viral propaganda. In: Baines P, O’Shaughnessy N, Snow N, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Propaganda. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2019. p. 155-170.
3. Burke K. The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic action. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press; 1941.
4. Hansen G. Kenneth Burke’s rhetorical theory within the construction of the ethnography of speaking. Folklore Forum. 1996; 33: 50-59.
5. Kirsch SJ. Democracy and disclosure: Edward Bernays and the manipulation of the masses. In: Henderson GL, Braun MJ, editors. Propaganda and rhetoric in democracy: history, theory, analysis. Carbondale: SIU Press; 2016. p. 29-50.
6. Anuar MZZ, Jalli N. “Malu Apa Bossku?” Najib Razak’s political rhetoric on Facebook post-2018 general election. Forum Komunikasi. 2020; 15(11): 1-29.
7. Castle T, Kristiansen L, Shifflett L. White racial activism and paper terrorism: a case study in far-right propaganda. Deviant Behavior. 2018; 41(2): 252-267.
8. Huang H. The pathology of hard propaganda. The Journal of Politics. 2018; 80(3): 1-5.
9. Ivie RL. Democratic dissent and the trick of rhetorical critique. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies. 2005; 5(3): 276-293.
10. Arrigo AF. What Aristotle can teach us about Trump’s rhetoric. The Conversation. 2018. Web.
11. Richey M. Turning it up to eleven: belligerent rhetoric in North Korea’s propaganda. Parameters. 2016-2017; 46(4): 93-104.
12. Gallagher V, Zagacki KS. Visibility and rhetoric: the power of visual images in Norman Rockwell’s depictions of Civil Rights. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 2005; 91(2): 175-200.
13. Mehta R, DeAun Guzmán, LD. Fake or visual trickery? Understanding the quantitative visual rhetoric in the news. Journal of Media Literacy Education. 2018; 10(2): 104-122.
14. Weiss JC, Dafoe A. Authoritarian audiences, rhetoric, and propaganda in international crises: evidence from China. International Studies Quarterly. 2019; 63(4): 963-973.
15. Johnstone HW. The philosophical basis of rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric. 2007; 40(1): 15-26.
16. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2008.
17. Sætra H. When nudge comes to shove: liberty and nudging in the era of big data. Technology in Society. 2019; 59: 1-10.
18. Keane M, Su G. When push comes to nudge: a Chinese digital civilization in-the-making. Media International Australia. 2019; 173(1): 3-16.