Suasive speech: A stronger affective defense of rhetoric and the politics of cognitive poetics

David R Gruber

doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2016.05.001

Suasive speech: A stronger affective defense of rhetoric and the politics of cognitive poetics

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A review of empirical data on involuntary affective responses to ‘rhetorical’ speech establishes the need to reexamine Jean-Jacques Rousseau's so-called ‘Weak Defense of Rhetoric,’ which considers rhetorical tropes to be dangerous because they seduce the body. Evaluating empirical findings also challenges Richard Lanham's ‘Strong Defense,’ which dismisses Rousseau and rejects any condemnation of ‘rhetorical speech’ in asserting that all utterances are already rhetorical insofar as they are contextual and selective. Ultimately, experimental psychology and neuroscience studies give good reason to adopt a new, Stronger Affective Defense of Rhetoric, one that prioritises the body and its degrees of affectability, embracing Rousseau's idea that democratic deliberation must be concerned with how the body is intimately and often automatically moved by rhetorical speech.

Original language	English
Journal	Language & Communication
Volume	49
Pages (from-to)	36-44
Number of pages	9
ISSN	0271-5309
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.05.001
Publication status	Published - 1 Jul 2016
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1016/j.langcom.2016.05.001

Cite this

@article{292b0167fcc44fe09fa9e1bc15767730,

title = "Suasive speech: A stronger affective defense of rhetoric and the politics of cognitive poetics",

abstract = "A review of empirical data on involuntary affective responses to {\textquoteleft}rhetorical{\textquoteright} speech establishes the need to reexamine Jean-Jacques Rousseau's so-called {\textquoteleft}Weak Defense of Rhetoric,{\textquoteright} which considers rhetorical tropes to be dangerous because they seduce the body. Evaluating empirical findings also challenges Richard Lanham's {\textquoteleft}Strong Defense,{\textquoteright} which dismisses Rousseau and rejects any condemnation of {\textquoteleft}rhetorical speech{\textquoteright} in asserting that all utterances are already rhetorical insofar as they are contextual and selective. Ultimately, experimental psychology and neuroscience studies give good reason to adopt a new, Stronger Affective Defense of Rhetoric, one that prioritises the body and its degrees of affectability, embracing Rousseau's idea that democratic deliberation must be concerned with how the body is intimately and often automatically moved by rhetorical speech.",

author = "Gruber, {David R}",

year = "2016",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.langcom.2016.05.001",

language = "English",

volume = "49",

pages = "36--44",

journal = "Language and Communication",

issn = "0271-5309",

publisher = "Pergamon Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Suasive speech

T2 - A stronger affective defense of rhetoric and the politics of cognitive poetics

AU - Gruber, David R

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - A review of empirical data on involuntary affective responses to ‘rhetorical’ speech establishes the need to reexamine Jean-Jacques Rousseau's so-called ‘Weak Defense of Rhetoric,’ which considers rhetorical tropes to be dangerous because they seduce the body. Evaluating empirical findings also challenges Richard Lanham's ‘Strong Defense,’ which dismisses Rousseau and rejects any condemnation of ‘rhetorical speech’ in asserting that all utterances are already rhetorical insofar as they are contextual and selective. Ultimately, experimental psychology and neuroscience studies give good reason to adopt a new, Stronger Affective Defense of Rhetoric, one that prioritises the body and its degrees of affectability, embracing Rousseau's idea that democratic deliberation must be concerned with how the body is intimately and often automatically moved by rhetorical speech.

AB - A review of empirical data on involuntary affective responses to ‘rhetorical’ speech establishes the need to reexamine Jean-Jacques Rousseau's so-called ‘Weak Defense of Rhetoric,’ which considers rhetorical tropes to be dangerous because they seduce the body. Evaluating empirical findings also challenges Richard Lanham's ‘Strong Defense,’ which dismisses Rousseau and rejects any condemnation of ‘rhetorical speech’ in asserting that all utterances are already rhetorical insofar as they are contextual and selective. Ultimately, experimental psychology and neuroscience studies give good reason to adopt a new, Stronger Affective Defense of Rhetoric, one that prioritises the body and its degrees of affectability, embracing Rousseau's idea that democratic deliberation must be concerned with how the body is intimately and often automatically moved by rhetorical speech.

U2 - 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.05.001

DO - 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.05.001

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0271-5309

VL - 49

SP - 36

EP - 44

JO - Language and Communication

JF - Language and Communication

ER -

Suasive speech: A stronger affective defense of rhetoric and the politics of cognitive poetics

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this