Aristotle’s Rhetoric remains an influential theoretical foundation in communication studies. You can pick up any public speaking text (e.g., Griffin, 2004) and find discussions on delivery, organization, and style. Students of public speaking have benefited greatly from the words and values of Aristotle, and for this reason the theory will resonate deeply for years to come. The evaluative criteria for communication we wish to discuss center on three primary areas: heurism, logical consistency, and test of time.

Heurism

Few would argue that Aristotle’s Rhetoric is one of the most heuristic theories found in communication. Scholars in political science, medicine, English composition, and philosophy have studied Rhetorical Theory and incorporated Aristotelian principles in their research. The theory has spawned a number of subareas in the communication discipline, such as communication apprehension, and has generated research both empirical (Behnke & Sawyer, 2004) and practical (Miller, 2004) in nature.

Logical Consistency

Critics of Aristotle’s theory are not so quick to endorse the entire theory. For instance, Aristotle has been criticized for contradiction and incoherence (Lord, 1994). Lord contends that in developing his theory, Aristotle blasts his contemporary rhetorical writers for focusing too much on the audience’s emotions. Although Aristotle encourages speakers to avoid focusing on emotions while making their points, he proceeds to do just that when he stresses the importance of presenting emotions and invoking audience passions (pathos) during a speech. This makes the theory somewhat inconsistent.

John Cooper (1996) challenges Lord’s critique. He argues that Aristotle was simply responding to the Sophists’ messages of the day. Because most of the speeches in ancient Greece were directed to judges and rulers, Aristotle felt that speakers should try to elicit feelings of pity in the courtroom. To do that, Aristotle felt that speakers should try to view judges in congenial ways.

Further criticism of the logical consistency of the theory has been offered. First, scholars agree that the Rhetoric is a rather unorganized undertaking; in fact, the theory is assembled form Aristotle’s lecture notes (Kennedy, 1991). It is not surprising, then, that Aristotle seems to discuss topics in a random and arbitrary manner. At times, Aristotle introduces a topic and then drops it, only to return to it later. His terminology is especially problematic for some scholars. For example, he advocates the use of enthymemes in public speaking and yet fails to clearly define or interpret the term. Scholars continue to differ about whether an enthymeme is a syllogism or whether it is like a syllogism. You may not find this too earth-shattering, but recall that researchers need clear foundations of terms before they can embark upon testing or clarifying theory. Larry Arnhart (1991) concludes that Aristotle defined his terms in less than precise ways so that audiences (readers) would have a broader understanding of his words and ideas. Arnhart believes that this conscious decision to remain unclear does not mean that Aristotle’s thoughts should be discarded.

Finally, the logical consistency is further challenged by an examination of how Aristotle views the audience. Critics charge Aristotle with ignoring the critical nature of listeners. For instance, Jasper Neel (1994) states, “Aristotle makes clear that the introduction [of a speech] has nothing to do with the ‘speech itself.’ It exists only because of the hearer’s weak-minded tendency to listen to what is beside the point” (p. 156). Eugene Ryan (1984) is more blunt: “Aristotle is thinking of listeners who have some difficulty keeping their minds on the speaker’s business, are easily distracted, tend to forget what has gone on before, [and] are not absorbed with abstract ideas” (p. 47). From these writers, we get the impression that Aristotle perceived audiences to be incapable of being discriminating listeners or critical thinkers. It’s important to note, though, that Aristotle was writing at a time when people were rather passive listeners; they did not watch the evening news and did not have access to information about world events. Further, when one considers that the Rhetoric is based on lecture notes and that students back then were not accustomed to openly challenging their mentors, Aristotle’s view of the audience is not so implausible.

Test of Time

No other theory in the communication discipline has withstood the test of time as well as Aristotle’s Rhetoric. With more than 2000 years behind it and public speaking textbooks, teachers, and researchers communicating Aristotelian principles, it’s hard to believe that any other theory in the field of communication will ever achieve such longevity!

As we turn the corner to the twenty-first century, we are in an informed position to reflect upon some of the greatest written works of all time. The Rhetoric is clearly such a work. Aristotle’s words continue to resonate in a society that is far different from his day. Some people may reject his thoughts as outdated in an age where multiple ways of knowing are embraced. Nonetheless, a theory focusing on how speakers use and engender emotions, logic, and trustworthiness cannot be ignored.