Neo-Aristotelian Criticism, also known Neo-Aristotelianism, was the first formal method of rhetorical criticism created for the purpose of critiquing works of communication. Prior to its creation, rhetorical criticism was hardly pursued as an academic study, if even pursued at all. Its roots come from the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and has been continually tweaked to be able to pertain to different types of work up to this day. It focuses primarily on analyzing the presenter of a given artifact and how he or she delivers it.
Contents |
Influence of Aristotle and early Aristotelianism
Considered by many to be The Father of Logic, Aristotle might have contributed more to the art of rhetoric than any other single person. Interestingly enough, his works and life have influenced everything from philosophy and ethics to biology and physics. He also made many crucial additions to public speaking which have shaped the art of the spoken word even up to today.
During his lifetime, a group of people known as the Sophists, from which the word sophisticated is derived, drew the ire of Aristotle, Plato, and other like-minded educators [1]. This is due to the fact that they felt they could prove any point simply by employing what was until very recently the widely-accepted definition of rhetoric: the use of flowery language and emphasis of emotion over well-grounded reason. Additionally, they taught others their Sophism for a fee, which Aristotle felt was wrong; education should be free to anybody who wants it, not just for those with the means to pay for a tutor.
Contrary to Sophism, Aristotle’s philosophy, at least as it applies to public speaking, is more concerned with the logic, or logos, and facts behind an argument than the way it is presented. Although those who adhere to the Aristotelian approach certainly understand and appreciate the importance of emotion, or pathos, of attempting to persuade others through public speaking, they feel that it should be secondary to reason. No argument with the facts behind it should be seen as secondary to one without them, regardless of the way that either argument is presented. As Aristotle mostly propagated this train of thought, it became known as Aristotelianism. Creation of Neo-Aristotelianism
Throughout most of its history, the word "rhetoric" was almost universally understood to refer to the art of public speaking, especially as it refers to persuading others. Today, however, the definition of the word is much murkier . It has gone through periodic fluctuations during which it would be studied more than other periods; however, by the middle of the 17th century, studying it had significantly fallen out of vogue[2].
The art of rhetoric was almost dead until the mass distribution of the spoken word through the radio. However, once large enough amounts of people obtained them, people began to importance of the spoken word. Politicians began using the spoken word to communicate with their constituents. Companies looking to sell products created verbal commercials to create new customers. As people began to realize its newly increased value, scores of people turned to studying rhetoric at universities across the world.
At roughly the same time, critics and scholars began to differentiate between the different ways of analyzing the spoken word. This quickly lead to criticism of the written word. One of the earliest types of written criticism was Neo-Aristotelianism. In the year 1925, Herbert A. Wilchelns effectively divided various types of criticism in a way that is still somewhat followed today [3]. He wrote of the difference between literary criticism and rhetorical criticism; literary criticism refers to works of literature such as plays, novels, and pamphlets. Rhetorical criticism generally refers to anything else, although as Wilchelns wrote, it mainly pertains to the spoken word [4].
He also made some further division within rhetorical criticism. In fact, he essentially created the genre, as there is believed to be no noted definition before his attempt. Obviously, Wilchelns took the word Neo-Aristotelianism from two words: Neo (new) and Aristotelianism. He got this by taking the classic view of Aristotelianism and applying new theories to it. Modern Neo-Aristotelian Criticism
When Neo-Aristotelianism was first created and defined, it was applied almost exclusively to words, especially those that were spoken (speeches). However, like many academic disciplines of any type, it is constantly being tweaked, further looked at, and subdivided more and more. Because its principles have been altered so much that today, Neo-Aristotelianism is, in general, one of the more diverse and versatile types of criticism as it can be applied to almost anything. An addendum to this idea is that this type of criticism does depend heavily upon the author and how it is presented - it is certainly easier to apply to speeches than anything else. However, it can be manipulated creatively enough to be applied to analyze a diverse body of work that might not seem are a obvious fits for Neo-Aristotelianism, such as sculptures, plays, or whether or not actions are just[5]. Conversely, many other types of criticism, such as Fantasy-Theme Criticism and Narrative Criticism, were defined and created to essentially only analyze works in a relatively limited scope and range [6]. Therefore, these types of criticism cannot be tweaked as easily or creatively as Neo-Aristotelianism can.
The procedures that are involved in the Neo Aristotelian method include (1) selecting an artifact, (2) analyzing the artifact, (3) forming a question so that research may be done, and (4) writing the essay.
This method of criticism is used most effectively on speeches. However, as the analysis itself has a heavy involvement in analyzing the creator of a given artifact, it can be used for practically anything where the creator and presentation are well-known. Although speeches are probably the most obvious type of artifact for Neo-Aristotelian analysis, a variety of works can be used: artwork, peoples’ actions, and literature are also good examples of artifacts that can be used. Chris
When reconstructing the context the critic should start out by finding some information about the rhetor. It is important to find out the history of the rhetor and what kind of work he or she has done in the past. This is to help the critic analyze the motivation behind the artifact. Also in this stage, it is crucial to look for which type of audience the rhetor is trying to affect.
In the second step, the five canons must be applied. These canons are:
The rhetor will appeal the audience in three ways. Logos uses logic and rational thought to appeal to the audience. Ethos is how appealing the character of the rhetor is to the audience. Pathos appeals to emotions and how well a given argument tugs at the audience's heartstrings. These three elements describe how the rhetor grabs the attention of the audience and in which type of way it is affected.
In this stage the creator must look at the structure of the artifact and find out what type of organization the rhetor uses to make the artifact flow together evenly.
Style uses language to create different effects. For example, it analyzes if the rhetor uses figures of speech or a different sentence structure. Also, it can analyze the dicton within the given artifact if it is a speech, especially a spoken one.
Aristotle did not analyze memory, but even so it is still considered a canon today. However, most speeches today are read by script or teleprompter. Therefore, it is becoming less and less important in analysis as less and less speeches require complete memorization.
Delivery is commonly known as the speaker’s presentation. The critic who is analyzing should figure out if the speech is delivered from memory, reading a script or given spontaneously. Also one should look for movement as the speaker is delivering the speech, where his or her eyes are, and physical appearance.
Please note that not all critics will include all five canons when dissecting an artifact. For instance, when analyzing a written speech, delivery and memory are almost completely irrelevant. Even if all five canons are applicable, it is often not in the best interest of time to analyze all five of them. Therefore, it is often preferable to gather more information and dive deeper into a couple different aspects of the artifact.
At this point the rhetor wants the reader to see the response a person has on the artifact. One person's assessment might be different from someone else’s - there is no right or wrong answer. However, the effectiveness is mainly judged on the audience's response, either immediate or long-term.
Formulating a question so that research may be done occurs during ths third step in Neo-Aristotelianism. It asks, "Did the rhetor persuade the critic in the way he or she intended to?"