I'm curious. I keep seeing the word "rhetoric" used in this and other forums in a way that is clearly derogatory. It seems bizarre to me to insult someone by saying they have a good grasp of the art of speaking effectively. :confused: Since the pro-war and anti-war factions are liberally throwing this word at each other right now, the word has apparently picked up some extremely negative connotations over the last 3000 years and dictionaries seem not to have fully caught up. All I can assume is that it's a reflection on the modern preference for speaking bluntly, but that doesn't tell me exactly what people mean when they use it negatively.

So, I'd like to come up with a new definition that tells me what people are trying to say when they condemn another person's words as "mere rhetoric". If you are one of the people that uses the word "rhetoric" as a dismissive or insulting term, please post how you would define the word. Also, have variants such as "rhetorical" picked up the same negative connotation?

Thanks!

I use rhetoric as a derogatory adjective, as well.

Like, when Syria was talking about Iraq. And they said "The US has the borders covered, so they should decide who they want to leave the country."

They know we don't. And they are putting the responsibility on us, which is their call to make. But instead of saying "We'll give anyone asylum that can swim over", they like to leave some doubt in there. Like the Vatican in World War II. Keep your options open until you absoutely have no other way to go. What they said, and what they meant, are two seperate things.

That is rhetoric.

It's the way the world works, right now. And it's highly inefficient. If your kids come to you, asking you if they can do this or that, and you "are still examining the options", it can really snowball on you. You don't say one thing, and mean something else completely. Telling them "be home at an early hour" may very well mean 2030 hours to you, and their interpretation may range it up to 0130 hours the following morning.

There's a lot of people, right now, in this world, who are kept alive. By rhetoric. By medicine. By shadow operations.

Quite simply, they would not be alive, otherwise. And there's a huge history behind it, so if you were to drastically change something, a whole bunch of people would die in a very short timespan. If it lasts over 20 or 30 years, then people don't really notice the 3 or 4 million deaths. They become de-sensitized to it, and don't relate one event to another.

But when it all happens in a couple of months time, everyone takes notice.

Rhetoric is a necessity, right now. It would be a better world if it wasn't, but right now, it's necessary. It, quite literally, keeps people alive.

Sprite, I know what you mean. I think in the UK it has taken on a negative meaning over a longer period. Politicians and even more so, Civil Servants, have tended to come from a classical education background. As such they have tended to command an extensive vocabulary and have not been afraid to use it. The other thing that these people tend to do is never directly answer a question, though do so in a most sincere and vote grabbing manner. Combine the two and you get a very well crafted wordy answer that means absoultely nothing. (The classic example being Humphrey Applebey in the Yes Minister series).

This sort of response was originally referred to as 'meaningless rhetoric.' I guess that the word rhetoric is too much for most people so the tabloid press has to dumb it all down to just be used in a bad way. Saying that, you will be dissapointed to see that the neagtive use is also creeping into official definitions. Take a look at the online dictionary that you pointed me towards.

http://www.yourdictionary.com

It defines the word as:


The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
A treatise or book discussing this art.
Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.

- A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
- Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
- Verbal communication; discourse.

No matter what some modern dictionaries could possibly say (as some of them support double negation in English so as to sell better for example), 'rhetoric' is no derogatory word. Neither is it positive. It's plainly neutral since it doesn't evaluate anything. 'Rhetor' in ancient Greek is just a spokesman. Being a good orator was a part of classical Roman 'virtus'. There's a saying describing the ideal of such a man - 'vir bonus dicendi peritus' - that is 'a good man skilled (experienced) in speaking'. My classical education involved this aspect as well and I'm no less than proud of the fact.

Rhetoric has a bad connotation. And deserved it well.

Rhetoric is the art of mispresenting the world, so it seems, that your actions are reasonable and your your goals are noble.

The most famous euphemism is: Final Solution.

I mean, how must the Germans have felt, when after the WWII, they found out that the meaning of "Final Solution" is genocide.

Winston Churchill, I think, is next to Goebels, known best for his rhetorical talent. I mean "blood, sweat, toil and tears" sounds good. And he summed up the use of rhetoric in politics best:

"I gather, young man, that you wish to be a Member of Parliament. The first lesson that you must learn is, when I call for statistics about the rate of infant mortality, what I want is proof that fewer babies died when I was Prime Minister than when anyone else was Prime Minister. That is a political statistic."

Not really. In fact, bluntly said, one can't agree with that. It's the mistaken common use that has given a negative conotation to the word. Again bluntly said, by people who didn't really know much about rhetoric - no offence here, citizens just don't have to know anything about that. Heh, they needn't play language experts either. But well, the word's ethymological origin can't be changed no matter what some groups would like to suggest. Generally, if the negative conotation is taken as granted, then all attempts at rhetoric are seen as at least suspicious and that's what someone could aim for. 'Blah, blah, rhetoric' is what an empty-skulled jock would say to an educated man in a discussion. Guess whom the public will stand by. Life is brutal.

Carthago Delenda Est!

Carthago belongs to the axis of evil and must be destroyed

1. I can't see how etymology would have any impact on connotation -> "*****" (not beach)

2. To avoid discussion over this point, it would be possible to rephrase the question "Use of Rhetoric (neutral) in political agitation (negative)

Only in political or uneducated use it's negative. Technically and well, *correctly* it's neutral.

I don't think "rhetoric" alone is derogatory, it's the sentences and phrases that include it that can be derogatory. For example "mere rhetoric" or "all that is, is rhetoric".

In these examples, the connotation is negative because it implies there is no substance behind the persuasive words; the originator is using their skill with words to persuade the gullible, rather than using concrete facts.

Most often used by those who lack rhetorical skill and are therefore losing the argument. ;)