Comments on: Chapter 1 Ideology is Rhetoric

By: pawel chrobak

pawel chrobak — Tue, 08 May 2007 14:55:40 +0000

Again this chapter seems to jump around back and forth from Napoleon to France and to science. Gets kind of confusing after a bit, but if you read it closly then you get the idea. After a few revisions it will be a good chapter.

By: Nathan Dirscherl

Nathan Dirscherl — Tue, 01 May 2007 20:58:10 +0000

If I understand the purpose of this chapter correctly, your point essentialy is that “ideology = rhetoric” and that the act of persuasion is something good for society. There’s a great deal of discussion about how different writers and intellectuals have debated the merits of persuasion. Some view ideology as a negative force because of how it corrupts objectivity and forces people to adhere to dogmatic positions. Because you’re using the terms ideology and rhetoric interchangeably, am I correct in assuming that you see the act (or art) of persuasion as something good. Rhetoric (as you occassionally point out – such as the Nazi Germany reference) can be used as a force of evil. Is that the exception to the rule?

By: Mark Sobanski

Mark Sobanski — Tue, 01 May 2007 20:02:18 +0000

I like the way ideology is covered and described throughout history. In some instances though, the discussion between ideology and rhetoric jumps back and forth about each others development rather than a comparison between the two. However, I have never heard of the system of NNN Condillac. I would like to hear more about it.

By: Adam Weiner

Adam Weiner — Tue, 01 May 2007 18:07:36 +0000

I like the way that you describe different ideologies throughout history. Your example of where you argue that “ideology of Muslim fundamentalism reacts to the ideology, and to the concrete politics on the ground, of Western orientalism, imperialism, feminism, republicanism, liberalism, and above all oil-ism” is interesting point yet I think you rush into the term rhetoric too quickly. You seem to jump from discussing the ideology to why rhetoric comes about and vice versa. I would like to know more about the idea “total” and “particular” ideologies.

By: Deirdre McCloskey

Deirdre McCloskey — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:21 +0000

Messrs. Tantarri, Boucher, and Anderson:

Thanks. You, Paul and Sebastian, are right that “rhetoric” is much disdained in some circles, in particular in philosophy. But there’s a good case to be made that Plato—that anti-dermocratic aristocrat irritated at such popular institutions as law courts and legislatures—was quite wrong. He was wrong that there is a realm of non-rhetoric, in which we do not have to persuade other humans. Even math is rhetorical all the way down. I’ve written a good deal on the matter: see for example The Rhetoric of Economics (1985, 2nd ed. 1998) or, a more technically philosophical book, Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics.

But, yes, Sebastian: my point is that the bourgeoisie got “better at PR,” as you put it. The PR in 1600 was all on the side of saints and heroes.

I agree, Paul, that my transition from “that fellow Geertz” (the greatest cultural anthropologist of his generation; he died a couple of months ago) to “rhetoric” is abrupt.

By: Sebastian Anderson

Sebastian Anderson — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 05:47:16 +0000

I agree with you, Paul, about Plato’s objections to rhetoric. As the art of persuasion, rhetoric is essentially a tool, one which can be used to convince someone–or everyone–of just about anything. This is my difficulty with the equation of ideology and rhetoric. With ideology, there can be no question that one’s idea is the correct one. With rhetoric, following Plato’s lead, the idea (it doesn’t matter what it is) is utterly secondary to the act of convincing another that the idea (whatever it happens to be) is correct. I am uncertain whether the change of status for the bourgeoisie c.1848 was really a change in ideology (the bourgeois life is good and virtuous!) or a change in rhetoric, meaning the success of rhetoric (I’ve been convinced that the bourgeois life is good and virtuous). With the first, one can accept the argument of “Bourgeois Virtues” almost at face value. With the option of rhetoric, however, I’m only convinced that the bourgeoisie got better PR in the 19th century. I don’t think that my uncertainty about the relationship between rhetoric and ideology does any damage to the argument that ideology/rhetoric was the key, but greater clarity on this relationship would be quite helpful.

By: Paul Boucher

Paul Boucher — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:59:58 +0000

There’s an awful lot of this Geertz fellow here. The argument of how an ideology of anti-ideology came to be is persuasive, but the connection to rhetoric at the end seems hurried. I get the point, that ideology and rhetoric are both ways of constructing and arguing for a world-view. But wasn’t Plato’s objection to rhetoric that it could be used to argue for something one didn’t believe, or that more severely was not the good and true and that therefore rhetoric was not in itself a good?

By: Allen Tanttari

Allen Tanttari — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:51:58 +0000

You provide many well rounded examples of how ideology is seen in many parts of the world. The shifts through the Christian wealth and the examples from Plato being in ancient Rome seem interesting to compare and contrast. A thing I had a problem with was the system of NNN Condillac. Never heard of it before and would of like to have some more information on what it entails.