Praise and Blame as Tenets of Aristotle’s Epideictic Rhetoric

     Epideictic rhetoric usually contains ‘praise and blame’, as one of its major tools to execute its effect. Condit (1985) suggests that underlying the function of definition is often the ‘appraisal’ of the events, persons and objects in our daily lives. We define and identify ourselves as good (necessarily) by categorising ourselves against ‘the bad’. Jasinski (Cited in Hubanks, 2009) states that today, epideictic rhetoric most commonly deals with praise and blame speech, in which the people’s virtues and vices and their good traits and bad traits are concerned. These are the essential points of reference if one intends to praise or blame. Deliberative and forensic types of rhetoric are dedicated to commenting on the world and social actions within it. However, epideictic rhetoric tends to be ‘a significant social action in itself’ (Jasinski, quoted in Hubanks, 2009, p. 202).

     Subsequently, while epideictic rhetoric is mostly used to present praise, it may also be utilised to blame someone (Bostdorff, 2011). Blame rhetoric is often used to attack individuals who oppose revered values or who represent values antithetical to society. In this way, rhetors enhance the understanding and sharing of community. Blame rhetoric may involve, in times of war, dehumanising the enemy and, thus, serves to justify military violence. Because the enemy is attributed to be so savage and evil, such blame rhetoric enhances a correspondingly positive self-image of the nation and its leader. For instance, President George W. H. Bush’s commemoration of V-J Day criticised both the enemies in the war on terror and the enemies of World War II. In fact, Bush argued that today’s war was the same as World War II because the 61 enemies in both conflicts were the same (Bostdorff, 2011). Although speakers use epideictic rhetoric to praise or blame in terms of the condition of things existing at the time of delivering a speech, they also find it effective to recover the past and to have plans for the future (Eisenstadt, 2014). This notion is especially evidenced within the post-9/11 narrative, wherein Bush’s speeches frequently recalled past and future alike.

     Admittedly, epideictic presidential rhetoric, especially praise and blame strategies, has proved potential in attempts of justifying and gaining support for wars, particularly when there is public opposition, as in the case of Bush and Iraq (Bostdorff, 2011). As such, praise discourse continues to be an appealing rhetorical form for political leaders as it aims at persuading on deliberative issues without seeming to do so (Bostdorff, 2011). This notion is also supported in Aristotle’s note that to praise an individual ‘is in one respect akin to urging a course of action’ because it encourages audiences to acknowledge and accept the praise as speakers have forwarded it (Aristotle, 2004, p. 1367b).

References

Hubanks, J. (2009) 'Praise, blame and advocacy: An examination of President George W. Bush's post-9/11 discourse and the rhetorical genres that define it', Intersections, 10(2), 199-225.

Condit, C. M. (1985) 'The functions of epideictic: The Boston massacre orations as exemplar', Communication Quarterly, 33(4), 284-298.

Bostdorff, D. M. (2011) 'Epideictic rhetoric in the service of war: George W. Bush on Iraq and the 60th anniversary of the victory over Japan', Communication Monographs, 78(3), 296-323.

Aristotle. (2004) Rhetoric (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). New York: Dover Publications, Inc.