Page 74 - Cultural Studies A Practical Introduction

58 Rhetoric

about reason, morals, and nature are themselves the products of human
language use. Philosophers, religious leaders, and scientists constantly
revise and reinterpret their ideas based on arguments that take place within
their professional circles. They all work to convince each other that their
way is the “ correct ” way, and that a particular course of action is preferable
to another. A Sophist would claim they are all simply rhetoricians in denial.
Protagoras ’ dictum is often interpreted negatively as a statement of
radical moral relativism and individual self - interest – if there is no logic or
order underpinning the moral laws that govern society, then it follows that
anything is permissible, and anarchy is inevitable. However, this reading
of Protagoras is founded on a very pessimistic understanding of human

nature. It assumes humans are inherently unruly, selfish, and in servitude
to their primal passions, and thus require a powerful central authority to
keep them in line and provide moral guidance and rules. A more generous
understanding of Protagoras ’ statement would interpret it as a declaration
of independence from oppressive superstition, and of confi dence in
people ’ s ability to cultivate human culture and civilization as a corrective
to barbarism and animality. Far from licensing everyone to indulge in
appalling behavior, the statement could suggest that the individual must
attend to the community in order to cooperatively construct a mutually

beneficial means of survival in nature. In order to form these communal
bonds, there must be some shared meaning, something on which people
can at least cautiously and imperfectly agree, and there must be some
human intentionality behind the selection and advocacy of one meaning
rather than another. In other words, there must be rhetoric. Rhetoric is the
way people organize the chaos of experience into cohesive, shared world-
views through persuasive public discourse. Without rhetoric, there could
be no society. Of course, people have a pervasive and tragic habit of using
rhetoric to build value systems founded on principles of exclusivity and
exploitation, but by the same token, rhetoric can be used to critique and
reform inhumane social institutions and cultural practices. Indeed, rheto-
ric ’ s strength as a critical tool is not in its methodological usefulness for
establishing a stable sense of what is , but rather, its adaptability to changing
social conditions and its practical use value as an instrument for setting
into action the forces that determine what should be, and what can be.
While rhetoric was considered a vitally important element in the devel-
opment and maintenance of human societies in the ancient world, its
centrality in the study of contemporary culture was not established until
relatively recently. From the 1920s through the 1960s, rhetorical studies