Confucius

I appreciated the use of mixed research methods by Huiling Ding in the article, “Confucius’s Virtue-Centered Rhetoric: A Case Study of Mixed Research Methods in Comparative Rhetoric.” He mentions that it is important to understand the context of individual rhetorical situations before you place them in them into larger pictures. I think this is especially important in comparative rhetoric because it helps rhetoricians understand the value of other kinds of rhetoric on their own, not just in comparison to Western rhetoric. His methods and explanations of those methods made me realize that my blog last week was not the best because it was a back and forth comparison between Western rhetoric and Egyptian rhetoric. Although this helped me organize information in my mind, it did not consider Egyptian rhetoric completely on its own before I placed it in the bigger picture.

The development of rhetoric in China occurred as government officials communicated with the people. It was not the same kind of oral culture that the Greeks had because China did not have a public forum for debate. This lack of a public forum reminded me of the ignorant masses concept. Because many people were illiterate and did not participate in the decision-making processes of the government or society, they had different rhetorical goals.

Ding discusses the key words used by Confucius, yan and ren. I first thought these were similar to the canons. If they are, the canons of Chinese rhetoric would be language and virtue. I understood these to be similar to appeals to logos and appeals to ethos. By focusing on the language and message itself, the author appeals to logos (yan). By focusing on his or her own credibility and virtue, the author appeals to ethos (ren). It is apparent that ren/virtue is a key ingredient to persuasion for Confucius. His idea of virtue is similar to the idea that actions speak louder than words. However, it should be used in combination with good and truthful words to be most persuasive. This reminded me of the protests we discussed in class last week as a form of powerful persuasion. Many protests don’t need words to convince others, they can simply be a sit-in or a silent display like human bodies wrapped up like meat to represent an important message.

In my mind, I developed an equation to represent Confucius’ method to successful rhetoric:

Truthful words + Virtuous actions = True Persuasion

Because Confucius was so concerned with virtue, he is following the idea of the “good man, speaking well.” I admire this approach and agree that virtuous actions have strong rhetorical power. However, I wonder how effective Confucius’ strategies would be in modern day America. Are virtuous actions loud enough to be persuasive? Do we need powerful language in addition to them? Or in replacement of them?  

Other questions:

1.     Is the appeal to pathos important to Confucius?

2.     What other methods can we use to study rhetoric from other cultures besides using a back-and-forth comparison to Western rhetoric?