Rhetoric- Mans Art of Persuasion

As I slowly have begun reading Aristotle's rhetoric I can't help but think about Aristotle himself and what he is suggesting. Yes, he is supposed to be "the reference" for rhetoric, but it is hard for me to get past a few things. Before I get on my soap box, I would like to first mention a few constructive things that I am noticing that have inherent value in understanding "the art" of rhetoric.
As Karyal aptly summarized- rhetoric, according to Aristotle and as interpreted by Aristotle, has uses. The most important of these, which I think hints at some of the dialogic qualities admired by Cathy, and myself, is the idea that when we engage the art of persuasion it is important to acknowledge and understand opposing, or in my mind- other sides. Aristotle specifically states that "We must be able to employ persuasion...on opposite sides of a question...in order that we may see clearly what the facts are" (Aristotle, para 7). Now if I understand Aristotle correctly it is important to understand the other side in order to better our advancement of what is good and true, and so that we may be able to call out an adversary that is arguing unfairly or for what is not good or untrue. Although, this has its merits, especially during forensic oratory, I would rather spin this idea by Aristotle into a dialogic use of rhetoric. One that is concerned not just for what is being said in refutation, but also being open to what is said and having respect for the one, or others, that are speaking in refutation. Within the process of understanding the "other side", or in my perspective all the other sides, there is room for one to embrace the principles of dialogue that I cherish, such as: empathy for the other speaker(s), and compassion toward the speakers involved and the subject(s) at hand.

With this said, I am having trouble getting behind his framing of rhetoric (note, I am not that far in the readings) because of its grounding in forensic oratory, his elitist perspective ("there are people whom one cannot instruct" (Aristotle, para 7)), and his positioning and use of MAN. Although there is value in understanding forensic oratory, I don't believe in his rhetorical values of "arriving at truth" and what is just. Truth, with a capital T, is a myth in my humble opinion as well as what is "just". To arrive at what is "just" is inherently grounded in a penal structure with discipline and punishment as tools to check those who are unjust. The flaw here, is that in many instances of justice, and things that are systematically found to be just- I personally have found to be unjust. Thus, to ground rhetoric within the framework of seeking Truth and Justice, or what is Just, is a framework that I am uninterested in, mostly because of its inherently flawed and oppressive natures.

Next, his elitist perspective shows inherent problems with his ideas of rhetoric. Although, this highlights the importance of the audience in rhetoric, I find that to suggest that there are those that are unable to be instructed is problematic. It suggests a privileged position which arguably can inhibit communication, place class value on speech, and can ultimately leave people out of important conversation. In fact, I would like to go so far as to say, that it is such people as he describes as uninstructable, that should be included in conversations and rhetoric (whether political or forensic).

Finally, although his referencing of men as the agents of rhetoric is subject to the times that Aristotle was alive, I still have a hard time excusing it and getting on board. Anytime that people reference people with the terms MAN all I can think of is how historically that term was used to include a very specific group of people (White men with certain class positions- and more recently heterosexual) and exclude most others (Women, persons of color (note: i understand the contentiousness of this term- can you suggest another- it is hard with out limited language), the disabled/handicapped, and many others).

So, as I continue reading Aristotle's rhetoric I will try to put my soap box aside and employ the qualities that I seek in rhetoric, argument, and communication. I will openly try to understand what he is saying, why he is saying it, and respect him as a speaker. I just hope there aren't too many more references of Man- because as someone who isn't his intended audience, as someone who he literally was excluding from the conversation of rhetoric, it kind of hurts since I enjoy rhetoric so much.