Rhetoric versus Philosophy

I think I've realised why I hate literary theory so much, and why I'm so interested in writing sermons. I'm a rhetorician!

I know rhetorician isn't quite the right word anymore, but we talk about this sort of thing a lot in my Renaissance Lit. class, so it sounds slightly inadequate for me to say I'm a speech-maker or a persuader or a whatever other modern term one might substitute for rhetorician. Suffice it to say, I'm not interested in abstract theory or figuring out how/why things work. I'm a very practical person, in that what I want to know is how things affect people. Since I'm an English major, I'm specifically interested in how words affect people. How to make people agree, why they disagree, what emotions an argument carries, and so on.

This is why I like literature, but not literary theory. This is why philosophy (whether modern or ancient, written in today's language or incomprehensible jargon) holds no interest for me, makes me ask "what's the point?". This is why I like preaching, and essay writing, and having long involved conversations with people. I like the notion of trying to understand how you explain something so that others will get it, and knowing the best way to convince someone of your point.

Now, I know this has a bit of a control-freak edge to it (but then again, so do I...). Being a preacher, or a rhetorician, or even just a teacher, means you could abuse your power, use the tricks of rhetoric to make people agree black is white and good is evil and there are five lights, not four. Classic Philosophers hated rhetoricians, called them liars and sophists. That connotation still exists today --look at political speech-making today. It's all about convincing people that you're right, when you're actually very very wrong.

But that sort of thing makes me mad, gives preachers and speech-makers a bad name. I know for myself that the sermons that have made me the maddest (to the point where I've nearly walked out) where not those where I disagreed with the theological point was being made, but those where I agreed with the point, but thought that the method used to convince people was dirty. I don't know if you've ever had this experience, but sometimes you just know (whether they're right or wrong) that people are not being clean with their rhetoric. They're using all the emotional and tactical and linguistic tricks to make you agree with them -- not because they're right or wrong, but because they get off on knowing that they can do that.

Now, while I do admit there's a certain pleasure in knowing you've convinced someone, I don't want to trick people into agreeing with me. Yes, I'm a rhetorician, committed to the notion that words have power and communication is a meaningful exchange -- but I won't stoop to use whatever means necessary to get my point across.