Mediums & Politics

Midterm Essays

#4

The coming of written literacy to the Greeks opened up a whole new world to them.  When previously speeches and conversations and ideas had to be recalled from memory, they could now be recorded in a way that allowed them to be accessed and revisited more thoroughly.  In addition, these texts or transcripts could be lent out, or distributed to others that did not hear the original vocalization of ideas.  Not only could ideas and information now be spread at a faster pace, but the ideas about rhetoric and writing began to change as more people had access to this type of material over the one-on-one speeches given once in one place.  Questions arose as to whether or not this form of communication and recording was ultimately beneficial or harmful.

Plato approved; he saw the potential writing had to communicate to the masses ideas that could improve their lives.  When he saw people who could read and write, but did not know Forms, he turned to writing as a way to open their eyes to their lack of knowledge.  What I find interesting is that Plato’s approval and promotion of writing had a high probability of being accepted by the majority, particularly because he was reaching and addressing the majority.  Those, like Socrates, who opposed written rhetoric and favored verbal methods instead, were conveying that opinion through speech, and therefore would not have been able to reach the sheer number of people who would be using and reading written material by someone like Plato.  The written word was bound to win out.

#5

In ancient Greece, success and influence were heavily tied to the ability to persuade others towards your opinion, but much more so for those involved in politics. The political scene was heavily watched and was a large focus for the Greeks, as well as being very open, where supposedly any young man over the age of eighteen could speak at assemblies of thousands of voters. There was a great need for training in strengthening one's own weak arguments and weakening opposing strong arguments, in particular for those who wished to move up in the ranks of politics and hold a leadership position among the people. Even those who did not aspire for such positions still could use the art of persuasion to sway others towards or away from topics they thought were beneficial or harmful, respectively. 

Rhetoric in politics changed with the move towards written literacy, as now those who were not great speakers could hire others to simply write speeches for them. They would still have to be skilled in memory and delivery, but they could skip the training necessary for studying the art of persuasion and instead rely on the written word. Where methods of speech were once everything, writing in rhetoric changed the political scene as to who could participate; if you were a Moses, you'd just hire an Aaron and be set for the election. We see the same need for strong rhetoric in our political system today: we want someone well-versed, logical, with good authority, and human with an emotional appeal. These attributes were prized then, and have continued into what we call our democracy today.