Ends of Rhetoric: Epistemic, Political, and Aesthetic

Epistemic Rhetoric

  • Ends of rhetoric (the ends we want to hit when describing artifacts) are epistemic, political, and aesthetic rhetoric.
  • Epistemic rhetoric = study of knowing; etymology and scope
    • episteme is the root word for knowledge from Greek; adding -logy implies a study of knowledge (e.g., philosophers, historians, and researchers who situate knowledge historically).
    • Epistemic rhetoric concerns how we produce knowledge and how cultural practices shape what counts as knowledge.
    • Example from history: the shift from relying on human eyesight to using instruments and mathematics in science. Galileo invented the telescope and used Copernican math to argue against a geocentric view; the church resisted because it conflicted with established beliefs.
    • This shows how knowledge is historically and culturally situated, not just a neutral discovery.
    • Epistemic can occur in various domains: science journals, religious texts, philosophy, psychology journals, and even public discourse (e.g., social media)
    • Everyday example: a TikTok claim like “burn this orange and inhale its vapor, your days will be better” raises questions about how such claims are produced and presented—i.e., a question about epistemic rhetoric and how audiences assess knowing in online media.
  • What makes something epistemic? It concerns the nature of knowing and knowledge production, including how artifacts promise certain knowable relations or truths.
  • Relationship to epistemic rhetoric in artifacts:
    • Different viewers can analyze the same artifact through different epistemic lenses, changing what they take to be known.
    • Epistemic ends focus on what counts as knowledge, how it is established, and how audiences are persuaded about what they know.
  • Key terminology:
    • Epistemic rhetoric = rhetoric about knowing; extepistemicext{epistemic} rhetoric
    • Episteme = knowledge (root word); extepistemeext{episteme}
    • Epistemology = the study of knowledge and its grounds; often discussed in philosophy and history of science.
  • Historical note on epistemology:
    • The shift from perception-based science to instrument-based, mathematically grounded science marks a major epistemic learning moment.
    • This shift illustrates how cultural practices and tools shape what counts as evidence and knowledge.
  • Practical implications in modern contexts:
    • Epistemic rhetoric helps us analyze what counts as knowledge in scientific debates, religious texts, media, and everyday claims.
    • It informs how campaigns or messages frame what audiences should know and trust.
  • Connection to the broader ends of rhetoric:
    • Epistemic ends are not superior to political or aesthetic ends; Ciccarelli’s framework treats epistemic, political, and aesthetic ends as equally important for understanding artifacts.

Political Rhetoric

  • Definition: political rhetoric concentrates on persuading people to act within a shared polity or to support policies; it’s fundamentally about action, not just knowledge.
  • Etymology and birthplace:
    • polis = city state in Greek; political rhetoric aims to influence citizens to act in the city.
    • The idea that words should channel back into the polis (as Isocrates argued) links rhetoric to the common good of the community.
  • Core aim: use language to inspire others to do something as members of a shared city state; it’s about mobilization, policy, and collective action.
  • How politics shows up in texts: sometimes sneaky or embedded in disciplines not traditionally considered political (e.g., journal articles, pop psychology) where knowledge is framed in ways that guide actions or beliefs.
  • Relationship to science and public discourse:
    • Science is often politicized; rhetoric around scientific topics can influence policy and public opinion.
    • Political rhetoric can leverage epistemic frames (what people know) and affect what people do (policy support, voting).
  • Key etymology and historical background:
    • polis (city-state) is central to political rhetoric; the goal is to influence the collective with regard to shared governance and public life.
  • Practical implications in modern contexts:
    • Political rhetoric asks us to consider not just what is known, but what should be done because of what is known; it connects beliefs to actions.
    • In evaluating artifacts, we ask: does the work primarily push for a policy outcome, or does it primarily invoke feelings that mobilize a political response?
  • The interplay with epistemic rhetoric:
    • A text can be epistemic (shaping what we know) and political (shaping what we do) simultaneously; different analyses may foreground one end over another.
  • Example referenced in class:
    • A politician’s speech can be analyzed for how it structures knowledge about policy and how it motivates action.

Aesthetic Rhetoric

  • Definition: aesthetic rhetoric focuses on embodied feeling and sense-making through art, design, and experience; it is about affect, mood, and sensorial engagement.
  • Core idea: aesthetics concerns embodied movement and energy in responses to artifacts; it is not inherently positive or negative, but often aims to elicit a particular experiential response.
  • Technical and applied contexts:
    • User experience (UX) design and interface design aim to shape how people feel and behave as they interact with products.
    • Terms of use and coercive design illustrate how aesthetics can steer behavior (e.g., arbitration clauses embedded in interfaces; coercive elements in software design).
    • Social media interfaces are optimized to maximize scrolling, engagement, and ad revenue; this is aesthetic engineering designed to shape attention and affect rather than to educate or inform.
  • Examples of aesthetic effects:
    • Horror films evoke intense, often sublime, sensory experiences (fear, excitement) that are not inherently positive but are compelling.
    • Miles Davis and certain albums (e.g., Sketches of Spain) evoke bodily or emotional responses (skin buzzing, chills) without necessarily conveying a specific political or epistemic message.
    • Music and sound design can feel ‘living’ or presence-bearing, sometimes triggering religious or spiritual associations or ghostly atmospheres.
  • Critical points:
    • Aesthetic rhetoric can be used to communicate or manipulate feelings, and these feelings can influence beliefs, values, or political attitudes.
    • The labor behind aesthetic experiences (e.g., AI voice modeling, voice artists, production) can be an ethical and rhetorical consideration in analysis.
  • Real-world concerns:
    • The aesthetic of online platforms shapes behavior (e.g., “bouncing” from an interface when users disengage; B2C persuasion through design).
    • The use of AI voices to evoke emotional reactions (e.g., a deceased child’s voice in advocacy campaigns) blends affect with policy goals and raises ethical questions about consent, labor, and representation.
  • Connection to art and daily life:
    • Aesthetic ends are not merely about beauty; they are about how sensory experiences, art, and design provoke feelings that orient thinking and action.
  • Examples discussed in class:
    • The design of social media to maximize scrolling (economic and affective ends).
    • Horror film aesthetics and the “uncanny” feeling in certain artifacts.
    • Music and soundscapes that produce affective responses without explicit political or epistemic messages.

The Ends of Rhetoric and Ciccarelli’s Framework

  • Core claim: all three ends (epistemic, political, aesthetic) are valuable and can be pursued in tandem; no single end should dominate.
  • Ciccarelli traces this view through centuries of thought (Plato, Gorgias, Isocrates) to argue that rhetoric is a multi-ended practice that can be applied to science and persuasion alike.
  • The lesson for students: different artifacts invite different kinds of knowledge depending on which end you emphasize, and you can reveal overlooked aspects by switching ends.
  • Practical takeaway:
    • In research and campaigns, you can explain your choice of end to stakeholders (e.g., “epistemic framing” for knowledge claims, “political framing” for policy mobilization, or “aesthetic framing” for affective engagement).

Proclivities, Artifacts, and How We Analyze Them

  • Proclivity = a personal direction or leaning toward certain kinds of rhetoric (epistemic, political, or aesthetic).
  • Class survey results (varied by term):
    • Most students lean toward aesthetic rhetoric (bodily movement, feeling), with substantial interest in political rhetoric, and some interest in epistemic rhetoric (knowing).
    • Proclivities influence what artifacts students feel connected to and what knowledge they can most effectively generate.
  • Why proclivities matter for artifact analysis:
    • Artifacts contain multiple ends; researchers can unlock different kinds of knowledge by leaning into their own strengths and interests.
    • When researchers align artifacts with their strengths, they are more likely to create valuable knowledge for others.
  • Example artifact discussed: ShopLine (voice-models of a deceased child used to advocate for gun-control policy)
    • Artifact description: a website that automatically calls a senator with a prewritten message spoken in the voice of a child who died in a school shooting.
    • Discussion prompts: how to categorize this artifact along epistemic, political, and aesthetic ends; different students may foreground different ends based on interpretation.
    • Student discussions highlighted:
    • Some saw it as political rhetoric (policy demand) with an aesthetic layer (emotional impact, voice modeling) and potential epistemic elements (claims about gun policy knowledge or evidence).
    • Others emphasized the aesthetic aspect (emotional resonance and labor behind creating the voice) while acknowledging political implications.
    • Takeaway: artifacts can be evaluated from multiple ends; the same artifact can produce different kinds of knowledge depending on the interpretive lens.
  • Implications for research and practice:
    • Use your own proclivities to guide artifact selection and analysis, not just what seems popular or safe.
    • The artifact can become a vehicle for exploring how feelings, knowledge, and action interrelate in real-world contexts.

Artifact Selection and the Artifact Argument Assignment

  • Assignment overview: a 3-page-and-a-half artifact argument that describes the artifact, what makes it rhetorically interesting, and questions for further inquiry.
  • How to choose an artifact:
    • Pick something that aligns with your proclivities and professional goals; avoid the easy or over-covered artifacts.
    • The artifact should be tangible and traceable (printable or easily accessible to others): a song, a film, a video game, a speech, or a specific page/hashtag on social media.
    • Boundaries: scope the artifact (e.g., a specific hashtag, a particular platform, or a single work) to keep the analysis focused.
  • Examples discussed or suggested:
    • Song: Ariana Grande’s "Get Well Soon" (context: after her 2017 concert bombing) – analyze its aesthetic and health/well-being implications.
    • Film: Little Women – analyze its filmography and the aesthetic choices that shape audience interpretation.
    • Video game: Animal Crossing: New Horizons – analyze its procedural rhetoric and social implications; reference Ian Bogost’s work on procedural rhetoric and critique of resource management in the game.
    • Film/music: Childish Gambino’s This Is America – analyze choreography and its cultural meaning (related to Jen LeMesser’s article).
    • Other media: a current trend in JD Vance memes or a band/AI-generated music phenomenon; discuss why it rose in popularity and what it communicates.
  • Framework for artifact analysis:
    • Identify the artifact’s end (epistemic, political, or aesthetic) and how it accomplishes its aims.
    • Describe how the artifact’s design, content, and context influence audiences’ knowledge, actions, or feelings.
    • Consider the labor, intention, and ethical implications behind the artifact (e.g., labor in creating AI voices, or the labor behind a moving narrative).
  • Practical guidelines for presenting the artifact:
    • Provide a concrete artifact that you can print out or link to for readers.
    • Clearly state your professional or creative goals for analyzing the artifact.
    • Include a set of guiding questions you will pursue in the artifact, demonstrating how different ends might yield different insights.
  • Final logistical notes:
    • Discussion often happens in class, followed by office hours to discuss questions.
    • The assignment helps students articulate how rhetoric operates across knowledge, action, and affect in real artifacts.

Additional Guidance and Reflections

  • Choosing artifacts in light of real-world relevance:
    • The class emphasizes that rhetoric is a 2,000-year-old tradition that remains highly applicable to contemporary media and campaigns. See 20002000 years of thinking about persuasion.
  • Ethical and practical implications:
    • Designing interfaces and content to influence behavior raises questions about consent, coercion, and responsibility (e.g., arbitration clauses in terms of use; “dark patterns”).
    • When analyzing artifacts like AI-generated voices of deceased individuals, consider consent, labor, and the potential emotional impact on audiences.
  • Optional connections and interdisciplinary links:
    • The discussion includes references to philosophy (Plato, Gorgias, Isocrates), rhetoric of science, and contemporary media studies.
    • Students are encouraged to connect their analysis to their own fields and career goals (e.g., social media campaigns, UX design, media production).
  • Final message from the instructor:
    • Lean into your proclivities to produce knowledge that is valuable to others.
    • The artifact you choose should be something you care about and that can illustrate how end goals of rhetoric operate in a tangible artifact.
  • Next steps announced:
    • Start thinking about your artifact for the artifact argument assignment.
    • Be prepared to discuss your artifact, its ends, and the guiding questions in the next class.
    • Office hours available for questions and guidance.

Quick reference: key terms and ideas

  • Epistemic rhetoric: rhetoric about knowing; how knowledge is produced and justified.
    • extepistemicext{epistemic} rhetoric; extepistemeext{episteme} (root for knowledge), extepistemologyext{epistemology} (study of knowledge).
  • Political rhetoric: rhetoric aimed at mobilizing action within a polity; linked to the root extpolisext{polis} (city-state).
  • Aesthetic rhetoric: rhetoric of feeling, embodied experience, and artful design; includes affect, UX, film, music, and visual design.
  • Ends of rhetoric: epistemic, political, and aesthetic; all are valuable and can be explored in the same artifact from different angles.
  • Proclivity: a learner’s personal inclination toward a particular end of rhetoric; influences artifact choice and analysis.
  • Artifact: a concrete object or medium (song, film, game, speech, page, hashtag) that can be analyzed for rhetorical ends.
  • Divining rods metaphor: using guided heuristics to locate artifacts that align with personal goals and interests.
  • Notable examples discussed:
    • ShopLine: a site using AI-voiced messages of a deceased child to advocate for gun control; used to discuss epistemic, political, and aesthetic ends.
    • Ariana Grande’s Get Well Soon: discussed as a potential artifact focusing on health and emotional well-being.
    • Little Women (film), Animal Crossing: New Horizons (video game), This Is America (music video) as possible artifacts with distinct aesthetic/political/epistemic angles.