Rhetoric of a love triangle: applying

theory to personal experience

Names have been changed to protect the guilty.

INTRODUCTION
Since the ancient Greeks, the emphasis of virtue has been contested within rhetoric. Sophists
treated language like a game rife with moral relativism, contingent on context and situation.
The best speaker was one who could persuade an audience, regardless of authentic or pure
motives. For Plato, rhetoric was a business of souls and irrefutable reason, and for Quintilian, it
was a good man speaking well.
Over time, rhetoric expanded to meaning-making, knowledge-building, power-creating, realitybending theories. For the purpose of this paper, Ill use select readings from class to define
rhetoric as the symbolic strategy to create meaning, inspire action, or sway attitude. Sections to
discuss the multiple definitions of rhetoric and its features are included. To make it interesting,
I will use real life writing examples to explicate rhetorical concepts. The three drafts presented
are written for a very specific audiencethe unknowing girlfriend of a man having an affair.
The selection of these personal-in-nature samples is clarified below.

WHY GET PERSONAL?

Despite early philosophers lofty ideas of a mind separate from the body, weve learned
through cognitive science that reason is not disembodied from our human bodies, but shaped
by it. We also process information, ideas and experience without awareness. Our reasoning is
emotionally engaged (Lakoff & Johnson 4). Additionally, language is often rooted in the
orientation of the body (Warner 23). We speak in relationship to what we can do, or can be
done to us. What better way to recognize the body as the intrinsic starting point of rhetoric
than by examining infidelityan ethical situation also inherently tied to the body?
Further, the rhetorical situation requires a gray-area issue in which right and wrong are not
clearly defined and must be discussed (Bitzer 15). In the samples, the rhetor deliberates on

Alex Roberts
December 14, 2012
2

whether and what to tell the unsuspecting girlfriend. The right thing to do in this situation
isnt obvious. Finally, while public discourse is most commonly thought of as the forum of
rhetoric, private discourse is actually the primary place people will practice rhetoric. This
particularly delicate context, while hopefully unchartered by most readers, is a prime example
of audience consideration, kairos, virtue, and creating an appeal.

CLARIFYING RHETORIC
While grateful for Platos profound contributions to the field, including dialectic and Truth with
a capital T, Im going to exclude his work from further discussion. His insistence of universal
truth implies there is only one correct way of thinking about situations, and only one right
outcome. If that were the case, no one would ever need to discuss problems or write discussion
papers again, since Plato would have given us a roadmap to the solution. But here we are
Modern thinkers seemed to have returned to a more flexible understanding of rhetoric and its
potential. For Burke, rhetoric is working with attitude or opinions. John Locke said style is
problematic because words deviate from their intended or general meaning, so that not all
interpretations will be consistent. For Nietzsche, truth was a social arrangement, not an
ultimate reality. To him, and to many, language can never be neutral or objective. According to
Bitzer, rhetoric is pragmatic: it comes into existence to produce action or change; it performs a
task (4). It alters reality.
The subsequent attitude about rhetoric is negative. Rhetoric traditionally has been closely
concerned with the techniques for gaining compliance. This longstanding association with
persuasion has been at the heart of the conflict over whether rhetoric is a neutral tool for
bringing about agreements, or an immoral activity that ends in manipulation (Herrick 4). This is
because other features of rhetoric are overlooked, such as Richard McKeons view that
rhetoric is a universal and architectonic art, which means rhetoric is also the study of how we
organize our thinking on a wide range of subjects (Herrick 3).
One very important thing to understand about rhetoric is it is a means of conscious art
(Herrick 4). According to Herrick, artistic means are already found in languagethus, for

Alex Roberts
December 14, 2012
3

something to be rhetorical, it is so because of deliberate intentions of the rhetor, not inherent

qualities of the words. In fact, speech itself isnt necessarily rhetorical: Language without
thoughtwe use so much of it in our daily routine exchanges, saying what we have said so
often that no thought goes into the production (Britton 206). James Herrick continues with
this notion, defining rhetoric as the systematic study and intentional practice of effective
symbolic expression (8). He outlines six distinguishing characteristics of rhetoric: it is planned,
adapted to an audience, reveals human motives, is responsive to a situation, persuasionseeking, and concerned with contingent issues (8). He also outlines six social functions of
rhetoric: ideas are tested, advocacy is assisted, power is distributed, facts are discovered,
knowledge is shaped, and communities are built (15). Well rely on these outlines when we
discuss the samples.

KAIROS/CONTEXT
Situational context, the modern term for kairos (Kenneavy 82), is as intrinsic to rhetoric as is the
body. After all, it is a specific situation which calls discourse into existence (Bitzer 2). A rhetor
must perceive some sign of invitation, and must consider time, place, speaker and audience to
address issues at the right time, and with the proper measure (Bitzer, 10 Kenneavy 85).
There are three constituents of any rhetorical situation: exigency (an imperfection marked by
urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done), the audience, and the
constraints which influence the rhetor. Standard sources of constraint include beliefs, attitudes,
documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives and the like. Important to note, by
Bitzers definition, for an exigency to be rhetorical, the audience must be capable of being
positively influenced by the rhetoric and able initiate change as a result (8).
In understanding how the rhetor from the examples became entangled with an involved man, it
would be appropriate to review Brittons concept of projections:
At any moment, at the same time as we are drawing from the outside we are also
projecting our own wishes, our hopes and fears and expectations... Our representation

Alex Roberts
December 14, 2012
4

of that situation is the resultant of the two processes, that of internalizing and that of
externalizing: and because what you project is a function of your personality (your
mood of the moment as well as your habitual ways of feeling and thinking about
things), and what I project is a function of my personality, our representations of that
shared situation will be different. Britton 14.
Thus, two people interacting in the same situation will have competing expectations and
attitudes that lend itself to different interpretations. This is particularly true when one party
enters into a shared situation with the intent to deceive! Lets explore the situational context of
our actual rhetor now.

SITUATIONAL CONTEXT OF SAMPLES

The background for our drafts: After rendezvousing with an ex-boyfriend (Hank) for the first
time in two years, the rhetor, (Amber), discovers that she has taken on an identity of otherwoman during her months-long flirting. When confronted, Hank insists he does not have an
actual girlfriend, but is feeling things out with Katie. Not convinced, Amber ditches Hank and
begins to wrestle with the meaning and obligations of her new role.

IDENTITY AND THE RHETORS STRUGGLE

Amber now faces a moral dilemma: should she share information with Katie about Hanks
deception? It was never her intention to interfere in someone elses relationship, and in fact
had asked Hank about his relationship status multiple times over their months of
correspondence and chatting. His lie has put her in an awkward place. In Handlers discussion of
the Western notion of individuality, we learned that individualism allows people to locate
ultimate reality within themselves. Once it became important to focus on the individual self
apart from social status, people were led to ask about the congruence between ones outer
position, or the role one played, and ones inner or true self (2). If happiness is finding
continuity between your standards and expectations (inner self) and action (outer self), then
Amber may experience a loss of self if there is no continuity (Monroe 419, 421).

Alex Roberts
December 14, 2012
5

After consulting with friends, Amber decides that Katies physical health is in as much danger as
her emotional health, and that is reason enough to contact her. The next questions become,
what exactly is to be said? What would be the purpose or the motivation? What does Katie
want to happen, and what does she not want to happen? These questions are critical
throughout the writing process. Amber has to start with them, design with them, edit with
them, and finish with them. Writing is a recursive process of circling back, and similarly she
must circle back to ask herself who she is speaking to (Katie), what does she want her to take
away, and what, outside her efforts, may influence Katie.
As a rhetor, Amber understands that to be successful she must share her message in a way that
Katie can identify with, not against (Monroe 421). She decides to follow Ciceros directive:
emotional appeals should be answered with the stirring of opposite emotions (Burke 54).
She then brainstorms with a friend: I cant decide how to say it. Like, really short, the facts are
this, or the whole story... Like, how I ended up in SFO, how exactly he lied, how I came to
realize it. Should I offer documentation like my phone records or chat logs?
His advice: Just be frank, and if she asks for details, give them then. If she doesnt believe you,
you can offer chat logs, but just handing them might just make it more painful. I couldnt
imagine reading that.

Alex Roberts
December 14, 2012
6

THE SAMPLES
Amber begins by creating the first draft on her iPhone, which she plans to send to Katie on a
social networking site. She develops a short narrative of what happened.
Katie, I thought you might be interested to know that I just returned from visiting Hank in San
Francisco. Weve engaged in a very sexual flirtation for several months, and we agreed to meet up to
see if we could rekindle a real relationship. While there, I learned that he has been playing me and
you. He explicitly lied about his relationship status and sexual activity in order to convince me to have
unprotected sex. I dont really know the full extent of your relationship at this time, but find his
behavior to be wildly obscene, and I thought you might need to know of it.

Draft 1

Amber knows that narratives are inherently embedded with a persons morals; as she tells the
story, she reveals personal judgments and justifications (Monroe 407). Narratives also rely on
faulty memories, give permanence to the rhetors ordering while such prioritizations arent
necessarily correct, offer explanations for actions that sometimes people dont truly
understand, and create meaning after the fact even though that meaning may not have been
the true reason for their actions.
To combat the weaknesses of narrative, she decides to edit. She wants to provide specific
details while her memory is fresh and to give her story more credibility. Changes are marked in
red.
Katie, I thought you might be interested to know that I just returned from visiting Hank in San
Francisco. He and I have engaged in a very sexual flirtation several months since April, and we
agreed to meet up to see if we could rekindle a real relationship. While there, I learned that Turns
out, he has been playing me (and perhaps you) for months. He explicitly lied about his relationship
status and sexual activity in order to convince me to have unprotected sex. Im still not certain of
the full extent of your relationship at this time, but I find his behavior to be wildly obscene
obscenely disrespectfulof our feelings, values, trust and bodiesand I thought you might need
to know of it.

Draft 2

Alex Roberts
December 14, 2012
7

Edits in draft 2: She begins by moving straight into fact, emphasizing his role in the flirtation
with he, and adding a timeline. Since Amber is unsure of the actual relationship status of
Katie and Hank, she provides this latter detail so Katie can bump it against her own timeline
with Hank. Amber also removes the implication that Hank is definitely playing Katie, too. She
replaces the adjective obscene with disrespectful to highlight the trespass against the
commonalities she anticipates she shares with Katie.
Not satisfied, Amber moves to drafting on her computer, where shes more able to express
thoughts completely. Changes are marked in red.
Katie, Im not exactly sure of your relationship with Hank, but I thought you might need to know Ive
just returned from visiting him in San Francisco. He and I have engaged in an very sexual intense
flirtation since April, and we agreed to meet up this weekend to see if we could rekindle a
relationship. Turns out, he has been playing me (and perhaps you) for months. He explicitly lied about
his relationship status and sexual activity in order to convince me to have unprotected sex. I explicitly
asked if he was seeing anyone, and he said no. After a culmination of signs, I did the shitty thing and
went through his phone on Sunday (passcode 7889 should you need it). It was then I learned you two
were very much involved in something. I find his behavior deception to be obscenely disrespectful to
both of usto our feelings, values, trust and bodies. Within the hour I left his hotel room at the
Sheraton-Mission (room 509) and have since been deliberating on whether it was worth saying
anything to you. Again, I dont know where you two are at, and I may be overly presumptuous, but I
was furious for both of us to see he was commiserating your head cold and making weekend plans
from a bed he was sharing with me. Do as you wish with this information, and if you need more, I am
willing to provide what I can.

Draft 3

Edits in draft 3: One of the major constraints Amber is facing is the uncertainty of the actual
parameters of Hank and Katies relationship. She inserts hedging language to account for this
unknown fact. She removes the description very sexual and replaces it with intense. Amber
thinks its important for Katie to know that her engagement with Hank was of a romantic
nature, but decides that using the word sex too many times could be painful and alienating
for Katie. However, she cant remove the unprotected sex information because its crucial to
her motive for writing. She is banking on this line to shake Katie enough to question Hanks
faithfulness because it puts her health at risk.

Alex Roberts
December 14, 2012
8

Amber also provides several more specific details, including that she asked about Hanks
relationship status. In an indirect way, Amber is saying that she was trying to avoid this
situation. Its also an attempt to recognize that different projections were happening between
her and Hankwhile they were entered into a shared situation, they were having completely
different experiences. She also spells out how she learned of the deception, and offers Katie a
way of verifying this information (by giving her Hanks passcode). She is trying to build on the
notion that women stick together, with language like both of us and willing to provide what I
can. Her word choice is purposeful and calculating, while still being sincere.

EXPLICATION
Ambers private discourse is an example of epideictic rhetoric. She aims to use pathetic
(emotional) appeals to demonstrate the dishonorable, or obscenely disrespectful, nature of
Hanks behavior. Her task is to alter the reality of Katie by providing sad, but important
information at the right time and with proper measure. As soon as she returned from the trip,
she contacted Katie so that her story would be timelier, and avoided dramatic language or
antics.
Ambers methods employ Herricks six distinguishing characteristics of rhetoric. First, its
planned. She exerts a lot of effort and strategy into what is said, how, and why. Second, its
adapted specifically for an audience, Katie. Amber considers Katies knowledge of Amber,
Katies tentative relationship with Hank, and the details she thinks Katie would need to believe
her. Third, Ambers motives arent perfectly clear, but they are sincere. She demonstrates
concern for Katies health, the veracity of Hank in other relationships, and exhibits outrage at
the violation against both of them.
Fourth, Amber is responding to a very specific situation. Her invitation didnt come in the mail
per se, but she saw reason to reach out after circumstances suggested Hank was not valuing
either woman. Fifth, Amber knows theres a possibility that Hank can talk his way out of it, but
she wants to affect Katies attitude in a way that at least gets her to question Hank about the
concrete details Amber has provided. Finally, while hopefully infidelity is not a matter that

Alex Roberts
December 14, 2012
9

confronts everyone, the question of being truthful in difficult situations is. Amber deliberated
over whether it was worth anything to mention, and ultimately decided it was.
Ambers message also performed the six functions of rhetoric. She provided facts so that Katie
could test them out on her own; she advocated for safe sex and honesty within relationships
violations against both her and Katie; she removed power from Hank the snake by casting a
light on his lies and revealing facts; she affected Katies understanding of Hanks behavior; and
hopefully, she strengthened the community of womanhood by not turning her head against
injustice, but instead by building a bridge. This last point is the most important of Ambers
mission: that in the shared identity of woman, she confirms that she would never cross the
line against someone in her community.
In rhetoric, its easy to fall out of bounds from ethics, but Amber does her best to address an
important issue with a decision that someone could just as easily refute. The point of rhetoric is
to wrestle with what is right, and be able to support your conclusion. Her drafts navigate this
challenge and the many channels of rhetoric understanding the complexity of situational
context, exigency and audience, right time and proper measure, and creating a message that
others can identify witheven in incredibly opposing circumstances.

Alex Roberts
December 14, 2012
10

WORKS CITED
Lakoff, George. Johnson, Mark. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge
to Western Thought. 1999.
Bitzer, Lloyd F. The rhetorical situation. (1968). Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
Britton, J. Language and Learning. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. 1993.
Burke Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. U of California P. 1969.
Handler, R. (1986). Authenticity. Anthropology Today, 2(1), 2-4.
Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 5 th ed. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall, 2012.
Kinneavy, J. E. (1969) The basic aims of discourse. College Composition and Communication,
20(5), 297-304.
Lakoff, George. Johnson, Mark. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge
to Western Thought. 1999.
Monroe, Kristen. (2003) How Identity and Perspective Constrain the Moral Choice.
International Political Science Review. 24:4, 405-425.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On truth and lies in a nonmoral sense. In Daniel Breazeale (Ed. and Trans.)
Philosophy and Truth: Selections from Nietzsches Notebooks of the Early 1870s. (1979).
Warner, Michael. Public and counterpublics. New York: Zone Books, 2002.