On the Term "Dunamis" in Aristotle's Definition of Rhetoric
The term dunamis, by which Aristotle defines rhetoric in the first chapter of The Art of Rhetoric, is a “power” term, as its various meanings in Aristotle’s corpus—from vernacular ones like “political influence” to strictly philosophical ones like “potentiality”—attest.1 In the Rhetoric, however, dunamis is usually translated as “ability” or “faculty,” a designation that, compared to other terms that describe persuasion in ancient Greek poetics and rhetoric (such as “bia” [“force”] or “eros” [“seduction”]), marks rhetoric as a neutral human capacity rather than the use of language entangled in the vagaries of violence and desire.2 John Kirby calls Aristotle’s definition “one of the boldest moves in the history of the philosophy of language: to redefine rhetoric, not as the use of peitho but as the study of peitho” (1990, 227). The presumption of rhetoric’s ethical neutrality implied by dunamis has indeed become commonplace in interpretations of Aristotle’s treatise itself and of rhetoric as a social phenomenon. As George Kennedy puts it in his authoritative translation of the Rhetoric, “Aristotle was the first person to recognize clearly that rhetoric as an art of communication was morally neutral, that it could be used either for good or ill” (1991, ix). In this article, I would like to probe another, perhaps not so reassuring, implication of dunamis as a term for rhetoric—that as “an ability to see all available means of persuasion,” it does not need to become (or emulate) practical oratory. In what follows, I suggest that Aristotle’s terminology, however neutral it may appear, constitutes an intellectually and politically motivated act of naming that severs rhetorical knowledge from historically specific rhetorical practices and thereby erects a protective barrier between practical rationality and discourses of democracy.
Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric
CONTRIBUTORS: Jacques Brunschwig, M. F. Burnyeat, Christopher Carey, John M. Cooper, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Dorothea Frede, Stephen Halliwell, T. H. Irwin, George A. Kennedy, Stephen R. Leighton, Richard Moran, Martha Craven Nussbaum, C. D. C. Reeve, Paul Ricoeur, Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, Gisela Striker, Robert Wardy
Political Speeches in Athens
Jebb in outlining the differences between ancient and modem oratory maintains that while modern orators try to give the impression that their speeches are extempore, the Greeks polished their speeches with fastidious care and were not ashamed to admit laboured preparation. This view, which is widely held, needs considerable qualification. The purpose of this article is: