Loading field map
Rhetorical studies investigates how symbols shape thought, action, and social order. At its core lies a persistent tension: is rhetoric a universal art of persuasion, applicable across all contexts, or is it a situated practice, inseparable from the power relations, cultural assumptions, and technological conditions of its time? The frameworks that have defined the subfield over the past two and a half millennia are best understood as competing answers to that question, each building on, reacting against, or coexisting with its predecessors.
Classical Rhetoric, developed in ancient Greece and Rome and dominant from roughly 400 BCE to 500 CE, treated persuasion as a teachable art with universal principles. Its architects—Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian—organized rhetoric around five canons (invention, arrangement, style, memory, delivery) and three appeals (ethos, pathos, logos). The model was speaker-centered and civic: a trained orator could move audiences in law courts, political assemblies, or ceremonial settings. Classical Rhetoric assumed that effective persuasion followed stable rules that transcended particular cultures or historical moments. That assumption would later become the target of nearly every subsequent framework.
New Rhetoric (1950–1990) broke with the classical focus on public speaking by redefining rhetoric as the study of all symbolic action. Kenneth Burke’s concept of identification—the idea that persuasion works by creating shared substance between speaker and audience—replaced the older emphasis on deliberate argument. Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca revived the study of argumentation in everyday discourse. New Rhetoric universalized rhetoric even further than the classical tradition: if all language is rhetorical, then no human communication stands outside its reach. Yet this very expansion created pressure for later frameworks. By claiming that rhetoric is everywhere, New Rhetoric made it harder to ignore who gets to speak, whose symbols count, and how power shapes the field of symbolic action.
The 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence of three overlapping but distinct frameworks that challenged New Rhetoric’s universalism from different angles.
Feminist Rhetoric (1970–present) began by recovering the rhetorical practices of women who had been excluded from the classical canon—writers like Aspasia, Christine de Pizan, and Sojourner Truth. It argued that the very definition of rhetoric had been shaped by male-dominated institutions and that women’s ways of persuading (through personal narrative, silence, or collective action) had been systematically devalued. Later work insisted on intersectionality: gender cannot be separated from race, class, and sexuality. Feminist Rhetoric did not reject the idea of rhetoric as symbolic action, but it insisted that any adequate account must attend to who is authorized to speak and under what conditions.
Critical Rhetoric (1980–present) shared Feminist Rhetoric’s concern with power but focused more directly on how discourse naturalizes ideology. Drawing on Marxist theory, the Frankfurt School, and later on Michel Foucault’s work on discourse and power, critical rhetoricians examined how everyday language—news reports, political speeches, corporate advertising—makes particular social arrangements seem inevitable. Unlike New Rhetoric, which treated persuasion as a neutral process, Critical Rhetoric treated it as a site of struggle. Its practitioners often adopted an explicitly political stance, aiming to expose domination and open space for resistance.
Postmodern Rhetoric (1980–present) went further than Critical Rhetoric by questioning the very possibility of stable meaning and objective critique. Influenced by Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction and Jean-François Lyotard’s skepticism toward grand narratives, postmodern rhetoricians argued that language is inherently unstable, that no final truth can anchor persuasion, and that every rhetorical appeal is itself a product of contingent historical forces. This created a tension with Critical Rhetoric: if all claims are equally unstable, on what ground can one critique power? Postmodern Rhetoric did not resolve that tension; instead it made the field more self-conscious about its own assumptions.
These three frameworks coexisted and sometimes competed. Feminist Rhetoric and Critical Rhetoric often worked together, while Postmodern Rhetoric’s skepticism sometimes seemed to undercut the political commitments of the other two. Yet together they transformed rhetorical studies from a discipline focused on effective speaking into one that interrogates the relationship between discourse, identity, and power.
From the 1990s onward, three further frameworks extended the critical turn by insisting on the importance of specific contexts—cultural, technological, and global.
Cultural Rhetoric (1990–present) built on the insights of Feminist and Critical Rhetoric but shifted attention to the rhetorical practices of particular cultural, ethnic, and subcultural communities. Rather than applying universal categories, cultural rhetoricians study how meaning is made within African American, Latinx, Indigenous, and other traditions, often using ethnographic methods. This framework resists the idea that any single rhetorical theory can account for all human symbolic activity. It shares with Postmodern Rhetoric a suspicion of universal claims, but it grounds its analysis in lived experience rather than in abstract deconstruction.
Digital Rhetoric (2000–present) examines how persuasion operates in networked, algorithmic environments. Early work focused on hypertext and the rhetoric of websites; more recent scholarship analyzes social media algorithms, memes, bots, and platform design. Digital Rhetoric does not replace earlier frameworks but applies them to new conditions: the same questions about power, identity, and meaning now play out in code and interface. It has also introduced new concerns, such as the role of nonhuman agents (algorithms) in shaping rhetorical situations.
Global Rhetorical Studies (2000–present) responds to the Western-centrism of all previous frameworks by studying rhetorical traditions from around the world on their own terms. Scholars in this area examine Chinese, Indian, Arabic, African, and Indigenous rhetorical practices without forcing them into Greco-Roman categories. Global Rhetorical Studies is not simply comparative; it aims to decolonize the field by questioning the assumption that Western rhetoric provides the norm against which all other traditions are measured. It overlaps with Cultural Rhetoric but takes a more explicitly transnational and comparative approach.
Today, Feminist Rhetoric, Critical Rhetoric, Cultural Rhetoric, Digital Rhetoric, and Global Rhetorical Studies are all active frameworks, each with its own journals, conferences, and research programs. They agree on several fundamental points: rhetoric is always situated, always entangled with power, and never reducible to a set of timeless techniques. They disagree, however, on the goals of rhetorical analysis. Some scholars, especially those working in Critical and Feminist Rhetoric, see critique as a step toward social transformation; they want to expose oppression and empower marginalized voices. Others, particularly those influenced by Postmodern Rhetoric, are more skeptical about the possibility of a stable political project and focus instead on the play of meaning and the limits of representation. A related disagreement concerns cultural specificity versus universal ethics: Global Rhetorical Studies often argues that each tradition must be understood on its own terms, while some critics worry that this position makes cross-cultural judgment impossible. These debates are not signs of fragmentation but of a field that has grown more self-aware. The frameworks that once seemed like replacements—New Rhetoric overtaking Classical, Critical overtaking New—now appear as layers in an ongoing conversation about what it means to study how symbols shape our world.