Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T05:50:07.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Rhetoric of Sincerity: Cicero and Smith on Propriety and Political Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2016

DANIEL J. KAPUST*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
MICHELLE A. SCHWARZE*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
*
Daniel J. Kapust is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison (djkapust@wisc.edu).
Michelle A. Schwarze is Post-Doctoral Fellow, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Abstract

The study of rhetoric has recently undergone a revival in political theory as a response to deliberative democratic approaches that value reason over affect in the political sphere. Most rhetorical revivalists look to Aristotle and develop accounts of ethos (character) that privilege the epistemic dimensions of trust, while overlooking the importance that considerations of propriety play in shaping the political speech of democratic leaders. We reconsider the rhetorical approach by integrating the regulative standards suggested by two political thinkers who also were theorists of rhetoric: Cicero and Adam Smith. Committed to character's role in collective judgment, Cicero and Smith both hold that sincerity and context shape decorum or propriety: Leaders rely on decorum to shape their rhetorical appeals, and audiences look to the fit between speech and character to gauge moral trustworthiness. Smith, however, goes beyond Cicero to develop a rhetorical theory more relevant for democracies by highlighting the importance of political context for rhetorical appeals and evaluations. We conclude by suggesting that attention to these components of decorum moves beyond Aristotelian accounts of rhetorical character in a way that is consistent with much empirical research on how voters judge the character of elected officials.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abizadeh, Arash. 2002. “The Passions of the Wise: Phronêsis, Rhetoric, and Aristotle's Passionate Practical Deliberation.” Review of Metaphysics 56: 267–96.Google Scholar
Abizadeh, Arash. 2007. “On the Philosophy/Rhetoric Binaries: Or, Is Habermasian Discourse Motivationally Impotent?Philosophy and Social Criticism 33, no. 4: 445–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Danielle. Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Arena, Valentina. 2013. “The Orator and His Audience: The Rhetorical Perspective in the Art of Deliberation.” 195210. In Steel, C. and Van Der Blom, H., eds. Community and Communication: Oratory and Politics in Republican Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arena, Valentina. 2013. “The Orator and His Audience: The Rhetorical Perspective in the Art of Deliberation.” In Community and Communication: Oratory and Politics in Republican Rome, eds. Steel, Catherine and van der Blom, Henriette. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 195209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Trans. Kennedy, George A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Brunt, P.A. 2013. Studies in Stoicism. Edited by Miriam, Griffin, Alison, Samuels, and Michael, Crawford. Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2009. “Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?Political Theory 37, no. 3: 323–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicero. 1952. Orator. Trans. Hubbell, H. M.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
Cicero. 1991. On Duties. Eds. Griffin, M. T. and Atkins, E. M. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cicero. 2001. On the Ideal Orator. Trans. May, James M. and Wisse, Jakob. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Den Uyl, Douglass J. 2011. “Das Shaftesbury Problem.” The Adam Smith Review. 6. 209223.Google Scholar
Fantham, Elaine. 1984. “ Orator 69–74.” Central States Speech Journal 35, no. 2: 123–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantham, Elaine. 2004. The Roman World of Cicero's De Oratore. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fjelstad, Per. 2003. “Restraint and Emotion in Cicero's De Oratore .” Philosophy and Rhetoric 36, no. 1: 3947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontana, Benedetto, Nederman, Cary J., and Remer, Gary. 2004. “Introduction: Deliberative Democracy and the Rhetorical Turn.” In Talking Democracy: Historical Perspectives on Rhetoric and Democracy, eds. Fontana, Benedetto, Nederman, Cary J., and Remer, Gary. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazer, Michael. 2010. The Enlightenment of Sympathy: Justice and the Moral Sentiments in the Eighteenth Century and Today. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridkin, Kim L., and Kenney, Patrick J.. 2011. “The Role of Candidate Traits in Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 73: 6173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1997. “Implications of Political Expertise in Candidate Trait Evaluations.” Political Research Quarterly 50: 675–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1999. “Bringing the Candidate into Models of Candidate Evaluations.” Journal of Politics 61: 700–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2006. Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2011. “The Rhetoric Revival in Political Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 159–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, Christopher. 1988. “Personhood and Personality: The Four-Personae Theory in Cicero, De Officiis I.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy VI: 169–99.Google Scholar
Griswold, Charles L. 1999. Adam Smith and the Virtues of Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanley, Ryan Patrick. 2014. “The ‘Wisdom of the State’: Adam Smith on China and Tartary.” American Political Science Review 108, no. 2: 371–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2005. “Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership.” American Journal of Political Science 49: 908–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2010. “Trait Voting in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Politics Research 38: 1102–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, Lisa. 2013. “The Community of Commerce: Smith's Rhetoric of Sympathy in the Opening of the Wealth of Nations .” Philosophy and Rhetoric 46, no. 1: 6587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Home Style: House Members in their Districts . By Richard F. Fenno, Jr. (Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Co.), 1978.Google Scholar
Kapust, Daniel J. 2011. “Cicero on Decorum and the Morality of Rhetoric.” European Journal of Political Theory 10, no. 1: 92112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Duncan. 2011. The Propriety of Liberty: Person, Passions, and Judgment in Modern Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lupia and Mathew D. McCubbins, The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need To Know? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998 Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15: 338–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markovits, Elizabeth. 2008. The Politics of Sincerity: Plato, Frank Speech, and Democratic Judgment. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
McCurley, Carl, and J. Mondak, Jeffery. 1995Inspected by 1184063113: The Influence of Incumbents’ Competence and Integrity in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science. 39(November): 864–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, Stephen J. 2006. Adam Smith: The Rhetoric of Propriety. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, John. 2002. “The Rhetoric of Deliberation: Some Problems in Kantian Theories of Deliberative Democracy.” Res Publica 8: 249–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Mark Salber. 2006. “Adam Smith, Belletrist.” In The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith, ed. Haakonsen, Knud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. 1995. “Cicero's Philosophical Works and Their Background.” In Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers, ed. Powell, J. G. F.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remer, Gary. 1999. “Political Oratory and Conversation: Cicero versus Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 27, no. 1: 3664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remer, Gary. 2004. “Cicero and the Ethics of Deliberative Rhetoric.” In Talking Democracy: Historical Perspectives on Rhetoric and Democracy, eds. Fontana, Benedetto, Nederman, Cary J., and Remer, Gary. University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Remer, Gary. 2013. “Rhetoric, Emotional Manipulation, and Political Morality: The Modern Relevance of Cicero vis-à-vis Aristotle.” Rhetorica 31, no. 4: 402–43.Google Scholar
Riggsby, Andrew M. 1995. “Pliny on Cicero and Oratory: Self-Fashioning in the Public Eye.” American Journal of Philology 116, no. 1: 123–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggsby, Andrew M. 2004. “The Rhetoric of Character in the Roman Courts.” In Cicero the Advocate, eds. Powell, J. G. F. and Patterson, Jeremy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 165–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Adam, 1982. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1983. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Edited by Bryce, J.C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivenza, Gloria. 2001. Adam Smith and the Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waszek, N. 1984. “Two Concepts of Morality: A Distinction of Adam Smith's Ethics and Its Stoic Origin.” Journal of the History of Ideas 45, no. 4: 591606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yack, Bernard. 2006. “Rhetoric and Public Reasoning: An Aristotelian Understanding of Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 34, no. 4: 417–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar