(Editor’s Note: This is part 2 of an “Editor’s Corner” article written by Ryan Yates in May’s edition of the Palmer Beacon.)
Establishing Rhetoric as the Third Leg of the Stool
Traditional views of rhetoric tend to get caught up in the various connotations of the word. However, in this discussion I use rhetoric in a broad context to simply mean the art of discourse. It is important to note that by rhetoric I mean more than the mere oral form traditionally associated with the word. Therefore, the rhetoric to which I discuss may be better described as all forms of communication, with special attention as to how information is communicated.
Part of my reasoning for dismissing philosophy as a leg of the stool had to do with the fact that it lacked the relatedness that the art and science so beautifully shared as knowledge producing entities. Therefore, it seems requisite that I justify how rhetoric is more related to the art and science of chiropractic in this capacity.
Plato’s works were written in the form of a dialogue for a reason; he believed as did many ancient Greeks, that through the dialectic or exchange of ideas, both written and oral, true knowledge would emerge refined and in its purest state resembling the form from which it was created. In order to have a dialogue, men would need to be skilled in presenting arguments backed by logical reasoning. Rhetoric serves as a sort of stage where ideas in science and art can be challenged and refined. Centuries later, Hegel presented a model of the dialectic to make clear just how knowledge can be refined. He argues that one person presents a thesis, and next person presents an antithesis, and after discussion a synthesis is made that is better than the two original ideas. It’s not hard to see how this is valuable in examining the science or the art. It’s also plain to see how the art of discourse or rhetoric is fundamental to the refinement of knowledge, and is therefore closely related to the activities associated with the art and science (of chiropractic). Going back to Hegel, the synthesis that emerges is not new knowledge like that which is produced by the activities of art and science. However, the dialectic as rhetoric uncovers other truths through logical, deductive reasoning that may have been overlooked by the original hypotheses of science and methods or art. Therefore it sheds light on knowledge that before was obscured from our original view or consideration, and in this sense widens our subjective lens, providing us with an ability to consider a large quantity of knowledge.
Another reason why rhetoric deserves to be a leg in the chiropractic stool has to do with the fact that without it, the science and art are of little to no use to mankind. Without the ability to persuade others of the benefits of chiropractic, what is the use of the science and art? Rhetoric serves the purpose of persuasion (not the misleading kind); that is, communicating the value of the science and the art. Given the fact that many do not understand the science or art of chiropractic, the art of honest persuasion is of utmost value to the chiropractic practitioner. The chiropractic paradigm is certainly a minority voice and as such necessitates explanation and clear communication to challenge other paradigms (pun intended). Rhetoric is at the heart of what most chiropractors do on a daily and weekly basis: spinal screenings, patient education, newsletters/pamphlets, health talks, etc. That is, it is just as important and utilized just as frequently by the chiropractor as the science and art (which are also used daily and weekly).
For Aristotle, the art of rhetoric lies in one’s ability to effectively appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos with those to whom you speak. It’s no secret that the rhetorical activities of a chiropractor must make clear appeals to the logos, or logical reason and argumentation, pathos, or emotion, and ethos, or qualification and credentials, in order for it to be effective rhetoric. Such appeals to logos come in a variety of forms; everything from the complex scientific validity which supports the chiropractic paradigm or the simple common sense ideas of prevention and the body’s ability to heal itself. Appeals to ethos are a major part of chiropractic rhetoric, especially with a society and the public (and dare I say some chiropractors themselves) that question the qualification and credentials of a doctor of chiropractic (such questioning is blaringly obvious in pop culture media). Even appeals to pathos are rampant, especially in the plethora of individual practice advertising testimonials included and emphasis on pain reduction. Clearly the art of rhetoric is useful and necessary to the successful practice of chiropractic, and it is more closely related to the activities and products of the science and art of chiropractic. Therefore, rhetoric can be justified as a suitable replacement for one of the legs of the metaphorical chiropractic stool left vacant by the removal of philosophy.
Conclusion
It is evident that the nature of the philosophy of chiropractic is such that it does not belong as part of the leg of the chiropractic metaphorical stool. Its end is not to produce or refine a product, but to provide a context or lens with which to view it. It is more similar to the platform and glue holding the other entities of chiropractic together than it is working alongside the science and art in an equal capacity.
Rhetoric should be placed as the third leg of the chiropractic stool for multiple reasons. First, the activities related to communication are far more similar to art and science in that rhetoric brings to light knowledge that might otherwise have been ignored. While it does not produce knowledge like science and art, it uncovers it allowing us to use more of what we know to be true. It also refines that which we do know and we end up with a better product. Like science and art, its aim is to produce the most reliable knowledge. Second, just as the science and art are used daily in a chiropractic office, so is rhetoric, especially because most patients do not understand the chiropractic paradigm before they enter a chiropractic office. Therefore a chiropractor must refine his communication in a way that he can educate his patients and attract new patients by communicating the value of chiropractic. Clearly rhetoric has more in common with the activities of art and science than philosophy ever did.
The implications of re-evaluating and modifying the metaphorical chiropractic stool are an increased understanding of the relationships of the essential aspects of chiropractic, as well as a model of education that best suits the mastery of chiropractic’s essential elements, including rhetoric which has often been overlooked in the chiropractic classroom. Instead the curricular (not extracurricular) emphasis is on didactic teaching methods with very little opportunity for the chiropractic student to sharpen and hone his or her rhetorical skills, be it logos, ethos, or pathos. Also, modification of the stool in the ways explained above would provide a more accurate representation of the relationship that exists between the different aspects of chiropractic. Indeed, it is closer to the characteristics the ancient Greeks claim are essential to most professions.
Last, the modified stool is a more realistic representation as to what a chiropractor does daily in order to be successful clinically and financially. The art of rhetoric is so very intertwined in what a chiropractor does, to not recognize it is as foolish as denying there is an art to chiropractic. It is time that chiropractic as a profession recognize the value of rhetoric by making it an essential part of chiropractic education. It’s time we raise the bar and sit on the right stool!
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Very well written, Ryan!
Thank you for the feedback Ben. Look forward to seeing the software update next conference.