Let’s begin this chapter with a key premise that is embedded in communication studies and throughout this textbook: all language is social. It’s a complex tool that we learn through our interactions with other people, and we use it in collaboration with others to exchange ideas and facilitate action. You’ve probably heard people say that they aren’t “social,” meaning that they tend to be more introverted, preferring not to interact with other people outside of their intimate circle. Certainly, that’s one way of thinking about “social”—the personality trait that compels some people to seek out human interaction and to continually expand their circle of relationships. However, for our purposes, that is a pretty limited definition of “social” because it focuses on individual personalities instead of the ordered social systems of which we are all a part.

In this chapter, “social” refers more broadly to human relationships and organizational structures. By nature, humans are social creatures, seeking out relationships that provide a sense of connection, purpose, and identity. And as we discussed at length in the previous chapter, our relationships are facilitated by rhetoric. The ways that we receive, interpret, and send messages (whether explicit or implicit, whether verbal or nonverbal) have a direct influence on how our relationships with other people develop, grow, and shift. In fact, our relationships are defined by our common terminology (e.g., “friend,” “mom,” “teacher,” “spouse”), which carries shared expectations of meaning and appropriate behaviors. We also tend to view our relationship with another person as a compilation of our interactions—a series of symbolic, rhetorical activities that give shape to our view of that relationship and our role in it. Taken as a whole, our relationships determine our sense of self, our daily activities and priorities, and our long-term goals. They are also responsible for the way that we perceive and respond to “reality.”

This chapter explores the inherent social function of rhetoric, taking a deeper look at the effects that language has on an individual and cultural level. While the last chapter provided a glimpse at the different ways that rhetoric can function in our everyday lives, this chapter affirms that every rhetorical interaction, though it may serve a variety of other objectives, is steeped in preexisting social systems that shape and reinforce meaning. Examining these influences will provide valuable insights into the social nuances that exist in our daily interactions and the way that language is used to demonstrate our belonging to various groups, which in turn increases our persuasive effect.

Language As…

The function of language can’t be overstated. It’s our connection to the world and shapes our perceptions of every experience we have. We’ve already discussed the fact that language is an inherently social tool, even in moments when it might not be so obvious. For instance, language is obviously social when you are in what we might commonly consider “social situations,” where you are making plans with or are already out with friends. Maybe one of your coworkers invites you to a birthday party, and suddenly you have to navigate what might seem like an uncomfortable “social situation” because you are shifting from a professional to a more personal relationship with this person. However, the reality is that every interaction you had with that person, even in the more “professional” setting, was also social simply because you had to utilize language to come to a shared meaning. You might have sent an email to this person about a particular task, or maybe you filled out a specific form that is standard to your workplace that this person received and then acted upon. These are all social interactions because you are endeavoring to communicate an idea to another person, and you are relying on shared cultural tools—that is, language and perhaps company terminology and the understanding of how the “form” is supposed to work—to get those ideas across. This section explores the many ways that language is inherently social.

Language as Symbolic

On a fundamental level, language consists of symbols that are socially constructed and understood, which makes it possible to communicate ideas to others. A symbol is a representation. It’s not the thing itself; it stands in for concepts and ideas. For instance, the word “pizza” isn’t the pizza itself; it’s the symbol that has been created to represent the idea of pizza, and when you use that word with someone who knows what the symbol means, then you have a shared understanding. And you can use other symbols like “16-inch,” “meat-lovers,” and “thin crust” to further specify your meaning. As explained by the University of Minnesota Libraries, a system of symbols is called a “code,” which provides limitless opportunities to create meaning through the combination of symbols (encoding) for others to decipher (decoding). These codes are “ever-changing” as words and other types of symbols emerge and adapt to reflect new cultural contexts and communication needs. Codes are also flexible, allowing us to reference abstract concepts and ideas as well as objects and events that are removed from our immediate surroundings by time and/or space. This aids our ability to think deeply about a concept and to express complex ideas to others. The Social Science LibreText library explains it like this: “Language is based on complex rules relating spoken, signed, or written symbols to their meanings. What results is an indefinite number of possible innovative utterances from a finite number of elements.” The point is that language is a social tool that is learned through social interaction. Words have meaning because they’ve been assigned meaning, and through the process of language acquisition, we’ve learned what those meanings are and how to use them to participate effectively in conversations with other people.

Language as Mediator

As discussed in chapter 6, language is the tool that mediates our thoughts and feelings so that we can express them to other people. It’s the bridge that forges connections between you and your family, your friends, your coworkers, and even the strangers that you interact with throughout the day. Yes, this includes more in-depth conversations you might have with someone to work through a problem, but it also includes the high-five you give one of your friends in the hallway to reinforce your friendship, the quick selections that you make with your phone to put items in your “shopping cart” and to finalize your purchase, and the use of your turn signal to let other drivers know you want to change lanes. These are all outward expressions through the use of symbols, of internal feelings and desires, which allow other people to understand your meaning and respond appropriately. Interestingly, there is research that suggests a reciprocal relationship between language and our thoughts (Lumen Learning, “Language and Thinking”). Not only do our thoughts give shape to the language that we use, but our language also has a significant impact on our thought patterns and our ways of processing information.

Language as Identification

Language is also used to express our identity and align ourselves with other people. Kenneth Burke theorized that we naturally seek out ways to relate to other people through parts of our identity that we have in common, and we use language to demonstrate to ourselves and others our membership in specific groups based on those commonalities. Essentially, the social function of language revolves around our ability to persuade others—by adopting specific language patterns and expressing our shared perspectives and values—that we are similar to them, that we belong to the group, which in turn builds our credibility. For instance, a lot of people bond over their shared interest in a particular sports team. They talk about the players. They discuss the team’s record and other statistics. They rehash highlights from the most recent game, and they speculate on what will happen next week. They wear fan gear, and they cheer during the games. All of this demonstrates their identity as part of the fan group, persuading others that they belong because of their sports knowledge and the high value they place on the success of their team.

Similar to Burke’s “identification” is the concept of a discourse community—groups that share specific goals and have particular ways of communicating with one another as they work toward those goals (Lumen Learning, “Discourse Communities”). Most people belong to multiple discourse communities. For instance, people in a particular field of study are in a discourse community, often interacting with one another to grow their own knowledge or to further advance the field itself. Their ways of communicating—using specific terms, often communicating in specific genres, demonstrating shared standards and values—are specialized, meaning that people outside of the group would likely feel confused and somewhat alienated. Similarly, people who work for a particular organization are in a discourse community, using specialized forms of communication as they work together to run the company. Within that company, people who work in a specific department are in a discourse community, communicating in specific ways about specific things that other departments don’t. And so forth. You might be in a discourse community as part of a sports team, an interest group, a church, a class, and so on. Like Burke’s concept of identification, people in discourse communities demonstrate their belonging by adopting the communication patterns of the group, which is something that they learn to do over time as they interact with other, more experienced members.

Language as Social Intervention

One final way that we might consider the social nature of language is its ability to persuade others to take some sort of action or to adopt a particular perspective. Opt and Gring call this “social intervention,” and they relate it directly to language and the way that we assign meaning using symbols: “When we name, we symbolically categorize experience. We compare experience to the symbolic categories that our language community has created to communicate about experience. We select the category into which the experience seems to fit. Then we use the symbol associated with that category to talk about your experience” (Opt and Gring 40). According to this view, our way of naming and interpreting experience reflects our ideology, the broader theory we use to assign meaning to events. When we socially intervene, we attempt to persuade others to assign the same meaning to things that we do, either by maintaining their current perspective or by adopting a new one. If we want others to “recategorize” a particular thing, “we emphasize how experience no longer fits the expectations associated with the current way of naming it” (Opt and Gring 54). We continually negotiate and renegotiate meaning as we interact with others, which has a direct impact on our ways of seeing, understanding, relating, and acting in the world.

Rhetorical Listening

Unfortunately, when people think about rhetoric, there tends to be a focus on the self. “How can rhetoric help further my goals? What key points should I make in order to persuade my audience to see my perspective.” The problem with this mindset is that it ignores the other half of effective communication, which is listening. Most likely you’ve been in conversations that go around in circles because nobody is truly listening to each other. When emotions run high, particularly when we’re convinced that we are “right,” we’re much more likely to speak over the other person or maybe to scoff or roll our eyes while they are talking. Some people might seem like they are listening based on their body language and head nods, but in reality, they are biding their time, perhaps planning out what they are going to say next once the other person stops talking. That’s not effective communication because it undermines our ability to understand where the other person is coming from and to reexamine our own thinking as we work toward solutions. Also, it’s incredibly difficult to get someone else to listen to what you have to say when you don’t extend the same courtesy. Yes, it’s a very basic skill—listening when other people are talking—that probably extends all the way back to kindergarten, but pay attention to some of the conversations around you, and you’ll discover that a lot of people are bad at listening, often because they are distracted by their phones and other digital devices.

Before we unpack the concept of rhetorical listening and the significant influence it can have on a conversation, let’s review the concept of civil discourse. In this context, the word “civil” means respectful and engaged. It means that during a conversation when another person is speaking, even when they are sharing viewpoints that directly conflict with your own, you show them respect as an engaged audience member who is going through the intellectual process of trying to understand their point of view and work toward solutions that are mutually beneficial (American University). At its most basic level, civil discourse is a calm and rational discussion where you would

• Wait for the other person to finish speaking before you respond.
• Give that person your full attention, with eye contact and head nods that show you are listening.
• Be respectful with your body language. Don’t roll your eyes or scoff. Similarly, you’d avoid facial expressions and body language that come across as threatening.
• Ask clarifying questions to be sure that you fully understand what the person has said. It’s also common to rephrase some of their main points in your own words.
• Keep a calm demeanor when you do respond. Avoid yelling, being sarcastic, or speaking with a sharp tone.
• Stay focused on the issue and base your responses on logical reasoning and honest feelings. Avoid attacking the other person or responding in a way that is manipulative, irrelevant, or melodramatic.

Basically anything that encourages open dialogue and makes room for alternative ideas and opinions is civil discourse. It certainly doesn’t mean that you have to agree with other people or ignore your own feelings and perspectives. Instead, civil discourse seeks to uncover disagreement for the purpose of understanding and resolving conflict.

While civil discourse can be an effective way to engage with another person and resolve conflict, rhetorical listening takes the process a step further because it requires you to attend more fully to the complex human experience and feelings of the other person, even going so far as to consider the intention behind their message and the underlying emotions that they might not be able to fully express. Krista Ratcliffe defines rhetorical listening as “a stance of openness that any person may choose to assume in relation to any person, text, or culture” (1). Ratcliffe focuses especially on “cross-cultural” identifications, which require the listener to actively identify their own “disidentifications” and biases that act as a barrier to fully understanding what another person is saying and where they are coming from. In other words, we don’t ignore the differences between ourselves and the speaker. Instead, we consider what those differences are and interrogate how they would naturally lead to different ways of thinking, speaking, and experiencing the world: “The result of such understanding is a broader cultural literacy, which affords us opportunities for negotiating our daily attitudes and actions, our politics and ethics” (Ratcliffe 300). It’s impossible to ever really step outside of our individual lens, but when we listen rhetorically with the intention to truly see the other person and their point of view, we recognize that other valid perspectives exist outside of our own, and we make a genuine effort to understand those perspectives.

So the difference between civil discourse and rhetorical listening is one of intent. There is a deeper focus on seeing the other person more fully, and there’s more “risk” involved that you, not just the other person, might change your opinions and attitudes as a result. In his TED Talk called “The Power of Listening,” William Ury says that real listening requires a shift in focus from our own perspectives and potential responses to the perspectives and experiences of the person who is speaking. “We listen from their frame of reference, not just ours,” which means that we not only listen to the words that are being said but “to what’s behind the words” (Ury 6:44). It’s a conscious effort to step into the other person’s point of view, which puts the focus, at least momentarily, on their underlying needs and emotions, not your own motives and persuasive strategies that might change their mind. The benefits of this kind of listening are obvious, but they are also really significant:

1. It allows you to more fully understand the other person’s position, which will facilitate deeper insights and personal growth.
2. It builds deeper social connections and trust between you and that person. Instead of being a disagreement that creates tension and distance between you and the other person, rhetorical listening demonstrates care for the other person and can go a long way in strengthening a relationship.
3. It brings you closer to “yes,” according to Ury. By that, he means that the other person, once they have felt heard, will be more likely to listen to you. That’s not to say that you’re interested in simply being “right” or getting your own way. Following a genuine effort on both sides to listen and understand, you’re more likely to identify a solution that is mutually beneficial.

Digital Spaces and Rhetorical (Dis)Advantages

Thus far in the chapter, we’ve emphasized the fact that language is a social tool, created by humans with the purposes of communicating and connecting with other human beings in a variety of ways. But it’s also inherently limited in its ability to fully communicate the complexity of our experiences and ideas. And it requires careful interpretation and negotiation as people make progress (or not) toward mutual understanding. How many times do misunderstandings happen because we misinterpret what another person is saying or what their intended meaning is? The reality is that we probably never interpret the meaning of a message the exact same way as someone else because we all bring a complex layering of experiences and values to a conversation, which will naturally influence what we pay attention to and what we take away from a conversation. Similarly, we all have our own unique ways of experiencing, seeing, thinking about, and speaking about the world around us, which direct the ways that we encode and decode messages.

These moments of misunderstanding are examples of disconnect, in which we don’t fully share the same meaning of an experience or a message as someone else. Our interpretations and ways of speaking about a particular event or idea don’t align with someone else’s, which if left unresolved, can lead to confusion, frustration, and alienation. You’ve probably experienced disconnect with someone else where it’s obvious that you aren’t seeing eye to eye about an event or an issue, in which case, you know that it can sometimes be difficult to clearly understand someone else’s point of view because yours seems so clear and obvious. It’s easy to assume that the other person is the one with the wrong perspective and that if we could just explain it to them, then they would “get it.” While that might be the case sometimes—or the reverse might be the case sometimes and you are the one who doesn’t get it—the reality is that disconnect is complex. In his 1950 article titled “Is Anybody Listening?” author and journalist William Whyte said, “The great enemy of communication…is the illusion of it” (174). In other words, we might believe that the meaning of a message is clear and obvious, which then prevents us from providing clarity or seeking to understand how someone else interpreted a message, which in turn widens the gap between us and another person. Being aware that people interpret messages differently—based on a complex layering of past experiences, elements of identity, values and personal interests, previous knowledge of a given subject, and unique ways of using and understanding language—increases our odds of extending the conversation and being more attentive to areas where misunderstandings might occur.

There are some unique challenges that come with trying to communicate clearly in digital spaces. For one thing, there is a barrier in time and space between you and your audience. For instance, text messages often aren’t immediate. They unfold over the course of an hour or maybe several hours while you are going other places and doing other things. It’s easy to lose track of the conversation or fail to provide your full attention. There’s also the reality that in many digital spaces, communication is lacking some of the rich details that help us to more fully interpret the meaning. Things like facial expressions, body language, vocal inflection, and tone of voice all provide important cues for listeners, which are largely absent in written texts like emails, text messages, blog articles, and so on. What’s more, digital communication has quickly evolved to include an ever-expanding array of emojis, acronyms, and GIFs, which rely on shared cultural knowledge and individual interpretations. Studies by Miller, Miller et al., and Jiang et al. (“The Perfect One” and “Understanding Diverse Interpretations”) discuss the complex messages that are often embedded in simplified forms, such as emojis and GIFs, which can increase the likelihood of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Even when there are rich cues—in images and videos, for instance—communication tends to be one-way, without the ability for the speaker to gauge audience understanding or for listeners to ask clarifying questions or share their own perspectives.

In relation to our previous discussion about rhetorical listening, digital communication can make it harder to see the person behind the message—the complex feelings and human needs that motivate a conversation. This type of listening that attends to the person behind the message and reads between the lines to understand what’s not being said is an incredibly nuanced skill, and it relies on a certain amount of empathy. Unfortunately, a screen creates a barrier of time and space that makes it harder to “see” the other person, especially for social media posts and blogs that are meant for a broad audience. It’s easy to forget about the flesh-and-blood person who created that content, which makes it more likely that we will respond in ways that are careless and self-centered. In fact, Emiliana Simon-Thomas, the science director at UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center, says that screen time can erode our ability to experience empathy, largely because the immediate, in-person nuances of a conversation get lost (qtd. in UC newsroom). Having empathy to truly listen to someone in an online space requires greater awareness of our own emotions and reactions as well as more intentionality to attend to the other person and respond appropriately.

While there are certainly aspects of digital communication that make mutual understanding more difficult, there are also affordances that can help facilitate better communication practices. For one thing, the more distant, delayed nature of digital communication can be a huge advantage because it allows us time and space to wrestle with our emotions and to craft an appropriate response. An excellent rule of thumb for any type of digital communication that you find upsetting—whether it is an email, a text, or a social media post—is to walk away for a bit. (As noted in previous chapters, social media algorithms are designed to be addictive and to spread content as quickly as possible, which often ends up being emotionally charged, negative [dis]information [Cocchiarella].) Shut your laptop or put away your phone and give yourself some time to process. You might find that your initial reaction—perhaps rooted in fear, anger, or defensiveness (UC newsroom)—was an overreaction that would have escalated negative feelings and created further disconnect. Stepping away for a bit to calm down and assess your feelings can facilitate a more authentic, open response that will further the conversation.

Another benefit of digital communication is the ability to enrich communication using a variety of tools. Later in this unit, we will discuss multimodality and how various “modes” can significantly enhance the meaning of a message. In this context, a mode is a resource that helps you communicate meaning. It might be the way that you emphasize text using a bold font, capital letters, or different colors. Or it might be your ability to use hyperlinks to direct an audience to information that will provide important background, supporting evidence, or contextual information. Not only can we hyperlink to articles and studies, but we can link to videos and pictures to elaborate on an idea and clarify meaning. These are tools that can’t necessarily replace the nuances of an in-person conversation, but they do create opportunities to provide clarity and emphasis that go well beyond what an in-person conversation can do alone. A well-crafted digital message that strategically draws on these tools can go a long way to engage audiences and promote mutual understanding.

Obviously, communication is a complicated endeavor, and as long as there are humans involved with their different perspectives and experiences, there will always be the opportunity for misunderstandings and disagreements. However, good communicators consistently work toward mutual respect and shared understandings by thinking deeply about audience, fully listening to other people’s thoughts and ideas, attending to the feelings and needs behind a message, and drawing on communication tools and processes that will bridge the communication gap.