Between saints and snakes: Explicating the historical, philosophical, and theoretical foundations of rhetorical authority

This dissertation examines the historical, philosophical, and theoretical foundations of rhetorical authority through a hermeneutical lens in order to theorize and to articulate the qualities that distinguish a good, credible rhetorical authority from a bad, unreliable rhetorical authority. By focusing on three key terms (arete, phronesis, and eunoia) through which Aristotle based his explanation of a trustworthy ethos, this study reviews the scholastic traditions that have emerged from their origins in Classical Greek philosophy to establish the contemporary and conventional understandings of rhetorical authority. Through a critical examination of relevant scholarly research, this study investigates the epistemological assumptions and ontological foundations that often underlie the communicative environments where sometimes people with power employ coercion as though the practice of intimidation were a legitimate, ethical rhetorical strategy. To facilitate the instruction of the differences between a legitimate, rhetorical authority and a fallacious, coercive authority, this study introduces two rhetorical terms: the pro-agentic ethos, which designates the type of authority that respects the agency of its audience and the pythonic ethos, which does not. This study theorizes the need to discuss and to teach these two types of authority (the pro-agentic and the pythonic) within the composition classroom for the purpose of instilling within students a deeper appreciation for the ways they might unwittingly undermine their credibility within their own writing and to recognize how other writers damage their rhetorical integrity by resorting to irrelevant coercive arguments to support specious points of view. Although in the past couple of decades many prominent contemporary composition scholars have offered (through their discourses on postmodern and anti-foundational theories) good reasons to remain skeptical of theoretical claims that rely upon so-called "meta-narrative" or universal standards of judgment, the need for a clear and succinct articulation of the rhetorical qualities that distinguish good authority from bad remains a vital concern throughout the field of rhetoric and composition studies. This dissertation suggests a specific vocabulary and theoretical orientation for expressing the difference between "good" and "bad" authority while remaining cognizant and respectful of the concerns of anti-foundationalism.