A Century of Neo-Aristotelian Rhetorical Criticism – A Scandinavian Perspective

When Herbert Wichelns in 1925 suggested a framework for rhetorical criticism, he in effect constituted the modern discipline of Speech, and in the continuation that of Rhetoric. Half a century later, this ‘neo-Aristotelian’ rhetorical criticism was all but abandoned in the U.S. On the centenary of the beginning of the reconstitution of Rhetoric as an academic discipline, it is worth returning to this traditional method and to inquiry into why it is still at the core of the discipline in Scandinavia. The rhetorices partes dominate introductory courses on rhetoric in the Nordic countries and are popular for both student theses and research, especially within the humanities and educational sciences. These canons of rhetoric are also the basis for the course on rhetoric in Scandinavian upper secondary schools. I revisit the points of critique against neo-Aristotelian rhetorical criticism, reflect on its use, and suggest a comprehensive template developed from Scandinavian practices. It turns out that classical rhetorical criticism, as understood in Scandinavia, is not equivalent with that of the tradition from Wichelns. Here, the family of methods emanating from classical rhetoric is no longer solely concerned with the speaker, with speeches, and their effect, but is understood as a comprehensive approach to persuasive communication. It is both constitutive for the discipline of Rhetoric and used in research both on its own and in combination with modern methods.