Re-Thinking the Nature of the Enlightenment: An Exercise in Self-Reflexivity

As our readings for this week suggest, the Enlightenment has been characterized as a time marked by greater attention to science, philosophy, sociology, and politics. Accordingly, philosophers of that era are often associated with the study of the physical world, the source(s) of knowledge, and psychological processes. As Bizzell and Herzberg state in their “Introduction” to the Enlightenment, “These vast social and intellectual changes inevitably affected the ways that language, communication, and rhetoric were understood during this crucial period” (791).  One of the ways in which Enlightenment thinking shaped rhetoric is by emphasizing the connection between language and epistemologies. Some argued that rhetoric clouded the truth with ornamented language, and accordingly, advocated for rhetoricians to use plain and direct language (792). As a result, many philosophers proposed “broad language reforms in an attempt to purify communication” (792). Additionally, with the Enlightenment came more attention to the psychological processes of perception and the faculties of the mind. Both of these concepts seem to have played a role in influencing John Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” and George Campbell’s The Philosophy of Rhetoric.

As I began to think about the characterizations of the Enlightenment as represented by Bizzell and Herzberg, but also the popular narrative in general about that time, I realized that the language used to discuss the Enlightenment affected my perception of Locke and Campbell’s texts. I came to each of the texts (especially after reading Bizzell and Herzberg’s introductions) with specific ideas of how Enlightenment thinking would present within the texts. It was not until after completing the exploratory and participating in our class discussion that I was able to unpack some of my assumptions and begin to critically examine them. I began to think about why I had thought the way I did, and, moreover, how my assumptions might not lend themselves to an accurate account of the texts or the philosophers who wrote them. 

Because the terms our group selected for the exploratory were virtue, civil/ity, logic, probability, communication, nature, and history, the insights I will discuss in this post will largely manifest from those areas.  In particular, one assumption that challenged me during the course of this exploratory is the role of nature in Enlightenment philosophy. As we used the tools to trace our words throughout the texts, I was surprised to find that nature was the most frequently used term. Although the Enlightenment is often associated with the natural sciences, I thought for sure that other terms, like communication or logic would be more dominant. I think part of this assumption is based on what I privileged as parts of rhetorical theory (even in the Enlightenment) and my definition of the word nature, which lends itself more to the outdoors than states of being. However, the exploratory revealed that nature was a significant term for both Locke and Campbell, and furthermore, that the meaning of the word shifted over time and in varying contexts. 

Visualization for "nature" in Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Locke refers to nature both in terms of essence and experience. One of the reasons that he seeks to reform language so as to be more consistent is because he believes that “the very nature of words makes it almost unavoidable for many of them to be doubtful and uncertain in their signification” (817). He maintains that because words have no “natural connection with our ideas,” that they are inherently imperfect (817).  Therefore, Locke seems to make a claim that because language acts as a signifier that produces images in the mind when people communicate, language should be rooted, to a certain extent, in the essence of what is real so as to lend a greater consistency of meaning. However, Locke also acknowledges the role of experience and perception in the role of language.  Even if words are connected to the natural, or real, essence of things, people’s experiences can affect their perceptions, and therefore the meaning of words. To illustrate this phenomenon, Locke gives the example of gold: “…no one has authority to determine the signification of the word gold (as referred to such a body existing in nature) more to one collection of ideas to be found in that body than to another: whereby the signification of that name must unavoidably be very uncertain” (823). Bizzell and Herzberg further explain that words “carry cultural connotations—or even personal ones—that complicate the relationship between communicated word and signified idea” (815). Although Locke seems to claim that there are natural, real qualities to which our language should signify, different experiences and contexts can bring us to the natural qualities in different ways, which influences meaning. Ultimately, Locke suggests a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between nature and language—and therefore rhetoric— than I had previously considered. 

Additionally, in furthering Locke’s notion of language, Campbell also refers to the role of nature. In Campbell’s text, he distinguishes between nature and Nature; nature is similar to Locke’s use of the term, i.e. human nature, the natural state of things, whereas Nature is an agentive force. Campbell writes, “…it is of the utmost consequence to ascertain, with precision, the meanings of words, and, as nearly as the genius of the language in which one writes will permit, to make them correspond to the boundaries assigned by Nature to the things signified” (905). To that end, words should take on the meaning that Nature assigns. Nature then, exerts a kind of rhetorical, agentive force. The two ways in which Campbell discusses nature demonstrates not only the ways in which meaning can shift across time, contexts, and individuals, but also the importance of the term for Enlightenment philosophy—and importance that I did not originally consider or understand. 

Visualization for "nature" in Campbell's The Philosophy of Rhetoric

Based on my understanding of the Enlightenment period, I assumed that a term such as logic might have more significance in these philosophical texts than nature, and that if nature had any place at all, that it would be minimal and in reference to the natural sciences. However, the concept of nature (and Nature) proved to be foundational to both Locke and Campbell’s notions of language and meaning. The use of the Alex Catalogue, the Internet Archive, and the Google Ngram Viewer enabled me to literally see the impact of the term nature in each of these texts and helped me to consider the ways in which the word might shift its meaning from context to context while still remaining in larger patterns of use.  I am not sure that this post fully unpacks my assumptions or engages in the type of self-reflexivity that I intended, but I do see it as a starting place for starting to interrogate the perceptions I bring to rhetorical study. Moreover, activities like this exploratory encourage me to see anthologies like The Rhetorical Tradition as situated and cultivating a certain historizing narrative that can shape the way we read and interpret the rhetorical texts. 

Works Cited

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical 

      Times to the Present. 2nd ed., edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, Bedford/

      St. Martins, 2001,

Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from 

      Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed., edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg,   

      Bedford/St. Martins, 2001, 902-946. 

Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings 

      from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed., edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, 

      Bedford/St. Martins, 2001, 817-827.