Abstract
Though applicable in many Western historical-cultural settings, the Aristotelian model of ethos is not universal. As early Chinese rhetoric shows in the example of cheng-yan or “ethos of sincereness,” inspiring trust does not necessarily involve a process of character-based self-projection. In the Aristotelian model, the rhetor stands as a signifier of ethos, with an ideology of individualism privileged, whereas Chinese rhetoric assumes a collectivist model in which ethos belongs, not to an individual or a text, but rather to culture and cultural tradition. This essay will be concentrating on the concept of Heaven, central to the cultural and institutional systems of early Chinese society, in an attempt to explore collective ethos as a function of cultural heritage. Heaven, it shall be argued, plays a key role in the creation of Chinese ethos. This essay will also contrast the logocentrism of Western rhetorical tradition with the ethnocentrism of Chinese tradition. The significance of Heaven in its role as a defining attribute of Chinese ethos is reflective of a unique cultural heritage shaped by a collective human desire in seeking a consciousness of unity with the universe. Just as there are historical, cultural, and philosophical reasons behind logocentrism in the West, so the ethnocentric turn of Chinese rhetoric should be appreciated in light of a cultural tradition that carries its own historical complexities and philosophical intricacies.
Highlights
Two species of ethos seem to predominate in this special issue of Histories of Ethos: one is rhetorical, aimed at swaying an audience; the other is sociological, aimed at attaining or asserting one’s “positionality” (Baumlin and Meyer 2018) in the human social world
The notion of collective ethos casts doubt on the applicability of an individualistic ethos in non-Western cultural settings, as the former is constructed out of a cultural heritage without a rhetor’s avowed authorship of a text. This stands in contrast to Western ethotic practice, in which the rhetor becomes a “signifier” of ethos “standing inside an expanded text” (Baumlin 1994, p. xvi), a practice that reinforces the perception of rhetoric as an individualistic enterprise
A concept culturally prevalent in early Chinese society, has been discussed rather extensively in this essay for the purpose of further exploring collective ethos as a function of a cultural heritage, in which Heaven plays a key role in creating Chinese ethos
Summary
Two species of ethos seem to predominate in this special issue of Histories of Ethos: one is rhetorical, aimed at swaying an audience; the other is sociological, aimed at attaining or asserting one’s “positionality” (Baumlin and Meyer 2018) in the human social world. If ethos is to function rhetorically for the purpose of gaining trust (as more broadly defined), there is a way of formulating ethos without such identification: this is seen in the example of cheng-yan or “ethos of sincereness” in early Chinese rhetoric, where a rhetor’s personal character matters little in delivering the rhetorical power of trust to move his audience. In line with the doctrine of harmony, rhetoric is depersonalized, a Chinese feature that renders baseless the identification of a rhetor with his text, the kind of ethos projected as self-less and character-less—all the more so if a “poststructuralist” view of language, shared among early Chinese thinkers, is taken into account for its conditioning power over humans. I would call ethos as such a “collective ethos,” in the sense that it has little to do with the individual qualities of a rhetor but much to do with a collective consciousness that defines, and is defined by, Chinese culture in ancient times, as exemplified by Heaven
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
