Abstract

Rhetorical scholars have either ignored or misinterpreted the meaning of Chinese pien. This study is an attempt to codify Chinese senses of pien and to rectify misconceptions rhetorical scholars may have about Chinese pien. In particular, this study addresses three questions: What rhetorical senses were evident and developed in ancient China in the fifth and third centuries BCE? How are the Chinese classical rhetorical senses similar to and different from Greek rhetorical senses? What universal characteristics about senses of rhetoric can be generated from the findings of such exploration and comparison? ;I use the Chinese word "pien" in this study as it is the closest in meaning to the English word "rhetoric" in both linguistic and philosophical senses. I identify Chinese senses of pien through an examination of the Chinese primary philosophical texts represented by five major schools of thought: the Schools of Ming, Confucianism, Taoism, Mohism, and Legalism. ;In an attempt to answer the research questions, I identify and codify five senses of Chinese pien: pien as an art of persuasion; pien as a moral activity to maintain social order and personal perfection; pien as a rational activity; pien as a spontaneous activity bridging opposites; and pien as a psychological activity involving understanding the audience. I compare these five senses of pien with four Greek senses of rhetoric identified by Western scholars. The comparison reveals that Chinese pien and Greek rhetoric seem to have four shared senses of rhetoric/pien: rhetoric/pien as an art of persuasion; rhetoric/pien as a moral activity for public and personal good; rhetoric/pien as a rational activity; and rhetoric/pien as a psychological activity concerning audience adaptation. ;As Vickers notes, rhetoric scholars need to recapture the rhetoric past and the rhetorical theories and practices developed by schools and individuals in different cultures. A comparison of pien with rhetoric reveals more similarities than differences, substantiating Vickers' speculation that a universal rhetoric may exist. Moreover, rhetorical scholars in both China and the West may create truly multicultural rhetorical perspectives by combining the senses of Chinese pien and Greek rhetoric