Rhetoric-Cause and Effect

In Susan Jarratt's article about rhetoric she points out that quite often rhetoric is misunderstood because of the effect it has. Quite often rhetoric is seen just as Plato did in ancient times as the insubstantial or deceptive language covering over reality or substance (77). Instead of being seen as an "art" it is seen as something used to deceive people using fancy language to move forward an agenda.
Jarratt discusses the beginnings of rhetoric she mentions that the effect of rhetorical studies moving away from recitation to a more performance based genre was that it lost some of its credibility. Along with the effects of the rise of writing studies rhetoric in the Universities declined steadily in the 19th century. She also addresses the effect that the development of a separate speech communication department at many schools helped rhetorical studies decline even further.
Jarratt also addresses the positive effects that some of the leading theorists of the time had on rhetorical studies. People like Nietzsche, de Saussure, Derrida, Bakhtin and Foucault. All of these theorists were top theorists in their fields and they all studied rhetorical discourse or linguistics and their effects on their fields which in turn had a grand effect on the field of Rhetoric.
While rhetorical studies have had a great comeback in the 20th century, it is always a field in flux. It is also changing with the new public sphere element that has been introduced with the Internet. Just blogging on this blog has an effect on rhetoric that was not possible just 5 or 10 years ago.
Besides the cause and effect aspect of the article I also found the historical perspectives that Jarratt gave to be very helpful!