修辭與民主：論柏拉圖、亞里斯多德與修昔底德的觀點

Abstract

如何看待民主政治中的政治演說？這些演說，一方面鼓舞人心、凝聚群眾；另方面，也可能是激化煽動、逢迎媚俗。本文從政治思想史角度切入，思考在民主政體中，如何評判、規範修辭；而經改良後的修辭，對於民主政治的運作提供哪些優點。修辭的古典意涵是指「政治性地說服」，修辭作為一種政治技藝，緊緊伴隨著民主政體的興起與運作。柏拉圖批判修辭的諂媚性，同時直指民主政治背離專家治理的原則，成為修辭家順迎無知群眾，導致政體的衰敗。但是，柏拉圖對於當時政客修辭的嚴厲批判，同時也提出他的理想修辭觀，指引了修辭的目的、內容、論證方式。亞里斯多德同樣對於當時流行的修辭技藝予以批判，但是亞氏更看重修辭術，視為是辯證術、倫理學（政治學）的一支。亞氏藉由重新改良修辭術，尊重民眾的判斷力，同時也捍衛了民主政治的可能性。史家修昔底德在其《伯羅奔尼撒戰爭史》中，紀錄（編寫）了許多演說詞，透過歷史事件與演說的互動，修昔底德讓讀者看到修辭的重要性以及好、壞修辭的政治影響。 因此，本文主要是藉由歸納、整理柏拉圖、亞里斯多德、修昔底德對於民主政體中修辭的觀察、批判與改造，然後將這種經「改良後的修辭」，再提升到一個比較理論性的層面，本文稱為「修辭式民主」模式中（強調「說服→判斷」的民主運作方式）。筆者並更進一步將「修辭民主」與當代「審議民主」進行比較，說明古典修辭觀可以為當代審議民主理論提供哪些借鏡與反省。筆者最後指出，民主政體需要好的修辭，因為這可以讓聽眾感受到關注政治事務的光與熱，獲得更多的能量與瞭解自身參與公共生活目的；同時這也是公民教育的場合，讓聽眾瞭解政策的意義，有助於作出好的判斷；並且透過言說，凝聚群體的向心力，鞏固社群，讓共同體能穩健發展，使民主政體更為茁壯。 關鍵詞：

What is the relationship between rhetoric and democracy? In a democracy, the political figures have to persuade people, thereby getting power or making decisions. However, the political orators often cater to the mass in order to win their votes, using passionate appealing, even deception. On the other hand, it is also impossible to imagine a meeting of thousands without the skill of rhetoric. Plato attacked rhetoric critically, but he also gave an ideal outline of rhetoric about its goal, contents, and ways of arguments. Aristotle defended rhetoric, precisely a kind of reformed rhetoric. He emphasized the importance of the character of the speaker, proper passionate appealing and logical arguments. Thucydides, author of History of the Peloponnesian War, enlisted many speeches addressing in the assembly or before a battle. Thucydides showed how the good and bad rhetoric had influenced the people and the development of the regime. This dissertation is to introduce, analyze and discuss Plato, Aristotle and Thucydides’ views of rhetoric. I integrate them and set as a mode “Rhetorical Democracy”, which emphasize the persuasive process in a democracy. Then, I try to compare and contrast rhetorical democracy with deliberative democracy. For both modes of democracy pay more attention to the communication within the people. I contend that a) deliberative democracy shall not focus on the experimental, representative mini-publics, but on mass democracy; b) consider “persuasion” rather than “justification”; c) to communicate with rational and emotional appeal; d) rational consent sometimes means cultural hegemony; e) how to have a better judgment might be more realistic than a better deliberation. Finally, I conclude that a reformed rhetoric is necessary to a democracy. Keywords: rhetoric, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, persuasion, deliberative democracy