Janja Žmavc

Educational Research Institute, Slovenia

janja.zmavc@pei.si

Abstract: In the article, we explore the points of contact between pedagogical authority and rhetoric as a special form of language use in the pedagogical process. Drawing on the relational conceptions of authority, we emphasise its rhetorical nature and point out the need to be aware of the close connection between rhetoric as a skill of public persuasion and the successful enacting of the authority relationship in the pedagogical process. On the basis of the general conceptualization of rhetoric, which defines the process of persuasion as a reciprocal relationship between the speaker and the listeners, we present a scheme of rhetorical construction of pedagogical authority based on the understanding of authority as a complex process that is established in the teacher – student interaction and consists of three elements: an effective demonstration of a speaker’s trustworthy image, (ethos), a successful (discursive) response to the emotional states of the audience (pathos), and use of sound and valid argumentation (logos) in speech.

Keywords: authority, education, rhetoric, trustworthiness, means of persuasion.

Introduction

“For the genuine orator must have investigated and heard and read and discussed and handled and debated the whole of the contents of the life of mankind, inasmuch as that is the field of the orator’s activity, the subject matter of his study. For eloquence is one of the supreme virtues /…/ and the stronger this faculty is, the more necessary it is for it to be combined with integrity and supreme wisdom, and if we bestow fluency of speech on persons devoid of those virtues, we shall not have made orators of them but shall have put weapons into the hands of madmen.” (Cic. De or. 3.14.54–55) [1]

How much of the point would be missing if one were to read the passage above in the context of education and replace the word ‘orator’ with ‘teacher’, whose teaching success is also, or even mainly, determined by his or her communication skills? In the spirit of classical rhetoric, which is founded on the notion of successful public persuasion as a result of a complex process, the latter does not only refer to the individual’s language skills in direct interaction in the classroom, but also to how efficiently the teacher communicates with the students in different situations and which strategies he or she is able to use in communication with different stakeholders involved in the pedagogical process. With regard to this, two specific aspects of the rhetorical tradition come to mind, which indicate the complex nature and process of rhetoric. Firstly, classical (ancient) rhetorical pedagogy was primarily focused on providing education for active citizenship. Its goals were not only oriented towards sequential and short-term realisation of concrete rhetorical goals (e.g. to effectively defeat the enemy in a given situation), but to systematically develop the individual’s capability of identifying, analysing and critically responding to social phenomena by integrating different humanistic topics (such as language, literature, art and history), which were an integral part of rhetorical lessons. [2] Secondly, rhetoric is also perceived as a theoretical discipline. It consists of a network of different concepts, notions and ideas, which reflect the process of a comprehensive and systematic speech (or text) preparation in a structured manner and are usually conceptualised as basic (rhetorical) procedures (Lat. officia oratoris): from the initial phase of planning, in which the speaker assesses the current circumstances (to whom, what and why to speak) and finds appropriate arguments accordingly, through the phase of concrete production, i.e. of designing and writing down a speech/text, in which the speaker determines the functional distribution and selects the appropriate wording of the arguments, to the final phase of the implementation, in which the speaker tries to remember the final version of the speech/text as effectively as possible and execute it efficiently. Concepts, notions and ideas in the rhetorical network are by no means just linguistic and stylistic tools (e.g. examples of introductory speech, phrases, formalised descriptions of characters and events or lists of figures of speech, which are a particularly notorious part of the literary tradition), but to a large extent (thanks to Aristotle’s systematisation of rhetoric as a discipline) include some tools that pertain to the philosophical field (e.g. a set of hierarchically structured questions, argumentative schemes or even a category system, which allow to define relationships between concepts). These tools constitute the starting points through which it is possible to think about specific situations and assess them (with regard to space, time and stakeholders), determine the controversial nature of viewpoints (how to potentially exit specific situations) and develop diverse, valid and convincing arguments that are embedded in the general knowledge and value system of a certain social environment. They are also closely related to the immediate situation with regard to the values and interests of the speaker and the listeners. At the same time, it is presupposed that the speaker masters the rhetorical procedures and understands the complexity of the time dimension in the process of preparing and implementing a speech. The sequence of a speech is not only linear (from designing a plan to executing and implementing it), but is oriented towards the past in every single part of the process (in terms of the speaker’s competence, knowledge and skills of his or her existing experience) and towards the future (what the speaker wishes to achieve or change with the listeners), but is always performed in the present (as a concrete elocution/implementation).

If one were to look at pedagogical communication from the classical rhetorical perspective, it could be considered, in the broadest sense, primarily as a “place and at the same time the means of carrying out all pedagogical activities” (Ž. Žagar et al. 2018: 21). [3] However, in a more specific context, it could be recognised as a fundamental component of the teacher’s professional image, which reflects his or her (professional) knowledge (what the teacher is supposed to know), the operational capabilities (how to function competently in the pedagogical environment) and characteristics (what kind of a teacher he or she should be). In other words, considering the teacher as a rhetorician means that his or her work is perceived as a complex process in which the teacher, as a credible individual, thinks critically through language and the principles of language use while successfully implementing the pursued educational objectives and co-creating education policies in interaction with different stakeholders in different contexts. [4]

Relational view of (pedagogical) authority as the basis for its rhetoric

Based on the rhetorical perspective of pedagogical communication as presented above, this article will highlight the pedagogical authority as one of the structural contexts of the pedagogical process, in which the quality of interaction between the stakeholders is especially important. Our aim will be to demonstrate that the establishment of pedagogical authority can be considered from the viewpoint of some rhetorical principles if one were to look at it as a relationship that is fundamentally exercised through the effects of language use. This is the reason why rhetoric and the rhetorical perspective are important elements of modern education in this regard. Although rhetoric has different roles in education, this time the focus will not be placed on rhetoric as a learning content (Foss 1989; Žmavc 2011) [5] or on rhetorical reading of the syllabus, i.e. the official compulsory knowledge determined by the analysis of persuasive effects (Rutten and Soetaert 2012). [6] On the contrary, we will concentrate on rhetoric as a specific communication practice within the pedagogical process, which is a very important factor for a successful establishment of an authority relation among its participants. [7] Pedagogical authority is generally viewed as one of the key phenomena that significantly determine both the pedagogical process and education in general. This is a permanent and often a controversial topic, which is recognised as a “constituent feature of human social life” (Gauchet 2011: 123). [8] that has been subject to numerous discussions and reflections ever since antiquity in terms of different disciplines and also in terms of different perspectives on authority. Different questions about the emergence and change of various notions of authority come to the forefront. For example, the questions of conceptualising “the end” of authority as suggested by H. Arendt (2006) [9] or its constant metamorphoses as seen by Ricoeur (2007) [10] and Gauchet (2011). [11] Another example would be the different socio-historical conceptualisations of authority and its value definitions (e.g. Kant’s symbolic authority of reason or Rousseau’s hidden authority of the educational environment, Freire’s approach to authority in relation to freedom and education, Foucault’s conceptualisations of discourse and power, etc.). These are further divided into traditional, progressive and critical notions of authority by Bingham (2008: 7–9). [12] Finally, there are the practical and empirical interpretations, which study authority in the framework of pedagogical sciences, but specifically in the context of didactic strategies, teaching styles, or leadership skills, e.g. the relational model by E. Harjunen (2009). [13]

However, the purpose of this article is not to discuss issues about different views on pedagogical authority. As it shall be demonstrated below, our research originates in the conceptions of the theoretical and conceptual sense that define pedagogical authority as a relational connection between the teacher and the student that is fundamentally exercised through language use (Bingham 2008). [14] The latter is understood as a conception in which the effects of language use or the rhetorical perspective of such a relation notably come to the fore. This circumstance shall be called the “rhetorical nature or the rhetoric of pedagogical authority” and, as a modest contribution to the wide and ongoing debate about pedagogical authority, we will suggest some sort of a model or, even better, a scheme, the intention of which is to point to the role of different rhetorical strategies in establishing and implementing the authority relation. Although the relationship is reciprocal and its success equally depends on the linguistic choices of teachers and students, the focus in this article will be placed on the teacher’s perspective. Our wish is to draw attention to the importance of the teacher’s conscious language use in the pedagogical process as one of the key elements within his or her professional work or, in other words, from a different discipline’s perspective: if teachers always act as rhetoricians, i.e. public speakers, in their formal roles, then they should always be capable (to somewhat paraphrase Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric) of finding and applying the available means of persuasion accordingly (cf. Arist. Rh. 1355b25–26). [15]

The usual definitions of pedagogical authority that originate in the general definitions of authority as a disproportionate and hierarchical relationship between two poles and also bring the teacher’s perspective to the fore usually perceive authority as a distinct form of the pedagogical relationship. In order to resolve the dilemma about the subordination of authority as a necessary condition for an individual’s development, which is perceived as a meaningful form of pedagogical authority that is supposed to provide the individual with the highest degree of freedom, but should avoid getting caught up in the “loop of permissive repression” (Makovec 2014: 81) [16], Kroflič suggests the concept of self-regulated authority. In accordance with this concept, the teacher gradually involves the child in the pedagogical process and “assumes the role of authority only when the pupil or the subordinate pole of the relationship recognises this authority, whereby the further development of authority depends on the pupil’s own recognition as a subject who demands gradual limitation of their own position as a subject from the teacher” (Kroflič 2010: 146). [17] The relational view of authority as presented by Kroflič belongs to one of the two predominant modern directions in the study of pedagogical authority, which are based on different perceptions of the origin of authority. [18] His conceptualisations rely on contemporary scholars who recognise the source of authority in the relationship between two subjects that includes a reciprocal recognition of needs and expectations of both, regardless of the asymmetry or the hierarchical relationship between them (Sennet 1993; Bingham 2008) [19]. At the same time, such a dialogical view sees authority as an “ongoing process of interpretation and reinterpretation in the process of communication” and as an “act of imagination rather than a substance” (Kroflič 2010: 146). [20] The problem of the objectified (substantial) conception of authority presents one of the starting points on which Charles Bingham, the already mentioned American philosopher, justifies his concept of relational authority. Furthermore, his definitions of language roles in an authority relation between the teacher and the student form the basis for our rhetorical perspective. He notes that pedagogical authority is most frequently described in a monologic way within various conceptualisations and as something that, regardless of the possible differences in type (e.g. institutional, professional or moral), someone has/possesses and that allows this person/institution to exercise a certain level of influence or power over another person (Bingham 2004: 26). [21] When he explores historical aspects of the monological authority type, Bingham alternatively presents the dialogical model in which the pedagogical authority is seen as a special type of a relationship that shows no favour to one or the other person (one person has more authority while the other one has less), but is established in a circular manner within the pedagogical process through the interaction of all participants. The teacher therefore does not have/does not acquire/loses etc. authority per se, but the students give the authority in the communication interaction through the interpretation of what is expressed:

“Authority does not happen, until we, the listener and the speaker, enter a relation. … Neither of us ‘has’ authority. Neither of us ‘succumbs’ to authority. Rather, we create the relation of authority within the speaking and within the listening. The relation of authority would be incomplete without the listener. It would be incomplete without the speaker. To speak to no one is to be outside of authority. To listen to no one is to be outside the authority”. (Bingham 2008: 9, italicised by the author) [22]

The idea of reciprocal and circular nature of pedagogical authority is the basis on which Bingham justifies a text/written word as the key element of pedagogical authority in education arising from Gadamer’s hermeneutic concept of authority and Derrida’s logic of supplement as an obligatory external element of meaningful communication (Bingham 2008: 18–19). [23] According to Bingham, the latter is textual, because the students always give authority to the teacher in the pedagogical process as an integral part of the syllabus or learning content (i.e. the existing texts) or its supplement, which is why they all inevitably interact with texts. According to him, the tripartite nature of the authority relation, which is not a two-way communication (sender – receiver) but a performative communication model (Bingham 2008: 58) [24], answers to the question of who or what implements education.

Bingham additionally points out (Bingham 2008: 62) [25] that the authority relation, which is established through communication and in which the teacher and the student become the “missing pages” of those texts that are the subject of teaching, carries out this task to a greater extent than the learning content itself. The latter is also close to the fundamental principle of classical rhetoric, i.e. (public) persuasion, the essential part of which is the effect the speaker achieves with the listeners by speaking in specific circumstances in a certain way (what, where, to whom and when). Aristotle’s model of public persuasion is based on three elements: speaker, listeners and speech (which always evokes the existing arguments and is partly shared by the speaker and the listeners). If we make a parallel: a successful public persuasion means the listeners recognise the speaker as convincing. This means the speaker must connect all three elements during planning and during implementation of the speech in a way that the audience can successfully create a meaningful interpretation of his or her persuasiveness during interaction with the speaker and the speech.

When it comes to the relation between authority and rhetoric, another aspect can be highlighted. In his analysis of authority (of university professor), Kodelja links pedagogical authority to the notions of trust and credibility. By doing so, he refers to basic philosophical discussions on authority that address the relation between authority, power and persuasion (e.g. their incompatibility, as seen by H. Arendt, or Gadamer’s and De George’s conceptualisation of authority as an act of recognition and cognition). As stated by Kodelja, students grant authority to the professor “if they believe in the credibility of what he or she says, because they trust him or her” (Kodelja 2014). [26] He concludes that power and persuasion are not something separate from authority, but rather its potentials, which is why their actualisation depends on the reliability and credibility of the person that we grant our authority to.

Teacher’s professional characteristics and competences, pedagogical authority and Aristotle’s means of persuasion

Rhetoric and education are closely linked, both on the level of rhetorical pedagogy and on the level of education as rhetorical practice. As mentioned in the introduction, rhetoric can be directly linked to pedagogical communication that relates to the ways the teacher exhibits professional behaviour and the authority relation in education. In this context, Aristotle’s concept of rhetorical means of persuasion can serve as a good basis because they can also be recognised in some other contexts. In his conceptualisation of the notion of a good teacher (as the aspiration of his or her professional development), Gert Biesta makes a difference between a competent and a good teacher. In the case of the latter, he highlights the importance of judgement, i.e. the competence of taking suitable choices in specific pedagogical situations. He calls it virtue-based approach, which serves as an alternative to the evidence-based approach and competence-based approach. He finds the basis for this conceptualisation in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, especially in its definitions of practical wisdom (phronesis) and virtues (arete), which he understands as the two key elements of the teacher’s competence of judgement. This is an interesting point because Aristotle uses these conceptualisations in his work Rhetoric when he defines the elements of the speaker’s credibility in the study of rhetorical ethos. Biesta does not include Aristotle’s Rhetoric in his description of virtue-based approach; however, he does point to the language/rhetorical dimension of the teacher’s competence of judgement as one of the important educational objectives:

“The means of education – the ways in which we act, the things we say and how we say them, the ways in which we relate to our students and let them relate to each other – can never be thought of as mere instruments that should just effectively bring about certain ‘outcomes.’ The reason for this lies in the fact that students not only learn from what we say but also, and often more so, from how we say it and from what we do. This means that our ways of doing in education do not just need to be effective … We always also need to judge whether they are educationally appropriate – which requires that we reflect on what our students might learn or pick up from the ways in which we do things and the ways in which we organise and arrange education.” (Biesta 2015: 5, italicised by the author). [27]

If we understand the teacher’s competence of rhetoric assessment of appropriate communication methods as a component that pertains to his or her competence of judgement, we could describe such a “rhetorically competent” teacher as a person who possesses and exhibits suitable knowledge of basic rhetorical concepts (of persuasion and justification). First and foremost, a rhetorically competent teacher understands the basic characteristic of public persuasion, which is a reciprocal relationship between the speaker and the listeners. In other terms, this means the competence and motivation of the speaker to adjust the theme/issue of the speech, its emotional aspects and his or her own trustworthy image (as presented through speech) to the current situation and the listeners’ reaction. In the context of pedagogical process, this would mean that a teacher who wishes to be persuasive and worthy of trust does not only demonstrate mastery of the learning material (knowledge) and interest in his or her students, but also recognises them as equal interlocutors in the sense of mutual respect. In addition, he or she is aware, each time, of the specificity of the current rhetorical situation, which calls for a specific adjustment of the speech/text to the expectations, knowledge and mental images of the students.

These rhetorical aspects of the teacher’s behaviour, which directly relate to the already mentioned starting points of relational conception of pedagogical authority, can be effectively explained with the help of Aristotle’s concept about means of persuasion. Depending on the situational context (of every specific situation) and reciprocity of the elements of every act of persuasion (the interconnectedness between the speaker, the listeners and the speech/text), Aristotle states in Rhetoric that one can persuade using speech in three ways: 1) by exhibiting trustworthy character traits of the speaker, 2) by evoking emotions in the audience and 3) by giving reasons for a certain statement (Rh. 1356a1–4) [28]. Rhetoric theory later named them with Ancient Greek terms: ethos, pathos and logos, and their conceptualisation has a long and versatile tradition. In the broadest sense, rhetorical means of persuasion can be defined as three closely linked strategies of language use. They are either based on subjective means of wording (ethos and pathos) and are always dependent on the speaker and the listeners (i.e. what is convincing in a given situation based on the speaker’s image or the emotional reaction from the listeners); either they result from objective rules and procedures of valid argumentation (logos) that are independent from the speaker and the audience. It needs to be stated that the dynamic use of means of persuasion (i.e. how much and how the speaker uses them) always depends on the broad socio-cultural and situational context. [29]

In terms of pedagogical process, especially in the context of the teacher’s credibility, ethos comes to the forefront as a potentially relevant language strategy for a successful establishment of relationship between him or her, the students and the learning content. Despite the reciprocal nature of authority relation, teachers are the primary holders of the pedagogical process that take responsibility for it. Because of this, they have to be perceived as trustworthy “in the eyes” of other social stakeholders in order to have a successful authority relation. On the one hand, this is the only way for the students to recognise them as competent experts, while on the other, the only way for the teachers to legitimately enter in interaction with the students is from the position of the teacher. In rhetorical sense, Aristotle defines authentic image as one of the most effective means of public persuasion (Rh. 1356A13–14) [30] that the speaker directly implements in his or her speech and through it and that is built from three simultaneously existing characteristics that reflect the speaker’s socially acceptable image in the sense of his or her moral choices, virtues and actions: practical wisdom (AG phronesis), honesty (AG arete) and goodwill (AG eunoia) (Arist. Rh. 1378a6–7). [31] As practical strategies or means of wording to achieve a concrete effect/persuasiveness, they represent one of the notions (of the created or discursive) rhetorical ethos in modern rhetorical theory. [32]

Rhetorical means of persuasion as a possible starting point for the rhetorical construction of pedagogical authority?

After a short excursion to rhetorical ethos as a particularly relevant element of pedagogical communication, let us return to the means of persuasion in general as a means of rhetorical aspect on pedagogical authority. Our rhetorical scheme regarding the construction of pedagogical authority (see Figure 1), which to us represents the linguistic aspect of pedagogical authority, derives from the relative notion of authority and includes Aristotle’s basic model of persuasion in the basic didactic triangle (teacher/students/teaching content). [33] From a rhetorical perspective, pedagogical authority is established as a result of the speaker’s persuasive activity and in the interaction between the teacher, the students and the learning content/topic, primarily determined by three rhetorical strategies of persuasion (ethos – speaker, pathos – listeners, and logos – (learning) content). In his or her active role of the speaker, the teacher understands these strategies as basic (communicative) ways of establishing an authority relation, which are interconnected. In the process of rhetorical invention and delivery, they are framed by three fundamental questions: a) How do I create the image of a trustworthy teacher? – referring to ethos; b) What and how do I teach? – referring to logos; c) Who am I talking to? – referring to pathos. [34] With their help, the teacher – speaker chooses between different possible ways of wording, depending on the situation, because they require him or her to consider the choice of specific rhetorical strategies that enable the students – listeners a meaningful interpretation of the general trustworthiness of the teacher and thus create the basis for establishing an authority relation. In other words, when the teacher – speaker meaningfully (depending on the audience) uses strategies to show his or her own image of trustworthiness (ethos) and to evoke emotions (pathos), as well as the strategies of justification (logos), the students – listeners can recognise him or her as a competent expert. [35] In rhetorical perspective, the reciprocity of recognition is hidden in the basic notion of rhetoric as a dialogue activity: without the speaker’s prior understanding and action (when constructing and performing the speech) in the direction of the behaviour, mental images and expectations of the audience, which entails his or her equal and active involvement in the process of persuasion, one cannot talk about a rhetorically successful speech or text.

Figure 1: Rhetorical construction of pedagogical authority

Conclusion

In terms of rhetoric, the basic task of the teacher – speaker in a communicative interaction is to create a trustworthy image in the eyes of students. It is achieved through successful judgement of the situation (i.e. when, to whom, where, what to say), identification and selection of persuasive strategies that are appropriate for the situation. However, these are not mechanical choices (e.g. that the use of rational arguments is the only appropriate one for highlighting the importance of learning content in an authority relation), but rather stand out differently and are interconnected in a different way, depending on the situation (e.g. combining arguments with elements for evoking emotions). The latter means that which strategy of persuasion comes to the forefront and how successfully it is adjusted to the needs of the public by the speaker always depends on the specific situation: it could happen that, in the case of the teacher’s speech, the strategies of ethos have to come first so that the students recognise the teacher as trustworthy. In different situations, he or she will achieve this by introducing the strategies of logos more intensively into communication, and again, in a completely new situation, it will be crucial how successfully he or she demonstrates empathy for the emotional states of students through the strategies of pathos at the level of language use. The use of such strategies always depends on the specificity of the current interpersonal relationships between the participants in the pedagogical process that takes place at a certain school and in the broader context, i.e. the socio-cultural norms that shape individual school environments, specifics of the syllabus and educational policies.

Regardless of how one defines pedagogical authority, it cannot be established without language use. Could it be established without rhetoric? We believe this is not the case and its long history at least partially confirms our stance. And when Bingham (2004: 35) [36] urges the teachers that it is their duty not only to encourage students to merely respond to the authority of teachers, but to show them how to actively deal with the teachers’ authority and learning content (i.e. to use/not to use; to accept/not to accept; to take strategic advantage of the circumstances), it may be more sensible to ask the question differently: Why is rhetoric nowadays still only partially present in the educational programs of primary and secondary schools?

References and Notes

[1] Cic. De or. 3.14.54–55. Cicero. On the Orator: Book 3. On Fate. Stoic Paradoxes.

Divisions of Oratory. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library 349. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942, 43–45.

This article is a translated and revised version of a previously published chapter Retoričnost učiteljeve avtoritete in a scientific monograph Žagar, I. Ž. (ur.) & Mlekuž, A. (Eds.) (2019). Raziskovanje v vzgoji in izobraževanju. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut, 159–173. The article is published with permission of the publisher Pedagoški inštitut.

[2] Preliminary rhetorical exercises (progymnasmata), which are designed in line with the

principle of gradualness and in which the students practised drawing up and analysing texts using imaginary examples (from literature and history), are a great example. Such exercises that date back to the Hellenistic period were studied for more than a thousand years in the framework of rhetorical education and presented one way of transmitting values of the Greco-Roman elite world. About preliminary exercises and their applicability in modern times see for example Gibson 2008, also Žmavc 2013.

[3] Žagar, I. Ž., Žmavc, J.& Domajnko, B. (2018). Učitelj kot retorik«: retorično-

argumentativni vidiki pedagoškega diskurza. (Digitalna knjižnica, Dissertationes, 35).

Revised and enlarged edition. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.

[4] A further parallel can be drawn with the shown rhetorical dimension of the pedagogical

process from the teacher’s perspective, which could be recognised in the new concept of teacher agency. This term is usually defined as methods of the teacher’s implementation of the pedagogical practice and his or her active operation within the school development and education policies (e.g. Lasky, S. 2005; Leander & Osborne, 2008; Priestly, Biesta & Robinson 2015). The ecological perspective, which originates in the philosophical tradition of pragmatism, defines teacher agency as a phenomenon that depends on the quality of the teacher’s establishment of relations with the environment (i.e. the interaction between the individual’s own efforts, available resources as well as contextual and structural factors).

[5] Foss, S. K. (1989). Rhetorical criticism as the asking of questions. Communication

Education 38(3): 191–196; Žmavc, J. (2014). Retorika in argumentacija kot dejavnika učne uspešnosti. In: Štremfel, U. (Ed.). Učna (ne)uspešnost:pogledi, pristopi, izzivi. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut, 168–188.

[6] Rutten, C. & Soetaert R. (2012). Revisiting the rhetorical curriculum. Journal of Curriculum

Studies 44 (6): 727–743.

[7] The latter results from a dynamic and socially embedded conception of the pedagogical

process as (pedagogical) discourse, in which the fundamental concepts of education (in this case, the pedagogical authority) are understood as “discursive constructs or rhetorical effects of using the selected discursive strategies” (Žagar, Žmavc & Domajnko 2018: 23).

[8] Gauchet, M. (2011). Avtoriteta: konec ali preobrazba? In: Blais, M. C., Gauchet, M., Ottavi,

D. (Ed.). O pogojih vzgoje. Ljubljana: Krtina, 111–140.

[9] Arendt, H. (2006). Med preteklostjo in prihodnostjo. Ljubljana: Krtina.

[10] Ricoeur, P. (2007). Reflections on the Just. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[11] Gauchet, M. (2011). Avtoriteta: konec ali preobrazba? In: Blais, M. C., Gauchet, M.,

Ottavi, D. (Ed.). O pogojih vzgoje. Ljubljana: Krtina, 111–140.

[12] Bingham, C. (2008). Authority Is Relational (Rethinking Empowerment). Albany: State

University of New York.

[13] Harjunen, E. (2009). How do teachers view their own pedagogical authority? Teachers

and Teaching: theory and practice 15(1): 109–129. The arbitrary selection of presented conceptions indicates just a few of the more known directions in the notion of authority. The examination as such is not just much more complex and diverse, but also has a long tradition in individual disciplines (e.g. pedagogy, philosophy, sociology or psychology). In-depth analyses of different directions in the study of pedagogical authority particularly incorporate different historical concepts and references to other theoretical concepts of modern philosophy. See Bingham 2008; Kroflič 1997; Pace & Hemings 2006.

[14] Bingham, C. (2008). Authority Is Relational (Rethinking Empowerment). Albany: State University of New York.

[15] Arist. Rh. 1355b25–26. Aristoteles (2011). Retorika. Translated by Matej Hriberšek.

Ljubljana: Šola retorike Zupančič&Zupančič, 92. It may be worth mentioning that, interestingly, when candidates apply for job vacancies for university lecturers at the University of Ljubljana, “rhetorical skills” are listed among the standard conditions of service. It is true that this can be understood in many ways and this is another story that is connected to the understanding of rhetoric in Slovenia, but this indicates the perception of pedagogical activity with regard to public persuasion skills.

[16] Makovec, D. (2014). Avtoriteta učitelja in koncept spoštovanja. Sodobna pedagogika 65 (3): 72–92.

[17] Kroflič, R. (2010). Dialoški model avtoritete kot spopad za vzjemno pripoznanje.

(Feministična kritika lacanovskega pogleda na avtoriteto). Sodobna pedagogika 3: 134–154.

[18] The second direction in the study of pedagogical authority is characterised by the

substantial view, in which the origin of authority lies in the teacher’s social power. The focus is mostly placed on the issues of legitimising the superior position and thereby proving the possible positive outcomes for the development of the subordinate person. A person/student can become a fully developed person and an active citizen only by succumbing to the authority of the teacher (who not only represents the universal and symbolic Law, but also enforces compliance with the norm and rules that apply to all). See for example Krek 2008.

[19] Sennet, R. (1993). Authority. New York: Norton; Bingham, C. (2008). Authority Is

Relational (Rethinking Empowerment). Albany: State University of New York.

[20] Kroflič, R. (2010). Dialoški model avtoritete kot spopad za vzjemno pripoznanje. (Feministična kritika lacanovskega pogleda na avtoriteto). Sodobna pedagogika 3: 134–154.

[21] Bingham, C. (2004). Let’s Treat Authority Relationally. (Bingham, C. & Sidorkin A. M. Eds.). No Education Without Relation. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 23–37, 26.

[22] Bingham, C. (2008). Authority Is Relational (Rethinking Empowerment). Albany: State University of New York, 9.

[23] Bingham, C. (2008). Authority Is Relational (Rethinking Empowerment). Albany: State University of New York, 18–19.

[24] Bingham, C. (2008). Authority Is Relational (Rethinking Empowerment). Albany: State University of New York, 58.

[25] Bingham, C. (2008). Authority Is Relational (Rethinking Empowerment). Albany: State University of New York, 62.

[26] Kodelja, Z. (2014). Avtoriteta, avtonomija univerze in neoliberalna politika. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, 42(256): 84–96.

[27] Biesta, G. J. J. (2015). How does a competent teacher become a good teacher? On judgement, wisdom and virtuosity in teaching and teacher education. In: Heilbronn R., Foreman-Peck, L. (Ed.). Philosophical perspectives on the future of teacher education. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 3–22.

[28] Arist. Rh. 1356a1–4. Aristoteles (2011). Retorika. Translated by Matej Hriberšek. Ljubljana: Šola retorike Zupančič&Zupančič, 92–93.

[29] That is why logos in rhetoric, for example, is not a normative category bound to absolute truth, but is rather a series of rules and procedures in terms of logic and pseudologic that are based on probability. This means they are always only convincing (and not necessarily true) at the level of the theme and the structure for a concrete audience in a concrete situation. In the same way, ethos, pathos and logos do not appear in the speech as separate and fixed rhetorical components/strategies, but rather as different aspects of rhetorical processes (e.g. finding/selecting, constructing, structuring, wording and presenting), through which the speaker reaches their primary goal of persuasion.

[30] Arist. Rh. 1356A13–14. Aristoteles (2011). Retorika. Translated by Matej Hriberšek. Ljubljana: Šola retorike Zupančič&Zupančič, 93.

[31] Arist. Rh. 1378a6–7. Aristoteles (2011). Retorika. Translated by Matej Hriberšek. Ljubljana: Šola retorike Zupančič&Zupančič, 196. Aristotle also says the following:

“There is persuasion] through character whenever the speech is spoken in such a way as to make the speaker worthy of credence; for we believe fair-minded people to a greater extent and more quickly [than we do others], on all subjects in general and completely so in cases where there is not exact knowledge but room for doubt. (Arist. Rh. 1356a4–8, italicised by the author, 93). In this context it is interesting to point out Gauchet’s statement about belief as one of the five key elements for the existence of authority: “In general, we tend to believe opinions that are backed up by authority, because it would be hard to orient ourselves in a rush of noises, rumours and more or less incoherent information that overwhelms us.” (Gauchet 2011: 124).

[32] In modern adaptations, Aristotle’s rhetorical ethos includes socially relevant descriptions of traits of an individual’s trustworthiness. In order to show practical wisdom, the speaker should create an impression with the speech (what he or she talks about and how) on the audience that he or she knows the topic of the speech well and that he or she masters it in terms of the context of the specific situation. The impression of trustworthiness is achieved thanks to the speaker’s clarity of text/speech, unambiguity and the impression that he or she conceals nothing from the audience. Goodwill demands from the speaker to express benefits, concerns and a general interest in the listeners.

[33] A more complex interaction model of pedagogical authority is represented by Elina Harjunen (2009), who included different types of relationships between teachers, students and learning content in the didactic triangle and different ways of interaction between them. The scheme we present here, is much simpler and seeks to show only the role the effects of language use have in establishing an authority relationship in the pedagogical process.

[34] We note that the scheme we present is arbitrary in terms of perspective, as it exposes the teacher as the speaker. Situations in which the roles are reversed are also important for a successful authority relation in the pedagogical process: the student/students are in the role of the “speaker” and the teacher/teachers are the “listeners”. In this case, the basic questions the speaker asks him or herself and the role of strategies remain unchanged, but the choice of strategies (priority), the means of their wording and the presentation change, as they are framed by the social role of the student (i.e. the hierarchical structure of the school and social environment, which places different constraints on the student – speaker compared to the teacher – speaker).

[35] Here we need to clarify the existing ambiguity, since we use the term “trustworthiness” at both levels: at the level of ethos as one of the concrete rhetorical strategies and at the level of the fundamental goal of establishing/implementing an authority relation. The first could be understood as the “trustworthiness of the ethos”, resulting from the use of strategies of the ethos, in a way that the audience can recognise the speaker as trustworthy in a given situation (and that is not necessarily enough for a successful mutual recognition in an authority relation), and the second as “authority trustworthiness”, which is the result of a more complex language use (a combination of ethos, logos and pathos) and is part of the teacher’s comprehensive strategy in the process of establishing and implementing pedagogical authority.

[36] Bingham, C. (2004). Let’s Treat Authority Relationally. (Bingham, C., Sidorkin A. M. Eds.). No Education Without Relation. New York: Peter Lang, 35.

Bibliography

Arendt, H. (2006). Med preteklostjo in prihodnostjo. Ljubljana: Krtina.

Aristoteles (2011). Retorika. Translated by Matej Hriberšek. Ljubljana: Šola retorike Zupančič&Zupančič.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2015). How does a competent teacher become a good teacher? On judgement, wisdom and virtuosity in teaching and teacher education. In: Heilbronn R., Foreman-Peck, L. (Ed.). Philosophical perspectives on the future of teacher education. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 3–22.

Bingham, C. (2004). Let’s Treat Authority Relationally. In: Bingham, C., Sidorkin A. M. (Ed.). No Education Without Relation. New York: Peter Lang, 23–37

Bingham, C. (2008). Authority Is Relational (Rethinking Empowerment). Albany: State University of New York.

Cicero (1942). On the Orator: Book 3. On Fate. Stoic Paradoxes. Divisions of Oratory. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library 349. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Foss, S. K. (1989). Rhetorical criticism as the asking of questions. Communication Education 38(3): 191–196.

Gauchet, M. (2011). Avtoriteta: konec ali preobrazba? In: Blais, M. C., Gauchet, M., Ottavi, D. (Ed.). O pogojih vzgoje. Ljubljana: Krtina, 111–140.

Gibson, C. A. (2008). Libanius’s progymnasmata: model exercises in Greek prose composition and rhetoric. Translated with an introduction and notes by Craig A. Gibson. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Harjunen, E. (2009). How do teachers view their own pedagogical authority? Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(1): 109–129.

Kodelja, Z. (2014). Avtoriteta, avtonomija univerze in neoliberalna politika. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, 42(256): 84–96.

Krek, J. (2008). Očetovska funkcija, avtoriteta učitelja in vzgojna zasnova v javni šoli. Sodobna pedagogika, 5: 136–153.

Kroflič, R. (1997). Avtoriteta v vzgoji (Doktorska disertacija). Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.

Kroflič, R. (2010). Dialoški model avtoritete kot spopad za vzjemno pripoznanje. (Feministična kritika lacanovskega pogleda na avtoriteto). Sodobna pedagogika, 3: 134–154.

Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21: 899–916.

Leander, K. M., Osborne, M. D. (2008). Complex positioning: Teachers as agents of curricular and pedagogical reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40: 23–46.

Makovec, D. (2014). Avtoriteta učitelja in koncept spoštovanja. Sodobna pedagogika, 65 (3): 72–92.

Pace, J. L., Hemings, A. (Ed.) (2006). Classroom authority: theory, research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Priestly, M., Biesta, G. J. J. & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher Agency. An Ecological Approach. London, New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Ricoeur, P. (2007). Reflections on the Just. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rutten, C. & Soetaert R. (2012). Revisiting the rhetorical curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44 (6): 727–743.

Sennet, R. (1993). Authority. New York: Norton.

Žagar, I. Ž., Žmavc, J. & Domajnko, B. (2018). Učitelj kot retorik«: retorično-argumentativni vidiki pedagoškega diskurza. (Digitalna knjižnica, Dissertationes, 35). Revised and enlarged edition. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.

Žmavc, J. (2013). Govorniške predvaje: priročnik za sestavljanje besedil na osnovi antičnih progymnásmata: univerzitetni učbenik, (Zbirka Digitalna knjižnica, Compendia, 3). Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.

Žmavc, J. (2014). Retorika in argumentacija kot dejavnika učne uspešnosti. In: Štremfel, U. (Ed.). Učna (ne)uspešnost:pogledi, pristopi, izzivi. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut, 168–188.

Manuscript was submitted: 23.03.2021.

Double Blind Peer Reviews: from 10.05.2021 till 20.06.2021.

Accepted: 10.07.2021.

Брой 49 на сп. „Реторика и комуникации“, октомври 2021 г. се издава с финансовата помощ на Фонд научни изследвания, договор № КП-06-НП2/41 от 07 декември 2020 г.

Issue 49 of the Rhetoric and Communications Journal (October 2021) is published with the financial support of the Scientific Research Fund, Contract No. KP-06-NP2/41 of December 07, 2020.