Survival of the Rhetorical...est

including human culture, rhetoric is a powerful force for the survival and well-being of the individual,the family, and the social group as these exist at any given moment.

 This quote from Kennedy stands out to me as indicating the scalability of rhetoric in human society. Our interpretations of what Rhetoric is are innumerable: ask any student, or even ask any teacher, and you'll probably get a different answer. Broader theories that these interpretations fall into exist, and have no shortage of labels which are tangential to the point I'm going after here. What strikes me particularly is how broad the spectrum of what we call "rhetoric" is both in what it contains - for instance, many would argue that something as minute as the smell of a woman's perfume or the angle at which one's glasses rest upon one's nose, and by the same token many argue that rhetoric's domain is the lofty political speech that changes the fate of nations - and in who performs it. Kennedy argues that many animals have their own types of rhetorics, but on the opposite end of the spectrum, we could argue that entire nations present their own rhetorical arguments.

a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status 

 Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

 Of course, a nation is not a thinking being in the way an animal or a human is. It is an amalgam, composed of a broad variety of people. They are not always multicultural or even united, but a nation presents its own kind of rhetoric as a medley of those within it. It might seem common sense that the stances and positions of a state originate from within the government or official ruling bodies, but is this the case? Let's take a look at an extreme example, our own nation, the United States of America. Without a doubt, our government plays a major role in creating the image we present to the world, whether as individuals we approve of it or not. Yet if you consider the construction that is the "Image of the United States", a cornucopia of factors pile in. We export culture, technology, finance, technical skills and even our own stereotypes to the entire world daily. We present ourselves in particular ways, some good, some bad, for all to see, and around that we create a mythos of what America is. The simplest manifestations of this mythos, for all countries, not just ours, is in stereotypes, both positive and negative. I won't go into them here, but surely when you think of certain countries specific traits and values comes to mind.

This goes beyond simple impressions as well. The rhetoric of nations centers first and foremost on their continued prosperity and survival. The most basic image that a nation can project through its policies, people, structures and actions is that of Strength. Authoritarian governments, strong armies, vast wealth, strong defenses and power projection are all evidence that countries present for the argument that they are strong. It is this image of strength that is often more effective than large numbers of soldiers. For example, look at Switzerland. As Europe blazed around them during WW2, they were left alone in a position of neutrality. Why? The Swiss have always been militaristic, their citizens were motivated, their natural defenses strong and the reward for conquering them would be little. Like an animal bristling against a predator, they present an argument as a nation that it is in no way worth it to attack them. Like Kennedy says, "Stripped to
its bare minimum, rhetoric is a defense mechanism(10)." These rhetorics exist to ensure the longevity and prosperity of the state, while those unable to present these rhetorics fall. Viewing this as the only factor in the fall of a nation is of course dramatically oversimplifying, but it may not be too much of a stretch to view history as a kind of "Survival of the Rhetorical" on a wider scale than Kennedy discusses.