Chapter 5: Encomiums and Invectives

Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students identifies encomiums as discourse that praises someone. Invectives, on the other hand, are defined as discourse that casts blame on someone else. In modern society, mass media produces countless invectives and very few encomiums in response to the world at large. While encomiums are more pleasant to read and more encouraging to examine, it would seem that invectives are what truly sell. As a result, invectives have become the routine articles in newspapers and magazines.

Invectives are first beneficial because of how well they sell issues. This is a basic aspect of marketing. The New York Times frequently shows headlines of people murdered, robbed, and worse, but when was the last time it stated, "Nineteen Million People Unharmed in Daily Life"? It hasn't. Newspapers serve the purpose of spreading useful information, and it isn't helpful to know who didn't get hurt. Readers need to know where it is dangerous, how these attacks happen, and who/where/what to avoid. Does this mean that invectives are not only better for business but also more useful than the uplifting alternative?

Invectives are particularly useful when election time comes, but it's important to consider to whom they serve a purpose. After all, an article casting aspersions on a candidate is not likely to be objective, nor is it likely to be written by someone who does not have an ulterior motive. Despite all of these considerations, people continue to read the invectives and allow them to color our perspective on candidates. If a person is buying a new car, they are unlikely to rely solely on the manufacturer's information in order to determine what to buy and how much to pay. The consumer needs information from someone who does not stand to benefit from the decision they make. The same is true for an election, yet consumers rarely research individual writers and reporters in order to seek out a truly objective report.

The result is that invectives are better for business, better for personal motives, and better for keeping people informed, but the dangers remain strong. An invective has already convicted the person in question. An invective is unlikely to present information that does not serve the purpose of convicting the person in question, which leads back to the age-old proverb, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." As a result, each person who reads an invective also has the responsibility of reading additional material in order to obtain a fair and honest perspective of the person in question. Unfortunately, this rarely happens.

Society is busy, and people as individuals are busy. Few people have time to read report after report, and many people rely almost entirely on headlines to keep them informed. Does this mean society is irresponsible? Is this a mistake on the parts of each individual who does not take the time to get more information? These questions are not truly fair. If a newspaper produces more invectives because it's better for business, a person needs to read invectives in order to protect themselves, and the reader is taking the time to read something, even an invective, in order to gain information, then perhaps invectives are not overly critical or biased. Instead, invectives are a necessary and important part of daily information and communication.