In the past, rhetorical criticism relied heavily on an Aristotelian approach; critics judged a speech by how well it fulfilled the speaker's purpose and persuasion was the accepted goal of rhetoric. Political and academic forces have brought about a methodological perspectivism or pluralism of rhetorical theory, and in turn, caused a shift from judging the effectiveness of rhetoric to judging the potential effects of rhetoric. This pluralism produces varied and rigorous criticism because individual critics are allowed to adopt different perspectives. However, though most critics use a variety of methods, overall, their criticism examines rhetoric as a self-contained process of psychosymbolic relationships that excludes the world of affairs. The extrinsic components of rhetoric are ignored in the criticism, thus preventing the union of rhetorical theory and the actual practice of rhetoric. Though rhetors and audiences often make a distinction between rhetoric and reality, the world of affairs does have an effect on rhetoric. For example, the public often assumes that the rhetoric of advertisers, politicians, and newscasters misrepresents the events of the real world, thus the events themselves participate in the rhetoric. Though not all critics need to examine the relationship of the world of affairs to rhetoric, criticism should reflect a variety of epistemological views in order to be consistent with the principles of perspectivism. (SRT)