Synthesizing
Well, I have to admit I am not convinced that argument is an umbrella term and that rhetoric falls underneath that; although, I am trying to understand where others are coming from and why they believe so. I guess as of now I just disagree. I am instead convinced that rhetoric is the umbrella term and that argument falls under that, as well as dialectic.
Rhetoric to me is a speech act, whether performed, in text, or as symbol (or in some other form that I am not thinking of at this moment). It also can be without refutation or response. Rhetoric can be part of linear process of communication or a transactional one, and this is one of the main reasons why it is an umbrella term for me. Argument and dialectic, as I understand them, are transactional processes. They require an exchange of ideas. Rhetoric, even with the audience as part of its components, doesn’t have to have an exchange. It can be in a dominating, disseminating, and linear form.
As the readings so far suggest, argument is something that has stemmed from “Western” practices. Aristotle and Plato had differing ideas but it seems the more time passes the more scholarship seems to find some common ground between them that can lead to some of the more productive and positive exchanges of ideas that we can call argument. For example, taking components of rhetoric, dialectic, dialogue, and argument as talked about across our readings shapes a communication activity that can be rhetorical, dialogic, dialectic, argumentative, and can have clash, can be mutually inclusive, and can produce fruitful exchanges.
