I loved this book. P&O.T found some great ways to explain things. I really like their distinction between dialogue and debate. " Dialogue as we consider it, is not suppose to be a debate, in which the partisans of opposed settled convictions defend their perspective views, but rather discussion interlocutors search honestly and with out bias for the best solution to a controversial problem" (p. 37). If we turn to Tannen's Argument Culture most of the cases she mentioned were debates, not discussions or dialogues. People were just there to defeat each other.
The P & O.T also makes a great discussion of types of objectives of argument. I haven't finishes that chapter yet, but so far I believe they highlight very important components of argument: facts and truths, presumptions, values... I believe these are very important to have a great discussion and come to a solution as mentioned in the description above.
Showing posts with label values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label values. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Adherence, Values, and Epideictic Rhetoric
So far, Perelman is quite a fascinating read! I appreciate the clarity of his prose, and have been interested to see (for the first time since beginning my study of rhetoric at MU) references to preaching that are illustrative rather than pejorative. [If I had a dime for every use of "preach" to mean talking at/talking down/power-over/non-listening, even amongst well-meaning colleagues, I would be significantly richer].
Perelman emphasizes the importance of what he calls "adherence" in his discussion of argumentation and persuasion. It is not enough to engage in logical proofs of an almost mathematical precision. What is needed is an awareness of an actual audience who will be disposed to respond to a speaker based on the extent to which the speaker shares or moves their values. Forensic and deliberative rhetoric, as important as they have been seen to be in the history of teaching persuasion, do not cover the whole of what is needed when it comes to making arguments that persuade others. Perelman writes: "epidictic oratory has significance and importance for argumentation, because it strengthens the disposition toward action by increasing adherence to the values it lauds" (p. 50). Even more strongly, Perelman notes on the next page: "the speaker tries to establish a sense of communion centered around particular values recognized by the audience" (p. 51). In Perelman, I believe we do indeed see a "new" rhetoric in the sense that he seems to be moving towards an almost Burkean emphasis on identification here, rather than a traditional Aristotelian emphasis upon logical proof.
Perelman's emphasis on values, communion, and adherence raises very interesting questions that once again (as with Toulmin) move us towards a more realistic view of how people actually engage in argumentation. Who defines the shared values? How do they come to be the values of that audience? That speaker? To what extent does the appeal to values involve an "appeal to a universal order, to a nature, or a god that would vouch for the unquestioned, and supposedly unquestionable, values" (p. 51)? As a preacher working in diverse communities, I recognize these questions as real and significant, and I take them seriously every time I get in the pulpit. Looking forward to more reflecting on this in days to come!
Perelman emphasizes the importance of what he calls "adherence" in his discussion of argumentation and persuasion. It is not enough to engage in logical proofs of an almost mathematical precision. What is needed is an awareness of an actual audience who will be disposed to respond to a speaker based on the extent to which the speaker shares or moves their values. Forensic and deliberative rhetoric, as important as they have been seen to be in the history of teaching persuasion, do not cover the whole of what is needed when it comes to making arguments that persuade others. Perelman writes: "epidictic oratory has significance and importance for argumentation, because it strengthens the disposition toward action by increasing adherence to the values it lauds" (p. 50). Even more strongly, Perelman notes on the next page: "the speaker tries to establish a sense of communion centered around particular values recognized by the audience" (p. 51). In Perelman, I believe we do indeed see a "new" rhetoric in the sense that he seems to be moving towards an almost Burkean emphasis on identification here, rather than a traditional Aristotelian emphasis upon logical proof.
Perelman's emphasis on values, communion, and adherence raises very interesting questions that once again (as with Toulmin) move us towards a more realistic view of how people actually engage in argumentation. Who defines the shared values? How do they come to be the values of that audience? That speaker? To what extent does the appeal to values involve an "appeal to a universal order, to a nature, or a god that would vouch for the unquestioned, and supposedly unquestionable, values" (p. 51)? As a preacher working in diverse communities, I recognize these questions as real and significant, and I take them seriously every time I get in the pulpit. Looking forward to more reflecting on this in days to come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)