English 505
Rhetorical Theory
Session Fourteen Notes
Goals/Objectives:
1) To begin to understand the Argumentation theories of Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
2) To begin to understand the notion of Adherence of Minds
3) To begin to understand the notion of Starting Points
Questions/Main Ideas (Please
write these down as you think
of them)
Perelman
The theories of Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
Students of rhetoric know a lot about one (Perelman) and very little about the other
(Olbrechts-Tyteca)
Perelman
Several reasons:
Perelman had a PhD; Olbrechts-Tyteca a BA
After completion of The New Rhetoric, Perelman traveled throughout Europe and the US
delivering lectures and seminars; O-T stayed home
Perelman
Perelman also has the “inclination to assume ownership of the project”
Perelman was also a person of action
During WWII, he and his wife Fela were part of the Belgian underground
Perelman
After WWII he was offered a number of medals for heroism, but refused them all
Because of his interest in law, Perelman studied the nature of justice early in his career
Perelman
This led him to develop the concept of formal justice, which he defines as “a principle of
action in accordance with which beings of ‘one and the same essential category’ must be
treated in the same way”
Perelman
Consequently, the application of this principle to particular cases led to an exploration of
values and to the question “How do we reason about values?”
Perelman
Perelman found the answers provided by the philosophical literature about reason and
values highly unsatisfactory
He could think of no way to resolve questions of value on rational grounds
Perelman
“Indeed, as I entirely accepted the principle that one cannot draw an ‘ought’ from an ‘is” –
a judgment of value from a judgment of fact – I was led inevitably to the conclusion that if
justice consists in the systematic implementation of certain value judgments, it does not rest
on any rational foundation”
Perelman
Unable to reconcile justice with formal logic, Perelman turned to other ways in which
people reason about values such as justice
Perelman’s work on justice and on argumentation was motivated by:
Perelman
The failure of philosophy to deal with reason
And by the “actual historical situation of Europe’s undergoing the physical and moralpolitical devastation of World War II
Perelman
Nationalist and ethnic allegiances had overwhelmed the modern political project of
articulating more universal, transnational principles that might protect the rights of
individuals and help mediate conflicts among groups
Perelman
Perelman’s work in law and in rhetoric is connected to his philosophical interests and to his
work in the Belgian underground
Motivated by the horrors of the Holocaust, Perelman turned away from formal logic
Perelman
According to Perelman:
Argumentation is not the same as logic or demonstration
Demonstration involves calculation made according to rules accepted by formal, deductive
logic
Perelman
Argumentation is the study of discursive techniques allowing us to induce or increase the
mind’s adherence to the theses presented for its assent
Demonstration uses mathematical language, such as in a formula
Perelman
Argumentation uses naturally ambiguous human language
Thus, demonstration allows the production of a conclusion by reasoning from premises
(impersonal), while argumentation attempts to gain audience adherence to a claim
(personal)
Perelman
Perelman suggest that a new approach to rhetoric is needed because traditional rhetoric
emphasizes matters of style at the expense of matters of rationality
Perelman
Perelman believed that the way to more accurately discuss argumentation was to focus on
its audience
For Perelman, argumentation necessarily involves an audience, which makes it different
from formal logic
Perelman
Argumentation requires a relationship between the speaker and the audience
“All argumentation aims at gaining the adherence of minds, and, by this very fact,
assumes the existence of an intellectual contact”
Perelman
The audience may not be the person or people physically present to hear the speaker
And it is even more difficult to locate the exact audience for written rhetoric, since writing
spreads to many audience members unknown to the writer
Perelman
Perelman defines the audience as “the ensemble of those whom the speaker wishes to
influence by his argumentation”
Perelman notes that the audience is always a “more or less systematized construction”
Perelman
That is, the audience is an idea the speaker considers as he or she prepares arguments and
techniques of argumentation
Too often, rhetoric has become an “academic exercise” in which it addressed
“conventional audiences”
Perelman
He was concerned that rhetoric was not taught in a way to address a meaningful audience,
but one that was instead invented for the rhetorical exercise at hand
This limited rhetoric and made it an artificial art
Perelman
In argumentation, he explains, “care must be taken to form a concept of the anticipated
audience as close as possible to reality. An inadequate picture of the audience, resulting
either from ignorance or an unforeseen set of circumstances, can have very unfortunate
results”
Perelman
Without a clear understanding of the audience, the speaker who thinks he or she has
constructed effective arguments, may find the opposite when confronted by a real audience
Perelman
Accordingly, “knowledge of those one wishes to win over is a condition preliminary to all
effectual argumentation”
He advises, “The important thing is not knowing what the speaker regards as being true or
important, but knowing the views of those he is addressing”
Perelman
Perelman identifies a distinction between persuading and convincing
Persuasion is a form of argumentation that claims validity only for a particular audience
Perelman
Convincing is a type of argumentation that holds true for an audience of “every rational
being”
The former aims at a particular audience (those in attendance)
The latter at a universal audience (all normal, adult persons)
Perelman
Argumentation aimed exclusively at a particular audience has the drawback that the
speaker, by the very fact of adapting to the view of his listeners, might rely on arguments
that are foreign or even directly opposed to what is acceptable to persons other than those
present
Perelman
Perelman was concerned that you would use faulty arguments if you only considered the
immediate audience
The importance of the universal audience, on the other hand, is to provide a “norm for
objective argumentation”
Perelman
Argumentation addressed to a universal audience must convince the reader that the reasons
adduced are of a compelling character, that they are self-evident, and possess an absolute
and timeless validity, independent of local or historical contingencies
Perelman
He felt that the strongest arguments were those that had a timeless appeal to a universal
audience
The concept of the universal audience implies that the quality of an argument depends on
the quality of the audience that accepts the thesis of the speaker
Perelman
All argumentation must be planned in relation to an audience
Sometimes, groups such as scientists assume that they do not address an audience and
merely report the facts
Perelman
This rests on the illusion, widespread in certain rationalistic and scientific circles, that facts
speak for themselves
Perelman insists that fact do not “speak”
Perelman
Facts only become facts when an audience consents to view them as facts
Thus, the meeting of the minds he talks about is an intellectual contact that requires people
engaged in argumentation to share some frame of reference
Perelman
Starting Points
The purpose of argumentation is to move an audience from agreement about premises to
agreement about some conclusion
The aim is not to prove the truth of the conclusion from premises
Perelman
The aim is to transfer to the conclusion the adherence accorded to the premises
Although the conclusions of argumentation may be uncertain, contingent, and
unacceptable to an audience, the argumentation process begins with premises the audience
accepts
Perelman
Audience rejection of the premise of an argument is tantamount to refusing to let the
argument begin
Once the audience accepts the premises, the next step is to encourage the members of the
audience to adhere to the conclusion
Perelman
Just as it adheres to the premises
Premises of various kinds, then, serve as the starting points of argument
Perelman distinguishes between:
Perelman
Starting points that deal with reality
Starting points that deal with the preferable
Dealing with reality
Reflect the universal audience’s beliefs about things as they actually are
Perelman
As opposed to how they ought to be
Facts
These starting points are characterized by objects that are already agreed to by the
universal audience
Perelman
A fact is a fact only by the agreement accorded to it by the universal audience
Although its actual correspondence to the structures of reality is not the issue, universal
agreement is achieved when persons perceive data to be rooted in those structures of reality
Perelman
Facts have a privileged status in argumentation because adherence to a fact requires no
justification
Facts can lose their privilege, however
Ex: “The earth is flat!”
Perelman
Truths
Similar to facts, truths enjoy universal agreement
Perelman uses the term fact to refer to a particular datum and the term truth to refer to a
broader principle that connects facts to one another
Perelman
Truths involve more complex systems relating to connections between facts
Ex: Evolution
Presumptions
Are related to what is normal and likely, until there is proof to the contrary
Perelman
Like facts and truth, presumptions enjoy universal agreement
But the audience’s adherence to presumption falls short of being maximum
Audiences expect what is normal and likely
Perelman
Presumptions are based on these expectations
Ex: good people will commit good deeds and evil people will commit evil deeds
Presumptions, obviously, can be violated much more easily than facts or truths
Perelman
Dealing with the preferable
Instead of starting with things as they are, they begin with what is preferable
Values
They hold only the adherence of particular audiences
Perelman
Some values such as honesty or beauty might seem to be general enough to secure the
adherence of the universal audience
Perelman claims that values are universal only to the extent that they are not made specific
Perelman
Once you have applied them to a particular case, the adherence of particular audiences is all
that reasonably can be expected
Ex: justice
Perelman
Differentiated between abstract values and concrete values
Abstract values
Are abstract when they are not attached to a particular institution or person
Ex: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Perelman
Concrete values
Are concrete when they are attached to particular persons, objects, or institutions
Ex: the above then attached to Charles Manson
Perelman
Hierarchies
Values arranged in terms of importance form hierarchies
One reason for ordering values is that the simultaneous pursuit of two values can lead to
incompatibilities
Perelman
Differentiated between Concrete hierarchies and abstract hierarchies
Concrete hierarchies are related to specific objects
Ex: the superiority of humans over animals
Perelman
Abstract hierarchies
Values do not apply to specific objects
Ex: the superiority of the just over the useful (such as a judicial system that values
individual’s rights over society’s rights)
Perelman
Also differentiate between homogenous hierarchies and heterogeneous hierarchies
Homogenous hierarchies
One in which values differ only in degree
More of a good thing or less of a bad thing is preferred
Perelman
Ex: mild illness preferred over a severe one
Heterogeneous hierarchies
Conflicting values are of a different kind
They can thus come into conflict with one another and can be difficult to resolve
Perelman
Ex: Honesty and truth
“What do you think of my new dress?” (when your friend is wearing an ugly dress)
Perelman also discusses Presence
Perelman
Speakers/writers who engage in argumentation must choose the most promising starting
points from all available
To choose something and to focus on it is to give it presence
Perelman
Presence is “the displaying of certain elements on which the speaker wishes to center
attention in order that they may occupy the foreground of the hearer’s consciousness
By creating presence, the arguer creates importance
Perelman
Ex: Johnny Cochran and O.J.’s glove
Endowed the glove with presence
“If it does not fit, you must acquit”
Summary/Minute Paper: