{"id":99164,"date":"2022-10-12T02:09:32","date_gmt":"2022-10-12T02:09:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/4-discussion-200-words-rhetoric-and-theory\/"},"modified":"2022-10-12T02:09:32","modified_gmt":"2022-10-12T02:09:32","slug":"4-discussion-200-words-rhetoric-and-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/4-discussion-200-words-rhetoric-and-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"4 discussion 200 words &#8211; rhetoric and theory"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>\n<p>CHA\u00cfM PERELMAN\u2019S \u201cNEW RHETORIC\u201d \u00a0The Belgium theorist Cha\u00efm Perelman was also interested in developing a \u00a0way to critique arguments as they appeared in actual discussion. Perelman \u00a0believed that the way to more accurately discuss argumentation was to focus on \u00a0its audience. For Perelman (1982), argumentation necessarily involved an audience, which made it different from formal logic, \u201cin which no attention is paid to \u00a0the meaning of the symbols\u201d (p. 13). Argumentation, though, requires a relationship between the speaker and the audience. Ray (1978) explained, \u201cSince it is \u00a0the audience that the speaker seeks to influence by argument, all argumentation \u00a0is developed in relation to an audience\u201d (p. 362). In Perelman\u2019s (1982) words, \u201call \u00a0argumentation aims at gaining the adherence of minds, and, by this very fact, \u00a0assumes the existence of an intellectual contact\u201d (p. 14). The audience, he \u00a0explained, may not be the person or people physically present to hear the \u00a0speaker. It is even more difficult to locate the exact audience for written rhetoric, since writing spreads to many audience members unknown to the writer. \u00a0Perelman (1982) defined the audience as \u201cthe ensemble of those whom the \u00a0speaker wishes to influence by his argumentation\u201d (p. 19). \u00a0Perelman (1982) noted that the \u201caudience\u201d is always a \u201cmore or less systematized construction\u201d (p. 19). That is, the audience is an idea the speaker considers as he or she prepares arguments and techniques of argumentation. Too \u00a0often, wrote Perelman (1982), rhetoric had become an \u201cacademic exercise\u201d in \u00a0which it addressed \u201cconventional audiences\u201d (p. 20). He was concerned that \u00a0rhetoric was not taught in a way to address a meaningful audience, but one that \u00a0was instead invented for the rhetorical exercise at hand. Such a view limited \u00a0rhetoric and made it an artificial art, according to Perelman. \u00a0In argumentation, he explained, \u201ccare must be taken to form a concept of \u00a0the anticipated audience as close as possible to reality. An inadequate picture of \u00a0the audience, resulting either from ignorance or an unforeseen set of circumstances, can have very unfortunate results\u201d (Perelman, 1982, p. 20). Without a \u00a0clear understanding of the audience, a speaker who thinks he or she has constructed effective arguments, may find the opposite when confronted by a real \u00a0audience. Perelman (1982) suggested, \u201cAccordingly, knowledge of those one \u00a0wishes to win over is a condition preliminary to all effectual argumentation\u201d (p. \u00a020). In fact, Perelman advised arguers that \u201cthe important thing is not knowing \u00a0what the speaker regards as true or important, but knowing the views of those \u00a0he is addressing\u201d (pp. 23\u201324). While Plato lamented the rhetor\u2019s flattery of the \u00a0audience, Perelman observed that no orator can \u201cafford to neglect this effort of \u00a0adaptation to the audience\u201d (p. 24). \u00a0Perelman identified a distinction between persuading and convincing to \u00a0help rhetors consider the audience they are addressing. Persuasion, he wrote, is \u00a0a form of argumentation that claims validity only for a particular audience, while convincing is a type of argumentation that holds true for an audience of \u201cevery \u00a0rational being\u201d (Perelman, 1982, p. 28). The former type of argumentation is aimed at a particular audience, the latter at the universal audience. The particular audience is composed of those in attendance at a rhetor\u2019s speech; the universal audience is composed of \u201call normal, adult persons\u201d (p. 30). \u00a0Perelman (1982) explained that \u201cArgumentation aimed exclusively at a particular audience has the drawback that the speaker, by the very fact of adapting \u00a0to the views of his listeners, might rely on arguments that are foreign or even \u00a0directly opposed to what is acceptable to persons other than those he is presently addressing\u201d (p. 31). That is, when you argue an appeal for more money for \u00a0your student organization in front of the student government, you might use \u00a0different appeals than if you presented to your organization\u2019s alumni with similar arguments. Perelman was concerned that you would use faulty arguments if \u00a0you only considered the immediate audience. \u00a0The importance of the universal audience, on the other hand, is to provide a \u00a0\u201cnorm for objective argumentation\u201d (Perelman, 1982, p. 31). \u201cArgumentation \u00a0addressed to a universal audience must convince the reader that the reasons \u00a0adduced are of a compelling character, that they are self-evident, and possess an \u00a0absolute and timeless validity, independent of local or historical contingencies\u201d \u00a0(Perelman &amp; Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969, p. 32). The strongest arguments, he \u00a0thought, were those that had a timeless appeal to a universal audience. \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CHA\u00cfM PERELMAN\u2019S \u201cNEW RHETORIC\u201d \u00a0The Belgium theorist Cha\u00efm Perelman was also interested in developing a \u00a0way to critique arguments as they appeared in actual discussion. Perelman \u00a0believed that the way to more accurately discuss argumentation was to focus on \u00a0its audience. For Perelman (1982), argumentation necessarily involved an audience, which made it different from formal [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-education"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=99164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/assignmenttutors.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}