I wholeheartedly agree with Perelman's premise that "the development of argumentation is a function of the audience to which it is addressed and to which the speaker must adapt himself" and that this has vastly more applicability to social theory than demonstrations founded in formal logic. It is this interaction between the speaker and the audience that produces an understanding of the limits and edges of acceptable mores, as one strives to persuade people to a particular point of view. If one is a member of the group or not a member of the group changes how one is accepted and one's approach to the audience, or group, to gain acceptance. We can socially condition an audience within the framework of the argument to accept certain preconditions or ideas. A demonstration based in logic suggests passivity while an affirmation supported by history in society, or a precedent,brings out the strength in culture by affirming traditions and the rule of justice. As Perelman says "These precedent, just like the models by which a society is inspired make part of its cultural tradition,which can be reconstructed on the basis of the argumentations in which they have been employed"(254). Perelman states that when form and style are the main goal society is less apt to be concerned with diversity and opposition, while a search for the truth and an emphasis on the importance of argumentation in rhetoric seem to be accompanied by periods in history focused on the development of democracy and knowledge, such as the Renaissance. Thus being aware of one's audience includes being aware of the times, place and history of the audience.
Bibliography
Perelman,Chaim. "The Social Contexts of Argumentation." Miller, Susan. The Norton book of Composition Studies. NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This tactic is employed successfully in political campaigns. McCain enjoyed many positive "bytes" when he addressed a group of veterans, where he was "stressing the similarities and ignoring the differencec" (254). Rare is the politician who would address an audience who is considered "hostile" especially with television cameras rolling. Perelman also acknowledges that modern audiences are governed by diversity which prevents universal success of agrumentation which leads the speaker to look for "universal human nature" as a vehicle for persuasion.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing to consider how often speakers end up becoming targets of the wrong audience. History and current events offer many examples for us to consider of when a speaker's message was heard and acted upon by hostile's. Many powerful speakers are remembered in history as much for who they offended as they are by who their followers may have been. There is more to rhetoric than just preaching to the choir, but a speaker should adapt to do just that, as suggested by Perleman.
ReplyDelete