Rhetoric, Cogency, and the Radically Social Character of Persuasion:

William Rehg Saint Louis University

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article examines Jürgen Habermas's argumentation theory for an answer to the question of the role of rhetoric in cogent argument-making practices. At first glance, Habermas's triadic synthesis of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric appears conventionally neo-Aristotelian and logocentric. However, in aligning rhetoric with a formal, idealized understanding of argument as a process, Habermas gives rhetorical evaluation an authoritative role in certifying nonrelativistic public knowledge. Further elaboration of the implications of his model reveals a radically social view of rational persuasion and of reasonable opinion formation that makes intellectual humility a central virtue. Humility heavily restricts the scope for reasonable disagreement and dissent, particularly in polarized controversies. Examination of such a controversy shows the limits of the Habermasian conception of rhetoric.

Journal
Philosophy & Rhetoric
Published
2013-11-01
DOI
10.5325/philrhet.46.4.0465
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (55) · 2 in this index

  1. Andrus, Jennifer. 2011. “Beyond Texts in Context: Recontextualization and the Co-Production of Texts and Cont…
  2. Beatty, John, and Alfred Moore. 2010. “Should We Aim for Consensus?” Episteme 7 (3): 198–214.
  3. Bitzer, Lloyd F. 1968. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1): 1–14.
  4. Blair, J. Anthony. 1988. “What Is Bias?” In Selected Issues in Logic and Communication, ed. Trudy Govier, 93–…
  5. Philosophy & Rhetoric
Show all 55 →
  1. Blaug, Ricardo. 1999. Democracy, Real and Ideal. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  2. Chambers, Simone. 1995. “Feminist Discourse/Practical Discourse.” In Feminists Read Habermas, ed. Johanna Mee…
  3. Charland, Maurice. 1994. “Norms and Laughter in Rhetorical Culture.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (3): 339–42.
  4. Farrrell, Thomas B. 1993. The Norms of Rhetorical Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  5. Feldman, Richard, and Ted A. Warfield, eds. 2010. Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. 1985. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Prospect Height…
  7. Goldman, Alvin. 1994. “Argumentation and Social Epistemology.” Journal of Philosophy 91 (1): 27–49.
  8. Goodwin, Jean. 2007. “Argument Has No Function.” Informal Logic 27 (1): 69–90.
  9. Gross, Alan G. 2006. Starring the Text. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
  10. Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon.
  11. Habermas, Jürgen. 1983. Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Surhkamp.
  12. Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Vol. 1: Reason and the Ra…
  13. Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: M…
  14. Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Trans. Thomas Burger and Frederic…
  15. Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry W…
  16. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Trans. William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. Habermas, Jürgen. 2003. Truth and Justification. Trans. Barbara Fultner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  18. Habermas, Jürgen. 2008. Between Naturalism and Religion. Trans. Ciaran Cronin. Malden, MA: Polity.
  19. Jarrett, Susan C. 2000. “Jürgen Habermas (1929–).” In Twentieth-Century Rhetoric and Rhetoricians, ed. M. G. …
  20. Jasinski, James. 2001. Sourcebook on Rhetoric. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  21. Johnson, Ralph H. 2000. Manifest Rationality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  22. Johnson, Ralph H.. 2009. “Revisiting the Logical/Dialectical/Rhetorical Triumvirate.” In Argument Cultures: P…
  23. Keith, William, and William Rehg. 2008. “Argumentation in Science: The Cross-Fertilization of Argumentation T…
  24. Kincaid, Harold, John Dupré, and Alison Wylie, eds. 2007. Value-Free Science? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. Klein, Julie Thompson. 1996. Crossing Boundaries. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
  26. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  27. Lengwiler, Martin. 2008. “Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology: Historical Origins and Current …
  28. McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  29. McCarthy, Thomas. 1991. Ideals and Illusions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  30. McCarthy, Thomas. 1998. “Legitimacy and Diversity: Dialectical Reflections on Analytic Distinctions.” In Habe…
  31. McKerrow, Raymie E. 1999. “Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis.” In Contemporary Rhetorical Theory, ed. John…
  32. McMahon, Christopher. 2001. Collective Rationality and Collective Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. McMahon, Christopher. 2009. Reasonable Disagreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Moran, Michael G., and Michelle Ballif. 2000. Introduction to Twentieth-Century Rhetorics and Rhetoricians, e…
  35. Rehg, William. 1997. “Reason and Rhetoric in Habermas's Theory of Argumentation.” In Rhetoric and Hermeneutic…
  36. Rehg, William. 2009. Cogent Science in Context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  37. Argumentation
  38. Rehg, William. 2012a. “Assessing Bias Charges Against Collaborative Expertise, with an Application to the IPC…
  39. Rehg, William. 2012b. “Discourse Theory.” In The Routledge Companion of Political and Social Philosophy, ed. …
  40. Scott, Robert. 1999. “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic.” In Contemporary Rhetorical Theory, ed. John Louis Lu…
  41. Solomon, Miriam. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  42. Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations,’ and Boundary Objects…
  43. Tindale, Christopher W. 1999. Acts of Arguing. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  44. Toulmin, Stephen E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  45. Vatz, Richard E. 1973. “The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 6 (3): 154–61.
  46. Warnke, Georgia. 1999. Legitimate Differences. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  47. Webler, Thomas, and Seth Tuler. 2004. “Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Theoretical Reflecti…
  48. Wenzel, Joseph. 1979. “Jürgen Habermas and the Dialectical Perspective on Argumentation.” Journal of the Amer…
  49. Wenzel, Joseph. 1987. “The Rhetorical Perspective on Argument.” In Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipl…
  50. Wenzel, Joseph. 1990. “Three Perspectives on Argument: Rhetorical, Dialectic, Logic.” In Perspectives on Argu…