Arguing About Arguing for Argument’s Sake

This week’s readings felt like a crash course in context; its inevitability, its variability, and its crucial role in shaping any theory surrounding argument.  The Dissoi Logoi, the various authors referencing Aspasia, and Perelman & O.T. all appear to me most connected in that they each address the key role of context in matters of value judgment, especially in social and specifically (and most commonly) legal matters.  The Dissoi Logoi’s collection of “opposing arguments” which juxtapose two abstract qualities and first argue that they are one in the same and then that they are fundamentally different, serve to illustrate the opposing core beliefs which are at the root of all argumentation: a conviction that there exists a priori truth as well as abstract qualities such as justice and virtue and the opposing conviction that truth and by extension virtue do not exist independently of situations but rather are informed by them.  The anonymous author proclaims that “... all arguments are about everything that is” which can be taken as a reference to the still alive and well debate over the nature of truth and reality at the center of all argumentation (B & H 54).  

Seventeen centuries later, P & O.T. were working to revive the classical tradition of rhetoric and to redeem the reputation of informal reasoning, or argumentation, as they saw it as the only means of approaching a consensus of values necessary in pursuit of social justice.  

 “A decision or an action is criticized on the ground that it is immoral, illegal, unreasonable, or inefficient -- that is, it fails to respect certain accepted rules or values.  It always occurs within a social context; it is always ‘situated.’ (B&H 1406)” Perelman and O.T. were adamant that argumentation, or “dialectical discussion,” must be employed to resolve “disagreements about values” because “justice consists in the systematic implementation of certain value judgements, it does not rest on any rational foundation (B&H 1389, 1392).” The New Rhetoric elevates the role of the audience and recognizes its role in shaping the rhetor and their argument; in essence, the audience is the context because “all argumentation, in aiming to persuade, must be adapted to the audience and, hence based on beliefs accepted by the audience with such conviction that the rest of the discourse can be securely based upon it (B&H 1393).” Perelman and O.T. hereby establish that the point at which to begin any argument is a point of agreement with the audience.  Agreement, however, is also the end game for the rhetor who, even when operating in the seemingly more superficial epideictic (or ceremonial) genre, is “bringing about a consensus in the minds of the audience regarding the values that are celebrated in the speech” when successful (B&H 1388).

In the works concerning Aspasia, we are educated about a woman only through the lens of her audience.  Onto her character the values, biases, and motives of the audience are projected relentlessly to the point of her repeatedly being ridiculed for her supposed promiscuity.  However, through her appeal to that very critical audience’s values, she was able to transcend the confines of her culture’s strict gender roles and serve as an educator of men.  In Plato’s Menexemus, Socrates proclaims her to be “a master” of rhetoric and a “mistress in the art of rhetoric; she who made so many good speakers (B & H 61).”  She earned this praise because she had mastered the art of argumentation by learning to begin from a point of agreement with her audience.

“Aspasia treats her interlocutors as her intellectual equals.... Cicero suggests that Socrates preferred this method ‘because he wished to present no arguments himself, but preferred to get a result from the material which the interlocutor had given him...’ (B & H 59)” 

In a funeral oration Plato’s Socrates attributes to her, Aspasia, knowing the language of her community as well as its shared values, credits the nobility of the dead to the country (and implicitly, ancestors and gods) and government that “nourished them” only to “beseech” the audience “on their behalf” to then nourish those entities in turn (B & H 62-63).  In this, she is able to gain the adherence of her audience and to reinforce the values of the community.

For myself, this week’s readings and blog post sent me into an anxiety spiral because I wasn’t quite sure what this community’s values were.  I combed through every blog post to get an idea, only to have my growing assumptions complicated as I listened to my peers’ own arguments be dissected and challenged in Friday’s class.  I spent more hours (read: days) than I’m willing to admit trying to decide how to approach this assignment only to realize my crippling fear that I’d miss the mark was keeping me from beginning. Ultimately, I decided that the worst case scenario would be that I’ll learn what a blog post should be, by first learning what it is not.