Redefining or Revitalizing Rhetoric and Audience

            One of the most important concepts that I’ve gleaned from Olbrect and Perelman with The New Rhetoric, the anonymous author of Dissoi Logoi, and from Aristotle’s On Rhetoric that is there are no absolute truths and fool-patterns of speech that will always work. That is to say, a rhetor’s audience is always changing and that there is no formula or message that will work unquestionably.

             As Perelman says, “We must recognize that the appeal to reason must be identified not as an appeal to a single truth but instead as an appeal for the adherence of an audience” (1393). In other words, the universal audience is an idealistic, completely false dream; there are only particular audiences, which can differ based on the adherences they already have to a given topic. Anyone who has ever taught a class will intimately know that there are no universal audiences: what will work for one class will not necessarily work for another. This is because different students or audiences bring different experiences, thoughts, abilities, languages, and beliefs—different adherences—to the rhetorical table. 

             We see this in Aristotle as well. Aristotle also believed there was no capital T truth. He believed that it was your job as a rhetor to persuade the audience to accept, and eventually (hopefully) do, whatever you want them to. This is to be done using whatever means available and necessary. However, Aristotle creates an implied hierarchy of rhetorical appeals (here, I'm just talking about logos, ethos, and pathos). Logos and ethos are preferred, especially the former. Pathos is somewhat of a peripheral and additional way to persuade. Perelman doesn't really touch on this.

             Further developing the ideas surrounding the audience, Perelman holds the audience responsible. The quality of a message is not only determined by its "efficacy but also by the quality of the audience at which it is aimed" (Perelman 1393). I saw this playing out in my English Professional Writing degree and training during my undergraduate studies. We were always warned to consider every audience and think about not only who they are (race, sex, religion, where they live, occupation, etc.) but also what they know as a result of who they are (education level, cultural practices, etc.). Audience members can also and simultaneously be members of another audience. One thing that Perelman doesn't discuss in his book The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning is that your message as a rhetor or writer can have multiple audiences that can see the work/hear the speech. These secondary and tertiary audiences are also important to consider when composing.

We see the lack of absolute truth playing out in Dissoi Logoi. The anonymous author actually provides two yet directly opposing arguments for any given statement. They argue that seemingly and directly-opposing ideas about a topic (i.e. good and bad, seemly and shameful, etc.) are indeed the same because they can be true at the same time. Using this information, we can assume that:

A) There are multiple ways to tackle a message and an audience. Figuratively, of course.

B) There are perhaps not only multiple ways, but opposing ways, to tackle a message.

As they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat.