RHETORIC

Rhetoric in the Age of Postmodernism

Rhetoric in the Age of Postmodernism

Rhetoric as Method

"Rhetoric," says Aristotle, is the counterpart of dialectic. A counterpart is not merely an opposite; rather, rhetoric and dialectic are two sides of the same coin. Aristotle's word for "counterpart" is artistrophos suggesting, by allusion to the role of the chorus in Greek tragedy, something of equal importance and purpose, but moving in the opposite direction. Like dialectic, rhetoric begins with the "common opinions" (endoxa) about any problem which is presented. Moreover, because these opinions are malleable and highly specific to place and time, they cannot be universalized or even generalized. Again, like dialectic, rhetoric calls for attention to concrete, historical reality, idiosyncratic and antisystematic as it may be. And also like dialectic, rhetoric cannot guarantee postmodernism. For what would be the purpose of deliberating about something which could never be otherwise? Nothing would be gained by it.

Despite these similarities, however, rhetoric is not identical to dialectic; it is an antistrophic move in the opposite direction. More specifically, rhetoric is the "practical" counterpart of dialectic; its movement is in the direction of praxis rather than of theory. According to Aristotle, theoretical inquiries into contingent matters demand a dialectic method. But when the discussion turns to practical matters, especially in the realm of politics and ethics, the faculty of "dialectic" is insufficient. Dialectic may change a person's mind, but it does not necessarily lead to action. (According to Aristotelian psychology, action requires more than a rational decision; it requires desire or striving [orexis].) People are induced to action not by dialectic but by rhetoric, which recognizes that rational conversation does not necessarily lead to action. How people will act depends on a complex interaction between speaker and audience.

The classical rhetorical tradition can be critically appropriated as a methodological tool for Christian theology. The prima facie case for its use should already be clear. With its attention to common opinion and its willingness to abandon the quest for tautological certainty, a rhetorical method is unlikely to repeat the mistakes wrought by theology's preoccupation with analytic method. But because it accents the practical, and because it attends to the concrete location of arguments in time and space, it cannot ignore issues of politics and ethics. Rhetoric can help move theological method out of its current quandaries, as I shall shortly argue. That argument must be preceded, however, by a brief digression: an explanation of how rhetoric lends itself to methodological appropriation.

Sharon Crowley defines rhetoric as the faculty of discovering, in the particular case, the available means of persuasion. Thus, a rhetorical method is one which analyzes the persuasive nature of discourse the way in which a speaker (or writer) seeks to move an audience to action. Persuasion occurs within the complex unity of discourse and action in which human beings participate. Furthermore, rhetoric concerns not simply the execution of an argument but also its discovery and construction: the integrative process which came to be known as ...