Gerard A. Hauser

Vernacular dialogue and the rhetoricality of public opinion

Discussions of public opinion are dominated by visions that regard it as a rational ideal or as an objective datum. The evident differences between these interpretations reflect distinct ideologies and disparate scholarly and research interests. Without gainsaying their consequences, attention to these differences has muffled their shared illumination of public opinion as a product of discourse. Even when they give discourse thematic priority, rhetorical norms become buried amidst the rationalism of ideal communication or the instrumentalism of degenerate manipulation. Neither characterization shows satisfactory empirical fidelity to the complex process whereby public opinion is formed and communicated because neither accounts for the dialogical engagements by which an active populace participates in an issues development; the contours of the public sphere that color their levels of awareness, perception, and participation; the influence on opinion formation of sharing views with one another; and the ter...

Reflections on Rhetoric, Deliberative Democracy, Civil Society, and Trust

The current discussion of deliberative democracy has largely omitted serious consideration of its rhetorical dimensions. We argue that such an omission keeps the discussion from focusing on how democracy actually works and from encouraging a culture of civic engagement that might make it work even better. We consider four problems in the current discussion, and suggest how a rhetorical understanding of deliberation might address them. We argue that the grassroots resources of civil society are the major cultural resource for deliberative democracy to thrive provided we nurture its rhetorical inflections. We further argue that such inflections may help us address the central problem a deliberative democracy must meet if it is to flourish under conditions of political pluralism: the problem of trust. We conclude by arguing that the rhetorical practices within and among civil societys public spheres are the relevant source for the social capital of trust on which deliberative democracy depends.

Teaching Rhetoric: Or Why Rhetoric Isn't Just Another Kind of Philosophy or Literary Criticism

Abstract At the conclusion of the Evanston conference, the groups that had been working on Pedagogy affirmed the position: ‘ “What makes rhetoric rhetoric is its teaching tradition.” The formation of an alliance among the various scholarly societies with a self‐identified interest in rhetoric offers a unique opportunity to advance a collective assertion of what rhetoric scholars study and teach, what binds our several traditions together as a disciplinary practice, what are its disciplinary strengths in the development of our students’ capacity (dunamis) as individuals, and why this mode of education is valuable for a free society. Three pedagogy groups developed far‐reaching proposals for the ways we might reassert rhetoric educations centrality in the modern university. Spanning these was their call for ARS to commission a manifesto recovering the value of rhetoric education as central to civic education.

Rhetorical structure: Truth and method in weaver's epistemology

The rhetorical problem of concretizing the ideal is explored via the relationship between form and fact in Richard Weavers theory of truth. The investigation reveals that reliance on analogic form permits Weavers arguments to function externally as if empirically grounded and internally in the analytic fashion of logico‐mathematical reasoning. Explication of Weavers rhetorical method suggests that analogic structure, example, and analogy are fundamental ways of rhetorical knowing.

Weaver's rhetorical theory: Axiology and the adjustment of belief, invention, and judgment

Any complete rhetorical theory must consider the problem of adjusting beliefs to others while maintaining the self. Richard Weaver suggests an approach to this problem by deriving a logic of belief from a social conception of man and adapting invention and judgment to this logic. Weaver presents rhetoric as a means for discovering ways to transcend cultural pluralism and inter‐cultural diversity without foregoing our selves.

Richard Nixon's April 30, 1970 address on Cambodia: The “ceremony” of confrontation

This essay examines President Nixons April 30, 1970 address announcing the American incursion into Cambodia. Examining the perceptual patterns of the speech, the authors found that Nixons remarks led to a climax which justified the war on ritualistic rather than Cold War premises. The last third of the speech was content analyzed. The resulting term clusters were then interpreted for their symbolic significance. The authors found the Presidents remarks in conformity with the potlatch ceremony of the Kwakiutl Indians. The essay concludes by relating the perceptual patterns and analogical matrix of the potlatch to trends which may be developing on the international scene, and calls for the rhetorical critic to become aware of ritualistic elements in public communication.

Ideals, superlatives, and the decline of hypocrisy

THE ART OF RHETORIC IN THE ROMAN WORLD. By George Kennedy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1972; pp. xvi+658.

In Memory: Thomas Farrell

18.50; paper

In Memory: James Patrick McDaniel

9.75.

What Does Rhetorical Theory Do? And Is That A Stupid Question?

On June 12, 2006, Thomas Farrell died after a long illness. Tom was Professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University and a long-standing member of the journal’s editorial board. He was appointed by the journal’s founding editor, Henry Johnstone, and Henry regarded him as among the most talented minds writing about our common subject. Tom also was a publishing author in Philosophy and Rhetoric. His research refl ected a deep understanding of the intersections of philosophical thought and rhetoric with respect to argumentation, language, speech acts, and political theory. His award-winning book, Norms of Rhetorical Culture (Yale, 1993), is a testament to the insights afforded by the rapprochement between philosophy and rhetoric that has been the journal’s defi ning character. With his passing, the inter-discipline has lost one of its most eloquent and accomplished voices, the journal has lost a contributor and editorial advisor of the fi rst rank, and those of us who knew Tom have lost a dear friend, whose intellect and wit always brightened our moments together.