Michael Mendelson

Quintilian and the Pedagogy of Argument

Originating in the Sophistic pedagogy of Protagoras and reflecting the sceptical practice of the New Academy, Quintilians rhetorical pedagogy places a special emphasis on the juxtaposition of multiple, competing claims. This inherently dialogical approach to argumentation is referred to here as controversia and is on full display in Quintilians own argumentative practice. More important to this paper, however, is the role of controversia as an organizing principle for Quintilians rhetorical curriculum. In particular, Quintilian introduces the protocols of controversia through a series of progressively more complex exercises in imitation, role-playing, and declamation (now referred to as situational games). All of these exercises are open for adaptation by contemporary teachers who would promote a dialogical approach to argument, i.e. argument with its methods of inquiry, invention, and judgment based on direct interaction with opposing parties.

Business Prose and The Nature of The Plain Style

The current standard of prose style promoted by prominent business communications texts is too narrow to accommodate the diversity of situations in business . These texts present a minimal range of stylistic choice and so limit the flexibility and individuality of the writer. An alternative form of the plain style was pioneered by Greek rhetoricians, who insisted on extending the range of options open to writers of even the simplest prose. This expanded version of the plain style is based on the cardinal principles of clarity and conciseness, but it also allows for a repertoire of dictional, syntactic, and figurative choices that make ones prose livelier and more persuasive. This expanded notion of the plain style has already generated considerable interest and promises to radically alter both the writing and teaching of business prose.

The Rhetorical Case: Its Roman Precedent and the Current Debate

Because of the recent emphasis on rhetorical context in business and technical writing (BTW) instruction, the problem-solving case has become a staple in BTW classrooms. However, a number of critics have voiced concerns about the use of the rhetorical case. These concerns recall an ancient debate among Roman rhetoricians over an early case-study method called declamation. For contemporary theorists, the debate over case study revolves around its value as a stimulant to problem-solving skills, its ability to imitate the realistic circumstances of professional BTW, and its emphasis on persona and audience along with its deemphasis of the teacher. A full spectrum of arguments on these and other issues in the case-study debate indicates that the discipline is entering a new phase in its deliberations over the role of problem-solving and pragmatics in the BTW classroom.

Teaching Arrangement Inductively

Because business communication texts take a product-oriented approach to arrangement, business writers tend to overlook the value of context-specific arrangements. Teaching arrangement inductively, however, offers an alternative to the standard imitation of text models. Initially pioneered by the Greek rhetorician Isocrates, the inductive method stimulates individual rather than formulaic responses to the problems of organization. Inductively-trained writers also come to see arrangement as a powerful element in persuasive dis course.

A Dialogical Model for Business Correspondence.

Despite the fact that letters and memos are the most prevalent forms of written discourse in the business community, there has been little theoretical study of professional correspondence as a distinct rhetorical genre. A theory of correspondence as a form of dialogue can, however, be constructed with the help of two very different scholars, Erasmus and Bakhtin. Erasmus, the Renaissance humanist, offers a pragmatic guide to the practice of dialogue in correspondence, and Bakhtin, the twentieth-century Russian philosopher of language, provides theoretical concepts that define the nature of dialogical communication. The present article combines the ideas of both scholars into a unified theory of business correspondence and then presents both a set of guidelines and a model for the practice of dialogical correspondence.

De Oratore and the Development of Controversia

When teaching Cicero’s De Oratore, I begin by asking my students to cite a favorite passage in the dialogue There are usually some standard choices: the outline of the three duties or offices of rhetoric (2.29.128–30), Antonius’ method of invention by impersonation (2.24.102–3), and invariably Crassus’ denunciation of “the absurd and unprofitable and reprehensible severance between the tongue and the brain, leading to our having one set of professors to teach us to think, and another to teach us to speak” (3.16.61).1 These are all weighty moments, and they usually lead to engaging class discussion.2 When my turn comes to cite a favorite passage, however, my choice routinely meets with stares and silence For I choose an inconspicuous moment at the outset of the dialogue when Scaevola, a relatively minor character, contradicts the impassioned opening statement of Licinius Crassus, the man whom Cicero calls the most illustrious orator of his day (Brutus 38.143).

The Rhetorical Form of Antilogic

We can begin this examination of rhetorical form with an artificial but helpful distinction between antilogic as a techne, or set of practical skills, and antilogic as praxis, a more general capacity for action We know from David Roochnik that the term techne was derived from the Indo-European root for “wood,” and that a tekton was a woodworker (1990, 18) Over time, the Greek term came to indicate specific skills “uniquely possessed by one member of the community,” especially those skills that required an ability for making intellectual calculations, so that the technai came to include arithmetic as well as carpentry Roochnik concludes that all such skills are relatively precise (e.g., medicine), have a determinate subject matter (woodworking, numbers), and are value neutral (can be used for good or ill; 20–21) With this working description, we can posit certain features of antilogic that could be classified as “technical”; but we should be careful in doing so, for an over-scrupulous attempt to calculate the precise form of antilogic runs the risk of diverting attention to the peripheral and hypostatizing what in actual practice is dynamic.

Protagoras and the Philosophic Origins of Antilogic

The antilogical theory of argumentation originates with Protagoras of Abdera, the preeminent Sophist of Periclean Athens Protagoras was the first Sophist to hold public debates, the first professional teacher of advanced studies, a major philosophical and rhetorical influence, a friend and ally of Pericles, and, according to many, the founder of humanistic education (see Schiller, B Smith, Bouwsma) Despite his stature, however, any effort to reconstruct a Protagorean approach to rhetoric and argumentation begins basically from scratch As Edward Schiappa notes, the investigation of Protagoras by communication scholars has been “virtually non-existent” (16) That is, while we have a growing volume of commentary on Protagoras, little of this scholarship directly addresses the relation between Protagorean ideas and the rhetorical tradition, and even less attention has been paid to the potential contribution of Protagorean thought to the theory, practice, and pedagogy of contemporary discourse.

Quintilian and the Pedagogy of Controversia

Some time ago, I attended a conference on “Isocrates’ Rhetorical Education” occasioned by a fine book on the same topic.1 It was a stimulating event that served to reassert the significance of Isocrates’ political and social theory The conference also sought to explore Isocrates’ pedagogy and, in this effort, it was less successful That is, when the topic of pedagogy was raised at all, it was typically cast in the context of other, presumably larger issues, such as the relation of the paedeia to the Athenian polls. Indeed, the conference discussion always remained at a distance from what we might call the “practicalities of instruction.”

An Appropriate Pedagogy for Antilogical Argument

In the closing pages of this study, I contemplate the basic outline of a contemporary pedagogy for antilogical argument Many of the principles of this pedagogy have already been introduced, most explicitly in my discussions of Cicero and Quintilian But while the educational innovations of Greek and Roman Sophism are obviously the inspiration for what follows, their precedent does not provide a blueprint for contemporary instruction Put another way, imitatio at this distance would require not only the vigilant mediation of historical consciousness but also monotonous disclaimers to “please note the vast differences between ” Instead, it seems best to declare at the outset that the classical conception of antilogical argument has been refashioned in attire suitable to the practical conditions of contemporary pedagogy The Institutio Oratoria is an invaluable model for the teaching of argument; but two millennia of demographic, social, and material transformations, along with a sea-change in conceptions of social justice, simply don’t admit blithe adaptation As a scholar investigating the history of my discipline, I have tried in preceding chapters to shift my attention between past and present, theory and practice; as a teacher, however, my commitments are weighted in favor of the present.