Between Saints and Snakes: Explicating the Historical, Philosophical, and Theoretical Foundations of Rhetorical Authority A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Donald A. Dudding March 2009 © 2009 Donald A. Dudding. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled Between Saints and Snakes: Explicating the Historical, Philosophical, and Theoretical Foundations of Rhetorical Authority by DONALD A. DUDDING has been approved for the Department of English and the College of Arts and Sciences by Sherrie L. Gradin Professor of English Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT DUDDING, DONALD A., Ph.D., March 2009, English Between Saints and Snakes: Explicating the Historical, Philosophical, and Theoretical Foundations of Rhetorical Authority (284 pp.) Director of Dissertation: Sherrie L. Gradin This dissertation examines the historical, philosophical, and theoretical foundations of rhetorical authority through a hermeneutical lens in order to theorize and to articulate the qualities that distinguish a good, credible rhetorical authority from a bad, unreliable rhetorical authority. By focusing on three key terms (arete, phronesis, and eunoia) through which Aristotle based his explanation of a trustworthy ethos, this study reviews the scholastic traditions that have emerged from their origins in Classical Greek philosophy to establish the contemporary and conventional understandings of rhetorical authority. Through a critical examination of relevant scholarly research, this study investigates the epistemological assumptions and ontological foundations that often underlie the communicative environments where sometimes people with power employ coercion as though the practice of intimidation were a legitimate, ethical rhetorical strategy. To facilitate the instruction of the differences between a legitimate, rhetorical authority and a fallacious, coercive authority, this study introduces two rhetorical terms: the pro-agentic ethos, which designates the type of authority that respects the agency of its audience and the pythonic ethos, which does not. This study theorizes the need to discuss and to teach these two types of authority (the pro-agentic and the pythonic) within the composition classroom for the purpose of instilling within students a deeper 4 appreciation for the ways they might unwittingly undermine their credibility within their own writing and to recognize how other writers damage their rhetorical integrity by resorting to irrelevant coercive arguments to support specious points of view. Although in the past couple of decades many prominent contemporary composition scholars have offered (through their discourses on postmodern and anti-foundational theories) good reasons to remain skeptical of theoretical claims that rely upon so-called “meta-narrative” or universal standards of judgment, the need for a clear and succinct articulation of the rhetorical qualities that distinguish good authority from bad remains a vital concern throughout the field of rhetoric and composition studies. This dissertation suggests a specific vocabulary and theoretical orientation for expressing the difference between “good” and “bad” authority while remaining cognizant and respectful of the concerns of anti-foundationalism. Approved: _____________________________________________________________ Sherrie L. Gradin Professor of English 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although this document is the product of more hours than I would like to admit spent alone in my cluttered office in my basement, it is a simple fact that I never would have had the time, energy, and patience to finish this project without the consistent and generous support of family, friends, writing peers, neighbors, students, colleagues, and the English faculty of Ohio University. At the risk of offending those who also deserve a mention here, but (through lack of space) find themselves only generically referred to in the list above, I would like to specifically thank the following people for seeing me through the long and arduous process that produced this dissertation: First and foremost I would like to thank my mentor and dissertation chair, Sherrie Gradin, who not only taught me the most important things I know about rhetoric, but also was able to guide me through this project’s completion when I lost faith that it might never end. Betty Pytlik, Candace Stewart, Jeremy Webster, and Scott Jarvis are also well deserving of praise both for agreeing to serve on my committee and for offering important and insightful comments upon my original text. Barry Thatcher, who has long since moved on to New Mexico State University, deserves thanks for suggesting that I should pursue a doctorate in Rhetoric and Composition in the first place, and Ben Ogles, who originally agreed to serve on my committee but who found a satisfactory way out of that chore by getting himself promoted to Dean, deserves thanks for the passionate discussions that first led me to consider the need for a new vocabulary to discuss the nature of ethical, rhetorical authority. It would be nice if Ben would sign off on this project before he actually reads this, but I don’t really expect that to happen. My peers in 6 my regular weekly writing group – Talinn Philips, Rachel Brooks-Rather, Paul Shovlin (and for awhile, the intrepid Jennifer Pauley-Gose who facilitated our meetings) – were essential for their indispensable feedback throughout the early drafts of this project, and their camaraderie was life-supporting. My buddy William Breeze deserves much thanks for showing me how this project could be done and for keeping me on track whenever my life wanted to derail and keep me from finishing. My friend and neighbor, Bill Barringer, deserves more thanks than I can give for pitching in and helping me keep up my little farm when I didn’t even have time enough to mow the grass. And last, but not least, I am especially grateful for the patience and support I received from my family – my wife, Ruth, my daughters, Olivia and Ellie, my brother, Randy, and my father, John Dudding – all of whom had to be willing to make sacrifices so I could have the time to sit alone in my basement and write. 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 5 Forward ............................................................................................................................. 10 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 13 The Sublime Qualities of Rhetoric and Composition ................................................... 14 Personal Interlude: Lessons from my Childhood ......................................................... 19 Chapter One: The Pro-Agentic and the Pythonic ............................................................. 27 Why this Research Matters and How It Fills a Gap in the Field .................................. 32 The Pro-Agentic and the Pythonic Ethos in the Writing Classroom ............................ 37 Ethos in the 21st Century: Ethics, Agency, and the Paradox of Postmodern Morality . 41 Living with the Paradox of Postmodern Morality ........................................................ 47 The Pragmatics of Agency ............................................................................................ 52 Epistemology, Ontology, and Doxa as Rhetorical Heuristics of Ethos ........................ 62 How the Pro-agentic and Pythonic Ethos Informs Writing Instruction ........................ 68 Chapter Two: Arethē or Virtue ......................................................................................... 73 On the Epistemological and Ontological Implications of the Emerging Virtual Ethos 75 Authority Dwells in the House of Character ................................................................ 79 Personal Interlude: Lessons from the Midway ............................................................. 83 A Maze of Glass: Plato’s Epistemology and Aristotle’s Ontology .............................. 86 Moving through the Maze: Toward a Pro-agentic Understanding of Virtue ................ 93 8 Finding a Place for Virtue: The Ontology of Moral Agency ...................................... 103 On the Essential Differences between Pro-Agentic and Pythonic Conceptions of Virtue .................................................................................................................................... 107 On the Possibility of a Universal Morality that Respects Student Autonomy ............ 109 Chapter Three: Phronēsis and Sophia – Wisdom ........................................................... 123 The Mechanics of Authority and the Question of Belief ............................................ 125 Mapping the Origins of Wisdom ................................................................................ 129 A Brief Introduction to Doxastic Theory .................................................................... 134 Wisdom and the Three Modes of Authority (Epistemology, Ontology, and Doxa) ... 141 Plato, Aristotle, and the Sophists: How the West was Won Over .............................. 148 Phronesis versus