INFORMATION TO USERS This malarial was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North ZMb Road Ann Aitwr, Michigan 40106 74-3141 CRABLE, Richard Ellsworth, 1947- | RHETORIC AS ARCHITECTONIC: BURKE, \ PERELMAN, AND TOUIMNON VALUING I AND KNOWING. I The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973. 1 Speech University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan (^) Copyright by Richard Ellsworth Crable 1973 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. RHETORIC AS ARCHITECTONIC: BURKE, FERELMAN, AND TOULWIN ON VALUING AND KNOWING DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Richard Ellsworth Crable, B.A., M.A, ***** The Ohio State University 1973 Reading Committee: Approved By Dr. William R. Brown Dr. James L. Golden ^ ^ Dr. John J. Makay ^ Adviser Department of Communication ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the assistance of several people who have been instrumental in the development and completion of this project. First, I am indebted to the theorists upon whose work this study is built. American literary critic Kenneth Burke, Belgian philosopher Chaim Perelman, and British epistemologist Stephen Toulmin were all kind, understanding, and helpful in my individual interviews with them. My appreciation of the breadth and depth of their treatment of argumentation and rhetoric arose mainly from observing them apply their own theorizing to concrete human activities. For the privilege of such observation, 1 am much appreciative. Secondly, though 1 wish to acknowledge the encouragement of many of my Instructors and peers at The Ohio State University, two instructors deserve special thanks. Professor James L. Golden has been a constant source of inspiration, information, and wise counsel. A great scholar in his own right, 1 am especially indebted to him for allowing me to share in his research activities and concerns for the field. My adviser, Professor William R. Brown, deserves recognition for his tireless efforts to challenge my thinking in the project. He is an exceptionally fine and demanding critic, but 1 thank him most for the stimulating dialogue we ii have shared over the past year— dialogue which never failed to reveal some new idea or potential insight. Finally, I want to acknowledge the help of my wife, Ann, When 1 experienced the traditional pangs of frustration, she responded with support and reassurance beyond normal expectations. She is a comfort, a good critic, and— though we had not planned it that way— the typist of the manuscript. It was only with her help, and the assistance of our families, that the project could have been completed. iii VITA March 14, 1947 .... Born - Clrclevllle, Ohio 1969 ............... B.A., Bowling Green University, Bowling Green, Ohio 1969-1970... ........ Teacher, Willis Intermediate School, Delaware, Ohio 1970-1971 ........ Teacher, Grandview Heights High School, Columbus, Ohio 1971 . M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1971-1973...... Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS "Kenneth Burke's Concept of Motives in Rhetorical Theory." Today's Speech. 20 (Winter 1972), 11-18. (with John J. Makay). "What Can You Believe About Rhetoric?" Exploration in Speech Communication. Edited by John J. Makay,.- Columbus, 0.': Charles E. Merrill, 1973. "A Situational Approach to Purposeful Nonverbal Communication." Exploration in Speech Communication. Edited by John J. Makay. Columbus, 0.: Charles E. Merrill, 1973. "The Rhetorical Strategies of Governor John J, Gilligan in his 1970 Campaign." Ohio Speech Journal. 10 (1972), 25-32. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Communication Studies in Rhetorical Theory, Professors James L. Golden, William R. Brown, John J. Makay iv Studies in Communication Theory. Professors Franklin Knower, Wallace Fotheringham, and Donald Cegala Studies in Mass Media* Professors Walter Emery and Joseph Foley Studies in Public Address, Professors Goodwin Berquist, Jr, and William R. Brown v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................... ii VITA ................................................... iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 1 The Relationship between Valuing and Knowing Justification of the Study A Review of Selected Relevant Literature Specific Hypotheses Method of Inquiry II. THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF RHETORIC AS ARCHITECTONIC OF VALUING AND K N O W I N G ....... 37 Introduction The Justification for Knowing The Standards for Knowing The Framework for Knowing The Standardization and Evolution of Knowing Summary, Synthesis, and Speculation III. CASE STUDIES OF RHETORIC AS ARCHITECTONIC OF VALUING AND KNOWING ........... 115 Introduction A Case Study of Valuing and Knowing in the Humanities A Case Study of Valuing and Knowing in the Social Sciences A Case Study of Valuing and Knowing in the Physical Sciences Summary and Synthesis IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF RHETORIC AS ARCHITECTONIC OF VALUING AND KNOWING 181 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Prospect of Rhetoric, Richard McKeon speculated about rhetoric as an "architectonic art": "an art of structuring all principles and products of knowing, doing, and making."*’ McKeon's suggestion— as did the Prospect itself— prompted both 2 applause and criticism: applause from those who advocated a revision and expansion of the traditional scope of rhetoric; and criticism from those who warned a field without reasonable boundaries is no field at all. Amidst mingled applause and criticism, however, I began to wonder if the notion advanced by McKeon wa3, in fact, novel in nature: all he had said was that an architectonic art "should be positive in the creation, not passive in the reception, of data, facts, consequences, and objective organizations. It should be an art in which what any one says to be the case, judges to be good or evil, connects ^■Richard McKeon, "The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts," in The Prospect of Rhetoric. ed. by Lloyd F, Bitzer and Edwin Black (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971), p. 45. 2 I refer especially to the several discussions I had about the book and the paper while I attended the SCA Doctoral Honors Seminar, "The 'New' Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman," Temple University, Dec. 3-5, 1972. in relations, and establishes with some show of system and princi- 3 pies, is relevant as subject-matter, content, and product." Gould rhetoric Indeed be an all-encompassing structuring method? More to my immediate concern: was not it thought of largely as such already by several major contemporary theorists? Kenneth Burke, for example, has delineated four "perspec­ tives" that one could bring to bear on the world: the poetical, 4 the scientific, the philosophical, and the rhetorical. Anything, Burke contended, could be analyzed from (say) the rhetorical perspective. The results of the analysis, of course, will vary. 5 One can analyze a rock from the rhetorical perspective; the yields will be minimal. But what about human behavior--all of it? Cannot it all be analyzed in the light of rhetoric? Burke's answer: There is rhetoric in all such behavior; that is, nearly everything can be examined for the rhetorical aspects of the behavior. In the context of such a potential, cannot rhetoric be viewed as an essential structuring system of human behavior? Is it not therefore at least somewhat "architectonic"? Philosopher Chaim Perelman also interprets the study of rhetoric broadly--especially as opposed to the narrow intellectual %cKeon, "Uses of Rhetoric," p. 63. ^Interview with Kenneth Burke, Englewood, Florida, March 23-24, 1972. 5 Ibid., the rock example is precisely the one Burke used when we discussed the matter. confines of formal logic.® Perelman's primary contention is that rhetoric is simply informal reasoning and argumentation; that is, he has argued, any reasoning process not confined to the realm of the formalized is a part of the activity known as rhetoric. Perelman agrees that the logician's goal of formalizing "everything" is a worthy one; on the other hand, Perelman asks, what is to be done with human affairs while we await the formali­ zation of "everything"? Perelman's answer is that we study the importance of argumentation in the world of human conduct.