ARGUMWTAnON AND ADVOCACY 40 (Spring 2004): 267-283 ARGUMENTATION STUDIES IN THE WAKE OF 'IIIE NEW RHETORIC David A. Frank* Those who resisted the Nazi tyranny, ripe (known in French speaking countries as Jonathan Glover obsenres in his Humanity:A Trailb), which was translated into English in Mod Hitlaty of iha Turnrtreth &fury, tended 1970 as I%eNew Rhetmc A Treatise on Argu- to come from homes in which children were nunfnlim (known in English speaking coun- encouraged to reason through argument tries as llae New Rhclori~$ Perelman set the (382). Children raised by parents who used agenda for the collaboration, as his solitary physical means of gaming compliance or an wntings on a host of subjects before his col- authoritarian style of childrearing were laboration with Olbrechts-Tyteca identified much less likely to rescue Jews. Glover cites the key issues and problems addressed in research conducted by the Oliners, who the NRP. Olbrechts-Tyteca played a major carefully document why some chose the role in the development of the examples moral path during World War 11. Glover and middle range theory (Warnick, 1998; and the Oliners conclude that habits of rea Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1963). soning, expressed through argument and In this article, I consrder the influence of queshoning, elicit concern for the other and the NRP on studies of twentieth-century ar- recognition of values beyond one's own. gument in our field, and its relevance in the Chaim Perelman and Luae Olbrechts new millennium My rehearsal of the argu- Tyteca detected this connection between ar- ment m the NRP is not meant to duplicate gumentation and moral action. the fine surveys of Perelman's work in Foss, Seeking a philosophical balm for the Foss, and Trapp; Conley; and other anthol- wounds of post-war Europe, Perelman and ogies and overviews of rhetoric. Rather, my Olbrechts-Tyteca rediscovered rhetonc and purpose is epideictic in the Perelmanian argumentation, seeing that they could foster sense in that I hope to strengthen a commit- the "contact of minds" necessary for the re- ment to he study of argument as a humane construction of civil society. T~ISis an odd art wltb philosophcal and pragmatic expres- phrase, but it reflects their aspiration that sions. I seek to recall the larger purpose reasoning rather than violence should be the Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca envisioned primary means of dealing with dssagree for argumentation and to trace the tduence ment. Between 1947 and 1984, Perelman, of the NRP on argument studies in the alone and in collaboration with Olbrechts- Umted States. In so doing, I dlcall atten- Tyteca, translated this aspiration into the tion to some key books and scholarship that New Rhetoric F'roject (NRP),which was ex- draw from the NRP to develop insights on pressed in a number of books, articles, and argument. In the conclusion, I suggest the conference papers. The most complete ex- NRP is the most important system of argu- presslon of the project was pubhshed in 1958 ment produced in the twenheth centnry and as Traa & I'atgummfaha: in nouvr[le rh- can serve as an ecumenical site for the de- velopment of argumentation theory. My purpose may seem benign, but it di- rectly confronts two movements in the field. The first is the continued fragmentation of the field into a set of case studies with Lnle shared sense of purpose, which David Zaref- 268 ARGUMENTATION STUDIES IN THE WAKE OF NEWRHETaREC SPRING 2004 sky has rightly lamented as a Mure of dis- experience. She saw Eichmann as a uniquely ciplinary coherence. Another movement, modern expression of manstrosity became pregmadiale&cs, otiginabing in the Nether he did not seem to command the capacity to lands, begins with a misreading of the NRP &ink outside of realm of ideology. Reread- to hcha system of argument with quite ing Eidmm as a scholar of argumentation, different goals than those set forth by Perel- I iind it shildng that no one confronted or man The pmgma-diatectidans seek uniform inguedwimEich~~~nm,n~his@&tto standards for all argument and nee contlict ideology comfortable. The intemrrl dialogue resolution as the objective of argumentation. that makes up authentic thinking, so em- I believe the Wssystem navigates be- tial in Arendt's vision of moral action, re- tween f..smentation and enfond nnifor- quires argument Arendt, Perelman, and a mity, and remaies the mat ethical and pow- number of 0thpostwar philosophers un- erful framework available to scholars of derstood the need to consider the mle agwment The NRP is a blueprint for civil played by reason in totalitarian movements sow,with a strength and coherence lack- that captured Eicbmann and his colleagues. ing in other srJtema To belter understand Some conflated reason with totabaim the tension among these movements, it is thoughf and abandoned rationality: others necessary to resituate the and its idu- rallied and sought an expanded sense of rea- ence on argumentation studies in the United son and a new rationalism. States. After the liberation of Betgbun in Septem- ber 1944, Perelman joined thm who sought a reconstituted mse of reason. Until that point, he was a logical positivin, holding that reason was limited to fdlogic and to the Before and during War II, totalitariaps viia mrrtmplatiw (See Frank and Boldnc, seized reason and designed ideologies to From Vila Cow- to Ti hipa). contain it in what Hannah Arendt in her While leading the Jewieh undergmund dur- O@w ef Totalitmicnim termed the "wld ing the War, he hished a book titled logicZ ofthe syllogian (468-472). Ideologi- JwliGc. He concluded in (krJnstia that values sal reasoning is distingoished by its adher- could not "be subject to any rational mite- ence to a premise, which governs a cbain of donn and that they are "u&y &itmy and logic that does not admowledge experience. logically indeterminate.. .' (a&Q 0fJu.s- Such reasoning embraces apodictic logic and rics and uie RobhefA~ 56 67). Perel- is expressed in a hyper-rationality that values man was *deeply dbatis6edn with his con- nothing outside iW Scholars have identi- clualon that there was no rdebasis for 5ed the role of a ruthlaw expression of ideo- value judgments (Ilu Nau iWteric and the logical rationalay in many of the hventieth- HumanUiss 8). He resisted the limitations of mnlmy genocides. A disembodied rationality, logical positivism and saw that the other devoid of humanity, is no guarantee of hu- dominant alternative, ex&entialism, did not mane behavior. give the grounds for justice ice judgment (see Arendt in her Eichmmn in JauMbrn de- Frank and Bolduc, *Ch& Perelman's Firsl scribed the advent of ideological thi Philosophies"). and the peculiarly modern form of evil she As he worked through his dinatWaction, saw on display in the hial of Adolph Eich- he decided to use the method adopted by msen, the Nazi in charge of the final du- Gottlob Frege, the subject of Perelman's dis- tion. Eichmann, according to Arendf was sertation, to study value reasoning. Fmge trapped by the as8mptions and language of analyzed particnlas instances of mathemati- ideology, thereby blo- recognition of cal reasoning to build general principles of ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY logic. Perehnan set out to examine with Mlcial psychology, and U.S. rhetoricians examples and illustrations of arguments to were concerned with historicd studies of determine how humam reawned about val- great speakers (578580).Oliver reports thas ues. In 1947, Lucie Obrechta-Tyteca joined Wiihn James and John Dewey were the him in his seamh and aMer a ten-year explo- philosophen most often dted by American ration, the wllaboraton published their scholars of speech, cultivating a pragmatism Tmik a2 l~~tion:lo mu4 rktmiqrrc. prirndy concerned with effecta of rhetori- The NRP was a major force in the *rhetori- cal practices (578-580). Oliver and Ameri- cal tmn" of the 19508. Gerald hernotes: can speech scholars saw in Perelman's work a philosophical jusafication for the study of speech, one endorsed by a celebrated wntb nenral philompher. ARer his 1962 visit, Perelman recognized he had strong allies in the field of speech communication. Perelman mte Emily Schossbezger, his editor at the Universjty of Notre Dame, that he wanted to title the En- ~translationlReNm~~:A~fira This "flmry of intellectual work" was, in part, on Argumnrtotion rather than a literal transla- a result of philosopher Henry W. John- tion of the French title, A Trdanje on Arp stone's eacounter with Perelman when he mmWotc ZbNewRhetwicinorderto attRU visited Belgium in the 19508. There, John- potential readers in the American speech stone became familiar with Perelman's work, communication discipline (Perelman to *od Perelman's agenda, agreed that Schossberger). His visit also inapired the atgumentjustified philosophical inquiry, and study of argument as a subject of philosoph- bmught the NRP to the attention of Ameri- ical hqw. In the abstraa of their 1965 can philosophers, Although Johnstone dip book, Ahilar@hy, R&W adArgwnnrUUrgwnnrUUrien, agreed with Perelman on several issues, Johnstone and his colleague Maurice Natao- there is We question that Perelman's work son informed their readers the book was helped to justify the philomphical study of %tended as evidence that a new field of gumen en tat ion in the United States. philosophy has ---a field in which Perelman betthe NRP to the United the concepta of rhetoric and ar$Umentstion, States and Pexmaytvania State University including the rhetoric and argumenta.tion of wl~enhe was invited by Johnstone and Rob- the philosopher himself, we subjected to ert T. Oliver to serve as a visiting professor philosophical scnttiny" (v). The founding of in 1962. Dm&g this visit, he discovered the the jodRhkawpb and Rhatmic was an- field of speech communication.