Points of Praxis

My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory

I'm working on my reading list for my comprehensive exams, and this week, I've been reading selections from Stephen Toulmin's The Uses of Argument and Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca's The New Rhetoric:  A Treatise on Argumentation.  My experience with reading on "the new rhetoric" comes from a genre-based perspective that looks at the ways in which genres and discourses function and how that functioning or pragmaticism constructs the discourse (I'm thinking here of James Kinneavy's Theory of Discourse, Caroline Miller's "Genre as a Social Act," Lloyd Bitzer's "The Rhetorical Situation," or Charles Bazerman's work on pragmaticism.  However, both Toulmin's and Perelman and Oblrechts-Tytreca's approaches to this "new rhetoric" are similar to those discussed by Kinneavy, Miller, Bitzer, and Bazerman (to name only a few). 

Specifically, Toulmin and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca examine the epistemology of rhetoric.  For Toulmin, rhetoric as an argument.  In Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's case, rhetoric as philosophy.  Philosophy as rhetoric.   I'm going to explore some unchartered territory here since I've never read Toulmin or Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca formally in a class (aside from the ever-so-brief moments in history of rhetoric II), so if I completely butcher their theories, please feel free to correct me.

Many might be familiar with Toulmin's discussion on the inadequacies of the syllogism as a means of invention.  This is because the syllogism, like Campbell noted, only retells what is already known.  Instead, Toulmin is concerned with the ways in which rhetoric does not necessarily proclaim the "truth," rather, with the ways in which rhetoric becomes a means for generating understanding.  For Toulmin, the rhetorical process is situation or contextually-bound.  The "truth" is only determined for a particular people, at a particular time, for a particular purpose, based on particular situational and environmental factors.  For Toulmin, then, persuasion is not the ultimate goal of rhetoric--discovery is. 

And, how does Toulmin propose his theory of rhetoric as a means of argumentation:  he proposes that arguments are based on the claim, warrant, data, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing.   Toulmin's elements are based on a "rational process" by which arguments correspond with "rational processes"  within fields of argument.   So, arguments w/in the same field may be judged accordingly; however, arguments based in different fields of argument may not.  Hence, Toulmin is concerned with individual situations for determining the validity of rational arguments.  (Note the elements of social construction inherent here.  Plato would have a fit.)

So, what are "claims," "warrants," "data," "qualifiers," "rebuttals," and "backings," you ask?  Good question.  To answer, I will apply Toulmin's elements to a film I watched this week for film as rhetoric:  Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing.   Based on my viewing of the film, Lee claims--or comes to the potentially controversial conclusion: "America" (represented in the micro-cosmism of a neighborhood in Brooklyn) is not the racial and cultural melting pot people like to believe it is.  There isn't an acceptance of the other races and cultures that we'd like believe exists--a situation that all races are responsible for and all races will be effected by.

The "data" Lee provides for his claim comes from the film, itself--the narrative story that represents (albeit very dramatically) the reality that Lee observes.  If Toulmin is concerned with specific situations and circumstances, then Lee's reality is no less "real" or "truthful" than anyone else's.

The "warrant" for Lee's claims is the crimes and violent acts committed throughout the latter part of the 20th century based on racism, ethnocentricism, xenophobia, and anti-Semiticism--acts that are metonymically represented in the film.  For instance. Lee sets his story in the same burrough (Bedford-Stuyvesant) that many urban riots took place in the 1960's and 1970's.  Lee also shows a wall with "Tawana told the truth" spray painted on it, referencing the 1987 case of Tawana Brawley, a woman who was found in a garbage bag after being missing for 4 days.  She told investigators that she was raped by at least 4 white men, one of whom was a police officer.  Lee, in these references within the film, shows several warrants to the claims that racism is pervasive within America.  One could also argue, I suppose, that these references also serve as "backings" (or credentials that certify assumptions) for Lee's claims.

"Rebuttals" also function as escape clauses or safety hatches that are included with claim statements.  So, "rebuttals" would be prefaced with phrases that begin with "unless," for instance.  In the case of Lee's film, the "rebuttal" could come in character dialogue--such as when Da Mayor reminds Mookie to "do the right thing."  Or, in the opening words of the film, "Wake up."  In other words, America will remain racially divided unless Americans can "do the right thing" and "wake up."

The "qualifiers" are those statements that limit the degree of force on the claim.  They are often represented by statements such as "probably," "possibly," or may be reflected in anticipated refutation.  I would argue that hedges within discourses ("might" and "some" would serve as qualifiers).  In Lee's film, the qualifiers might also come through the characters' dialogue and action.  Specifically, no character in Lee's film escapes Lee's condemnation.  There is no "ghetto princess" or "gangsta hero"--Mookie is flawed, Sal is flawed, and Da Mayor is flawed.  However, there are moments within the film that each character shows their humanity--a humanity that shows audiences how to transcend race and reject racism.  I would argue, then, that Mookie, Sal, and Da Mayor reflect these qualifiers because audiences identify with them because they seem to be genuinely good people.  One could argue that all of the characters within the film are depicted at some time or other as "good people."  Therefore, the qualifier that America is a nation divided by race is qualified by the specific moments that audiences see Mookie, Sal, and Da Mayor transcend their racial barriers and "see" each other.

posted by: rgregory at 19:45 | link | comments |

Template by motime.com  |  header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de