Abstract
The author compares two theoretical models which develop constructs of an ideal audience. Chaim Perelman's universal audience serves a methodological function within the New Rhetoric which provides for the examination of philosophical arguments on values. Implicit within the work of Isocrates is a competing image which asserts that the ideal audience is empowered by the conditions of argument to engage the advocate in discursive praxis to construct and embody a consensus on contingency-driven value debates. The author concludes that the concept of an ideal audience will be most valuable where interest in adherence to theses is less central than attendance to relationships born in and borne by discourse. Such a view has purchase within a constitutive view of rhetorical relations which asserts that the most useful role for argument is as an invitation to engagement. The situation of argumentation within a deontological ethics requires the partnership and participation of individuals in a mutually constructed discursive praxis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnold, C.: 1970, “Perelman's New Rhetoric”,Quarterly Journal of Speech 56, 87–92.
Barilli, R.: 1979, “Rhetorique et Culture”,Revue Internationale de Philosophie 33, 69–80.
Bellah, R. N., R. Madsen, W. M. Sullivan, A. Swidler, and S. M. Tipton: 1991,The Good Society, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Cole, T.: 1991,The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Dearin, R.: 1989, “The Philosophical Basis of Chaim Perelman's Theory of Rhetoric”, in R. Dearin (ed.),The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland, 17–34.
Ede, L. S.: 1989, “Rhetoric Versus Philosophy: The Role of the Universal Audience in Chaim Perelman'sThe New Rhetoric”, in R. Dearin (ed.),The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland, 141–151.
Gass, W. H.: 1985,Habitations of the Word, Simon and Shuster, New York.
Glasser, T. L.: 1991, “Communication and the Cultivation of Citizenship”,Communication 12, 235–248.
Golden, J. L.: 1986, “The Universal Audience Revisited”, in J. L. Golden and J. J. Pilotta (eds.),Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, Holland, 287–304.
Isocrates: 1928, 1929, 1945,Isocrates, G. Norlin and L. Van Hook (trans.), 3 vols., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets.
Jaeger, W.: 1965, “The Rhetoric of Isocrates and Its Cultural Ideal”, in J. Schwartz and J. A. Rycenga (eds.),The Province of Rhetoric, Ronald Press, New York, pp. 84–110.
Johnson, W.R.: 1976, “Isocrates Flowering: The Rhetoric of Augustine”,Philosophy and Rhetoric 9, 217–231.
Johnstone, H.W., Jr.: 1978, “A New Theory of Philosophical Argumentation”, inValidity and Rhetoric in Philosophical Argument, The Dialogue Press of Man & World, University Park, PA, 86–92.
Johnstone, H.W., Jr.: 1981, “Toward an Ethics of Rhetoric”,Communication 6, pp. 305–314.
Kluback, W., and M. Becker: 1979, “The Significance of Chaim Perelman's Philosophy of Rhetoric”,Revue Internationale de Philosophie 33, 33–46.
McKeon, R.: 1957, “Communication, Truth, and Society”,Ethics 67, 89–99.
McKeon, R.: 1987, “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts’, in M. Backman (ed.),Rhetoric: Essays in Invention & Discovery, Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1–24.
Marrou, H.I.: 1956,A History of Education in Antiquity, G. Lamb (trans.), Sheed and Ward, New York.
Perelman, C.: 1955, “How Do We Apply Reason to Values?”,Journal of Philosophy 52, 797–802.
Perelman, C.: 1965, “Reply to Henry W. Johnstone, Jr.”, in M. Natanson and H. W. Johnstone, Jr. (eds),Philosophy Rhetoric and Argumentation, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, 135–137.
Perelman, C.: 1968, “Rhetoric and Philosophy”,Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, 15–24.
Perelman, C.: 1979, “La Philosophie du Pluralisme et la Nouvelle Rhetorique”,Revue Internationale de Philosophie 33, 5–17.
Perelman, C.: 1982, “Philosophy and Rhetoric”, in J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds.),Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 287–297.
Perelman, C.: 1982,The Realm of Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
Perelman, C.: 1986, “Old and New Rhetoric”, in J. L. Golden and J. J. Pilotta (eds.),Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, Holland, 1–18.
Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1951, “Act and Person in Argument”,Ethics 61, 251–269.
Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969,The New Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
Raphael, D. D.: 1979, “Perelman on Justice”,Revue Internationale de Philosophie 33, 260–276.
Ray, J. W.: 1978, “Perelman's Universal Audience”,Quarterly Journal of Speech 64, 361–375.
Scult, A.: 1989, “Perelman's Universal Audience: One Perspective”, in R. Dearin (ed.),The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland, 153–162.
Walker, G. B., and M. O. Sillars: 1990, “Where is Argument? Perelman's Theory of Values”, in R. Trapp and J. Schuetz (eds.),Perspectives on Argumentation, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois, 134–150.
White, J. B.: 1984,When Words Lose Their Meaning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
David Douglas Dunlap is a Doctoral Candidate in Speech Communication at Pennsylvania State University
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dunlap, D.D. The conception of audience in Perelman and Isocrates: Locating the ideal in the real. Argumentation 7, 461–474 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00711062
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00711062