Abstract
While still subject to differing interpretations Perelman’s theory of audience has potential as an evaluative tool in rhetorical criticism as demonstrated by Gross and Crosswhite. I compare their explanations of how politicians address the universal audience and the respective implications for evaluating the argumentation and then argue that although Gross provides a more immediately applicable theory, Crosswhite’s interpretation recommends itself by virtue of its wider scope in regard to deliberative rhetoric.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the following I, for brevity’s sake, mention only Perelman when referring to the coauthored work, abbreviated TNR.
As the book incorporates Gross’ earlier presentations of Perelman’s audience theory I mention only his name when referring to his and Dearin’s book.
Also Tindale (2004) discusses these two accounts from a general point of view close to mine.
On the grounds that this makes a speaker “free to choose his or her own universal audience” the notion is dismissed by the pragma-dialecticians van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1995), p. 124), who accuse Perelman’s theory of extreme relativism. Like Crosswhite in his answer (Crosswhite 1995, p. 140), I regard this criticism as a misrepresentation of Perelman’s views.
Whereas universal and abstract values seem to be identical terms it is unclear whether particular and concrete are two terms for exactly the same category of values (TNR, pp. 76–79).
The term substantive relates to arguments with designative (factual) claims, motivational to evaluative and advocative claims, see for instance Brockriede and Ehninger (1960).
References
Arthos, J. 2004. Almost speaking a new rhetoric: the strangeness of the text of La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Southern Communication Journal 70: 31–45.
Brockriede, W., and D. Ehninger. 1960. Toulmin on argument: an interpretation and application. Quarterly Journal of Speech 46: 44–53.
Crosswhite, J. 1989. Universality in rhetoric: Perelman’s universal audience. Philosophy and Rhetoric 22: 157–173.
Crosswhite, J. 1993. Being unreasonable: Perelman and the problem of fallacies. Argumentation 7: 385–402.
Crosswhite, J. 1995. Is there an audience for this argument? Fallacies, theories, and relativisms. Philosophy and Rhetoric 28: 134–145.
Crosswhite, J. 1996. The rhetoric of reason: writing and the attractions of argument. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Graff, R., and W. Winn. 2006. Presencing “Communion” in Chaïm Perelman’s new rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric 39: 45–71.
Gross, A. 1999. A theory of the rhetorical audience: reflections on Chaim Perelman. Quarterly Journal of Speech 85: 203–211.
Gross, A.G., and R.D. Dearin. 2003. Chaim Perelman. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Jørgensen, C. 2003. The Mytilene debate: a paradigm for deliberative rhetoric, In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, eds. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 567–570. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Levi, D.S. 1995. In defense of rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric 28: 253–275.
Perelman, C. 1968. Rhetoric and philosophy. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1: 15–24.
Perelman, C. 1982. The realm of rhetoric, trans. William Kluback. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Perelman, C. 1984. The new rhetoric and the rhetoricians: remembrances and comments. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 188–196.
Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation, trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. [Traité de l’Argumentation, La Nouvelle Rhétorique 1958].
Tindale, C.W. 1999. Acts of arguing: a rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1995. Perelman and the fallacies. Philosophy and Rhetoric 28: 122–133.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jørgensen, C. Interpreting Perelman’s Universal Audience: Gross versus Crosswhite. Argumentation 23, 11–19 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9117-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9117-8