Public Discourse and the Paradox of Puritan Rhetoric
By Patricia Roberts-Miller
The University of Alabama Press, 1999
Reviewer: John W. Fendrich
Bradley University
This book presents a scholarly point of view of the way the people in America deal with public discourse. This is done by mostly a consideration of puritans in their realization in seventeenth century America, and somewhat the vestiges of puritan ways in contemporary discussion and debate. Puritans are analyzed both historically and in relationship to a point of view that emphasizes dialog, that is confrontational, but with a goal of discovery, especially the discovery of truth. The book presents these points of view clearly, but the presentation is predominantly scholarly.
To set the stage: two general points of view are presented. One is that of monologic discourse in public and societal affairs. This involves intellectual certainty and security. It does not work with people who are committed to opposing the policy or proposition under consideration using monologic discourse. Synonyms for monologic discourse are eristic discourse, hegemonic discourse, persuasive discourse, and strategic action. The book predominantly presents the puritan view case study as an instance of monologism. The reviewer thinks that American education at all levels, but particularly collegiate and university education, is rooted in monologism.
The other point of view is dialogic rhetoric in public and societal affairs. This point of view involves a patchwork of ideas characterized by little intellectual certainty and security. Theoretically, it should work with people who are committed to opposing the policy or proposition under consideration. However, the book does lament the lack of experience in such a way historically in American public discourse and in contemporary education, especially the teaching and learning of rhetoric. Dialogic rhetoric's synonyms include consensual communication, controversial thinking, dialogic discourse, and also persuasion.
The book essentially tries to answer the question, why do Americans have so much trouble disagreeing productively. Ways that Americans disagree unproductively are presented as models of interaction. One model is the, "voice crying in the wilderness," model. To invoke the, "voice in the wilderness," ethos is to summon up an entire relationship of public argumentation as a battleground of good and evil. Puritan ways are given close scrutiny as an individual trait or community way that most promoted this paradox of public discourse as hyperbolic rationality. Puritans went/go to great trouble to demonstrate the rationality of their premises. Only when an interlocutor demonstrates willful irrationality did, for instance, seventeenth century puritan ways resort to torture or banishment. It is suggested that such a term, "voices crying in the wilderness," still can be a term used as a title or approvedness. Examples given are nineteenth century writers, Edward Ashley, Albert Schweitzer, William Jennings Bryan, George Bush, Martin Luther King, Jr., Huey Long, John Muir. Examples are given of chains of events that lead individuals to engage in unproductive methods of argument.
The predominant productive method of discourse presented in the book is that of rhetoric. Models in which people who disagree about fundamental things can argue without engaging in verbal or physical violence present it. Dialogic rhetoric has such a goal. A paradox is that puritan ways had/has the intention to: 1) establish a realm of discourse that would disregard the status of the person speaking in favor of the force of the argument, 2) establish a realm of discourse in which all topics would be open for discussion, and 3) establish a realm of discourse that would be open to anyone who met minimal standards of rational behavior. Such lofty intentions were not realized because of decisions on who met minimal standards of rational behavior. Dialogic rhetoric uses skepticism about one's own rightness, a sense of contingency of any particular resolution, respect for the opposition, and desire for discursive reciprocity. An important moment in an argument is when another person rejects what seems to one person to be an obvious premise.
The reviewer thinks that, although this book is mainly a treatise on the rhetoric discipline and methods of teaching and learning, the book's discussion applies to methods of teaching and learning anything. It is asserted that this book is of tremendous help in understanding the products and ideas of accelerating change in contemporary society.