Argumentation

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 293–313 | Cite as

Apocalyptic Argument and the Anticipation of Catastrophe: the Prediction of Risk and the Risks of Prediction

  • Stephen D. O‘Leary
Article

Abstract

This essay proposes to extend the model of apocalyptic argument developedin my recent book Arguing the Apocalypse (O‘Leary, 1994) beyond the study ofreligious discourse, by applying this model to the debate over awell-publicized earthquake prediction that caused a widespread panic in theAmerican midwest in December, 1990. The first section of the essay willsummarize the essential elements of apocalyptic argument as I have earlierdefined them; the second section will apply the model to the case of the NewMadrid, Missouri, earthquake prediction, in order to demonstrate thatcertain patterns of reasoning characteristic of religious apocalyptic arepresent in the discourse over an anticipated local disaster. My ultimatepurpose is to show that predictions of global and local catastrophe mayserve as extreme cases that will illuminate the dynamics of predictiveargument in general. Thus my argument will seek to undercut Daniel Bell‘sdistinction between prophecy and prediction (Bell, 1973) by establishingthat these discourses share identifiable formal and substantivecharacteristics, and depend for their rhetorical effect on anxiety, hope,far, and excitement as modes of temporal anticipation.

Apocalypse apocalyptic prediction earthquake catastrophe risk sign argument 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Aristotle: 1941a, Rhetoric, W. R. Roberts (trans.), in R. McKeon (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle, Random House, New York, pp. 1325–1451.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle: 1941b, Poetics, I. Bywater (trans.), in R. McKeon (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle, Random House, New York, pp. 1455–1487.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, D.: 1973, ‘Prediction versus Prophecy’, in J. Dumoulin and D. Moisi (eds.), The Historian between the Ethnologist and the Futurologist, Mouton & Co., Mouton/Paris/The Hague, pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, P.: 1969, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, Anchor Books, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, K.: 1968a, ‘Psychology and Form’, in Counter-Statement, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  6. Burke, K.: 1968b, ‘Dramatism’, in D. Sills (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, K.: 1984, Attitudes Toward History, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, J. R.: 1982, ‘The Die Is Cast: Topical and Ontological Dimensions of the Locus of the Irreparable’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 68(3), 227–239.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, J. W.: 1977, The Logic of Millennial Thought, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  10. Festinger, L., H. W. Riecken and S. Schachter: 1964, When Prophecy Fails, Harper Torchbooks, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, J. T.: 1990, Of Time, Passion, and Knowledge, 2d ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  12. Gager, J.: 1975, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  13. Garver, E.: 1994, Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Goodnight, G. T.: 1982, ‘The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 2, 214–227.Google Scholar
  15. Goodnight, G. T.: 1987, ‘Generational Argument’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris Publications, Dordrecht-Holland, pp. 129–144.Google Scholar
  16. Lindsey, H. and C. C. Carlson: 1973, The Late Great Planet Earth, Bantam, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Lindsey, H.: 1980, The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon, Bantam, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Lifton, R. J.: 1985, ‘The Image of the End of the World: A Psychohistorical View’, in S. Friedlander, G. Horton, L. Marx and E. Skolnikoff (eds.), Visions of Apocalypse: End or Rebirth?, Holmes and Meier, New York/London, pp. 151–167.Google Scholar
  19. Melton, J. G.: 1985, ‘Spiritualization and Reaffirmation: What Really Happens When Prophecy Fails’, American Studies 26, 17–29.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, T. (ed.): 1991, When Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  21. O'Leary, S. D.: 1994, Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Popkin, R. H.: 1986, ‘The Triumphant Apocalypse and the Catastrophic Apocalypse’, in A. Cohen and S. Lee (eds.), Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, New Jersey, pp. 131–150.Google Scholar
  23. Schall, J. V.: 1976, ‘Apocalypse as a Secular Enterprise’, Scottish Journal of Theology 29, 357–373.Google Scholar
  24. Simon, J. L.: 1995, ‘Why Do We Hear Prophecies of Doom from Every Side?’, The Futurist January–February, 19–23.Google Scholar
  25. Spence, W., R. B. Herrmann, A. C. Johnston and G. Reagor: 1993, Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. Weber, M.: 1946, ‘Politics as a Vocation’, H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (trans.), in Gerth and Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Weber, T.: 1987, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming, Revised ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. Whisenant, E.: 1988, 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988, World Bible Society, Nashville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  29. Zencey, E.: 1988, ‘Apocalypse and Ecology’, North American Review June, pp. 54–57.Google Scholar
  30. Zygmunt, J. F.: 1970, ‘Prophetic Failure and Chiliastic Identity: The Case of Jehovah's Witnesses’, American Journal of Sociology 75, 926–948.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen D. O‘Leary
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations