Abstract
Perelman’s view of the role of persons in argument is one of the most distinctive features of his break with Cartesian assumptions about reasoning. Whereas the rationalist paradigm sought to minimize or eliminate personal considerations by dismissing them as distracting and irrelevant, Perelman insists that argumentation inevitably does and ought to place stress on the specific persons engaged in an argument and that the relationship between speaker and what is spoken is always relevant and important. In taking this position, Perelman implicitly revives the classical conception of proof by character (ethos or “ethotic” argument), but despite an extended discussion of act and person in argument, The New Rhetoric does not give much consideration to the classical concept and confuses differing approaches to it within the tradition. The result is that Perelman treats the role of the speaker in argument only by reference to abstract techniques and does not recognize the importance of examining particular cases in order to thicken understanding of how ethotic argument works in the complex, situated context of its actual use. Consequently, Perelman’s account of the role of persons in argument should be supplement by reference to case studies, and to that end, I consider ethotic argument in W.E.B. Du Bois’ famous essay “Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others”.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All references to the New Rhetoric are to the translation by Wilkerson and Weaver (1969).
Concerning the “standard treatment” of fallacies, see Hamblin (1970).
see Govier 1999.
Concerning this difference, see, for example, Van Eemeren and Grootendurst (1995b).
Concerning the variations in classical rhetoric, see Conley (1990, pp. 4–25).
For a more fully elaborated rhetorical analysis of the essay see, Leff and Terrill (1995).
References
Amossy, Ruth. 1999. “The Argument ad hominem in an Interactional Perspective”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Argumentation, 14–18. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Amossy, Ruth. 2001. Ethos at the crossroads of disciplines: rhetoric, pragmatics, sociology. Poetics Today 22: 1–23.
Atwill, Janet. 1998. Rhetoric reclaimed: aristotle and the liberal arts tradition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Brinton, Alan. 1985. A rhetorical view of ad hominem. Australian Journal of Philosophy 63: 50–63.
Brinton, Alan. 1986. Ethotic argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly 3: 255–258.
Brinton, Alan. 1995. “The ad hominem”, Hansen and Pinto, 213–222.
Conley, Thomas M. 1990. Rhetoric in the European tradtion. White Plains, NY: Longmans.
Du Bois, W.E.B. 1989 [1903]. Souls of the black folk. New York: Bantam.
Govier, Trudy. 1999. “Political speech, oliver sachs and the credibility concern,” The Philosophy of Argument, 13–24. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. Bungay, Suffolk: Metheun.
Hansen, Hans V., and Robert C. Pinto (eds.). 1995. Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Leff, Michael and Robert Terrill. 1995. “The Polemicist as Artist: W.E.B. Dubois’ ‘Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others’”, Jackson, Sally et al. (eds.) Argumentation and values: Proceedings fo the 9th AFA/SCA Conference on Argumentation, 230–236. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrichts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation, trans. John Wilkerson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Van Eemeren, Frans & Rob Grootendurst. 1995a. Perelman and the fallacies. Philosophy and rhetoric 28: 122–133.
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendurst. 1995b. “Argumentum ad hominem: a pragma-dialectical case,” Hansen and Pinto, 223–228.
Walton, Douglas. 1998. Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leff, M. Perelman, ad Hominem Argument, and Rhetorical Ethos. Argumentation 23, 301–311 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9150-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9150-2