INFORMAL LOGIC 

XV. 1 , Winter 1993 

Rhetoric and Argumentation: An Introduction 

JOSEPH W. WENZEL University of Illinois 

When the editors suggested this special 
issue on rhetoric and argument, they play-
fully appended a sub-title: "What every in-
formal logician should know about 
rhetoric, but was too shy to ask." The com-
mon ground on which informal logicians 
and rhetoricians meet is argumentation, 
and both parties share a common goal, i.e., 
understanding argumentation-in theory, 
practice, and criticism. A well developed 
theory of argumentation, 1 submjt, requires 
principles and standards drawn from three 
sources that, together, make up the contro-
versial arts par excellence: rhetoric, logic, 
and dialectic. If that's a fair statement, then 
it behooves informal logicians to attend to 
insights derived from rhetorical studies of 
argumentation. 

Argumentation is both a natural phe-
nomenon and a unique human accomplish-
ment. People argue naturally as one means 
of managing disagreements, but they typi-
cally do so imperfectly and without con-
scious art. Argumentation appears as a 
remarkable human accomplishment, how-
ever, when the method is skillfully em-
ployed for the sake of resolving differ-
ences. Indeed, when the potential of argu-
mentation as a method of critical deci-
sion-making is fully realized, it is revealed 
as the paradigm of rational procedures for 
creating knowledge and achieving wise 
decisions-at least in the Western tradi-
tion. At its best, argumentation is a process 
whereby problems are brought to attention 
and analyzed, interested parties become 
more knowlegable and more critical about 
relevant facts and values, and solutions 
are hammered out on the anvil of contro-
versy. It is a process both creative and 

disciplined, depending on the skillful de-
ployment of the three controversial arts. 

First, argumentation arises in a rhetori-
cal situation. By that 1 mean a situation in 
which a human agent perceives an exi-
gence, believes that something can be done 
about it by mobilizing the efforts of other 
human agents, and adresses them as an au-
dience in a way calculated to influence 
their beliefs, feelings and/or actions with 
respect to the exigence (Bitzer, 1968). But, 
every rhetorical situation carries with it the 
potential for being transformed into a dia-
lectical situation, that is, one in which op-
posing discourses are brought forth in a 
way that invites mutual criticism and facil-
itates a choice between them. Dialectic 
comes into play most clearly within insti-
tutions that have been created for the spe-
cific purpose of resolving contested claims 
and proposals, e.g. courts, legislatures and 
the journals and meetings of learned socie-
ties. Within such controversial situations, 
logic enters at each moment when a partic-
ular claim and its support are singled out 
for evaluation. Central to this entire proc-
ess is rhetoric, that is, the creative use of 
language by human agents striving to find 
the "fitting words," to craft the discourse 
that makes sense of the problematic situa-
tion in a way that withstands the criticism 
of opposing discourses, and satisfies a crit-
ical audience, e.g. "a community of model 
interlocutors" (Blair & Johnson, 1987). 
Rhetorical art drives the creative struggle 
to find ameliorating language; logic pro-
vides the critical standards by which to in-
sure cogency; and dialectic frames the 
entire enterprise with principles intended 
to promote cooperative, comprehensive, 



2 Joseph W. Wenzel 

candid, and critical interaction (Wenzel, 
1990). 

No one of the controversial arts, alone, 
is sufficient for the production of informed 
understanding or sound decisions. Rather, 
human judgment is an accomplishment 
that depends upon all three. Hence, a fully 
developed theory of argumentation re-
quires a synthesis of principles, standards, 
insights and modes of understanding 
drawn from the perspectives of dialectic, 
logic and rhetoric. 

Now, the foregoing implicitly charac-
terizes rhetoric as a practical art, as Aristo-
tle described it, a trained capacity for 
producing forms and materials of proof ap-
propriate to problematic questions. That 
conception of rhetoric is featured in the 
first essay in this issue. Thomas Conley lo-
cates rhetoric as one of the arts of language 
central to education in the Western world 
for many centuries. He accounts for the 
trivialization of some aspects of that edu-
cational tradition, but argues that 
rhetoric-even in apparently trivial exer-
cises such as declamation-retained its 
vitality and utility because it never lost 
touch with the robust idea of controversia. 

The contemporary study of rhetoric 
has expanded beyond its original formula-
tion as the art of the speaker, however. It 
now embraces sophisticated methods of 
analysis and criticism that have much to 
teach us about how arguments are fash-
ioned in ordinary (and not-so-ordinary) 
language, and how cognitive changes are 
effected by discourse. Michael Weiler's es-
say demonstrates this potential as he ex-
plores the rhetorical character of ideology. 
From a rhetorical point of view, ideology 
can be understood as a distinct species of 
argumentation that functions to legitimize 
the exercise of political power. As such, it 
challenges the rhetorical critic to uncover 
the partiality hidden behind its claims to 
universality. 

John Lucaites and Charles Taylor take 
up another important dimension of 
political rhetoric, centering on the concept 

of prudential judgment. Their exemplary 
study of debate in the U.S. Senate over 
authorization for the use of military force 
in the Persian Gulf helps to explain, on the 
one hand, how the particular decision 
was reached. But, more importantly, it 
demonstrates that the very grounds of 
decision-making-in this case, a particular 
conception of prudence-are often 
rhetorically constructed in the course of 
deliberation. 

G. Thomas Goodnight is also interest-
ed in the crafting of reason through delib-
erative rhetoric. In his contribution to this 
issue he blends the interests of informal 10-
gicians and rhetoricans in an intriguing 
way. Starting with an apparently technical 
problem in logic, the choice of backing to 
authorize a warrant, he expands the hori-
zon to examine "legitimation controver-
sies" which emerge when consensus about 
the grounding of judgment is challenged. 
His case study demonstrates the possible 
expansion of the domain of inquiry for 
informal reasoning. 

In the essay rounding out this issue, 
Dilip Gaonkar reflects on the implications 
of certain terms of recent currency: "the re-
vival of rhetoric," "the new rhetoric," and 
"the rhetorical tum." He locates those 
terms in recent intellectual movements, ex-
plains how each one invokes a particular 
conception of rhetoric, and concludes by 
showing how the "rhetorical tum," in his 
words, "signifies a radical shift in the self 
understanding of rhetoric." It may be fair 
to say that the full implications of that tum 
for rhetoric's relation to argumentation 
have yet to be realized by most of us. 

Certainly this issue cannot tell infor-
mal logicians everything they might 
want to know about rhetoric, but one 
hopes it makes a helpful start. In addition 
to the authors, who deserve the chief credit 
for producing this issue, there are others to 
thank. I am grateful to the reviewers for 
their careful reading and commentary on 
manuscripts: J. Robert Cox (University of 
North Carolina), Robert Hariman (Drake 



University) and Charles A. Willard 
(University of Louisville). I thank Tony 
Blair and Ralph Johnson for inviting me 
to undertake this project. And, there 
having been "many a slip twixt cup and 

Rhetoric and Argumentation 3 

lip" since they made that invitation 
so long ago, I must publicly thank them, 
and Managing Editor Mark Letteri, for 
extraordinary patience with recalcitrant 
rhetoricians. 

References 

Bitzer, Lloyd E, 1968, "The Rhetorical Situation," 
Philosophy & Rhetoric, I, 1-14. 

Blair, J. Anthony & Ralph Johnson, 1987, "Argu-
ment as Dialectical," Argumentation, 1,41-56. 

Wenzel, Joseph w., 1990, ''Three Perspectives on 
Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic, Logic," in 
Perspectives on Argumentation, edited by 

Robert Trapp & Janice Schuetz (Prospect 
Heights, IL: Waveland Press), 9-26. 

JOSEPH W WENZEL 
DEPARTMENT OF SPEECH COMMUNICATION 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
702 S. WRIGHT ST. 
URBANA. ILLINOIS 61801 0