It's All About the Audience

In Perelman’s “The Social Contexts of Argumentation,” Perelman begins by noting the difference between argumentation and demonstration. "It consists in taking as a starting-point a technical distinction between demonstration and argumentation and in deriving consequences of a sociological order from the very conditions in which all argumentation, an any particular argumentation subjected to examination, is put forward," (Perelman, The Social Contexts of Argumentation, 252). He maintains that a difference between argumentation and demonstration must be noted for the practice of argumentation to be examined. Perelman seems to consider argumentation as a more refined art than demonstration. “Demonstrative proof, consisting as it does solely in this transition from premises to conclusion, seems to evade social conditioning,” (Perelman, 252). It seems there is little to consider in regards to audience when using demonstration. On argumentation, Perelman says, “The result of --an essential fact for the sociologist--is that the development of all argumentation is a function of the audience to which it is addressed and to which the speaker is obliged to adapt himself," (Perelman, 252). When argumentation is the method, the speaker or writer must consider his or her audience. Perelman warns against the “universal audience,” claiming one does not exist, so the speaker must account for his or her audience’s differences. In demonstration, it seems this would not be a concern for the speaker.

As Perelman presents demonstration and argumentation, it seems that he finds demonstration more practical and argumentation grounded in theory and concept. “The outlook of argumentation, unlike that of demonstration, does not make it possible entirely to separate thought from action, and it is easy to understand that argumentation should sometimes be favored, sometimes banned and often regulated by those who hold power or authority in society,” (Perelman, 253). Thought is required in argument, but not necessarily in demonstration. Perelman also hints at the strength of argumentation claiming that it may on occasion need to be “regulated” or even “banned” by authoritative figures. This statement reminds me of the articles about the history of Greek rhetoric and how it was banned in Rome for a time because it was viewed as dangerous.

Perelman suggests that argumentation hinges on two aspects, ethos and audience. I think Perelman would argue that these two items are the same. “In order to speak it is necessary in a great many cases to have some qualification, to be a member or representative of some group,” (Perelman, 253). This is ethos. What qualifications does the speaker need to have in order for the audience to have confidence in what he or she has to say? This still relates back to the audience. The speaker is constantly searching for ways to move his or her audience. In a sense the audience holds power over the speaker as the speaker must reach the audience’s expectations before he or she can convince the audience of anything.

The speaker must even determine word choice according to the audience: “The effective exercise of argumentation assumes a means of communication, a common language, without which there can be no contact of the minds,” (Perelman, 253). The language chosen to convey the argument must be satisfactory to the audience or the argument will never be communicated. These ideas made me think of what Dr. Souder said about Frederick Douglas and how he changed everything from his words to his clothes to suit his audience. So I would agree with Perelman about the importance of the audience when constructing one’s argument. I liked the brief history on rhetoric and how each culture adapted or abandoned the practice. It is like Perelman says it is important to look at the culture and history of a subject and audience when composing an argument. I don’t think leaving rhetoric to literature is actually abandoning it though because it is trying to communicate to an audience as well.

Perelman rests the successful practice of argumentation squarely on the shoulders of considering one’s audience. This can also relate to the teaching of writing. How often is teaching presented through demonstration rather than argumentation? Can demonstration by Perelman’s definition be a successful method of teaching if we do not consider the audience (the students)?