Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - No subject given

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: gds AT dor.kaiser.org
  • To: <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: No subject given
  • Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:15:44 -0700


I usually sit by and watch, but since I have utilized Perelman's concept of
the
Universal Audience in an analysis of a First Testament text, I'd like to put
in
my two cents in.

Jim Hester has given us the 'skinny' on Perelman's concept. But there are
some
interesting 'sub-facets' of his theory that I think might also be of interest
in
terms of the study of Romans. First, there is the dialogical quality of the
concept as Perelman defines it. This might be of particular importance in a
book like Romans, given the fact that the book has been interpreted in terms
of
the diatribe, which obviously calls out for a dialogical model of rhetorical
exegesis. In fact, one could, in a certain Bahktinian fashion, argue that the
concept of the universal audience is throughly dialogical in origin,
development
and function. Perelman argues in essence for a three stage development of the
concept of any given universal audience. First, there is the stage where the
subject him/herself is searching for an overall sense of reason in a certain
situation when he or she deliberates for reasons. At this stage, dialogue is
internal. However, there is a second stage where the speaker addresses the
interlocutor whom the speaker addresses in a dialogue. Finally, after one has
had multiple chances to do this, as I presume Paul has had in his many
dialogues
which lead up to his diatribe in Romans, a rhetor may reach some conclusion as
to what constitutes the 'ultimate court of reason' for them. This is the
third
and final stage for the Universal Audience as it manifests itself in any given
writer or work. This stage is exactly as Jim has described it. It is also
noteworthy that Perelman's "universal audience" appears to be a kind of
'public'
according to Lloyd Bitzer, though not a political one like can be found in
Aristotle or Plato. (Lloyd Bitzer, Rhetoric and Public Knowledge, 1978 p.
71)
In that sense, Paul may be constructing, however unconscious or conscious it
may
be to him, some idea of a rhetorical public in which to validate his
argument.
If one hooks that idea up with Umberto Eco's concept of a Model Reader, which
every text attempts to construct, one may come up with some fascinating ideas
relating not only to the type of logic Paul utilizes, but also, the type of
audience he is attempting to create in his readers as well. In that sense,
the
universal audience as implied in Paul's argument in Romans may be more useful
for what it prescribes than what it actually describes, remembering Walter
Ong's
dictim that every audience is in some sense, a fictional projection of the
writer, and is therefore, never quite historical in an absolute sense. In a
related sense, it has also been argued that Perelman's idea of the universal
audience follows the shift away from the empirical audience toward the mental
structures which the rhetor attributes to the audience. (Michael McGuire). If
this is so, an analysis of Paul's concept of the 'universal audience' should
have some impact on the concept of the implied reader in Romans.

There is a further dialogical aspect implied in the concept in that since no
one
single group can ever encompass the universal audience, Perelman hints that
there needs to be dialogue at subsequent levels as well. He states this
indirectly, but in a passage that is pregnant with Bahktinian overtones: "We
believe, then, that audiences are not independent of one another, that
particular concrete audiences are capable of validating a concept of the
universal audience which characterizes them. On the other hand, it is the
undefined universal audience that is invoked to pass judgment on what is the
concept of the universal audience appropriate to such a concrete audience...It
can be said that audiences pass judgment on one another." (Perelman, The New
Rhetoric, p. 35). Given the diatribe structure of Paul's letter/argument,
looking at the argument in Romans from that sort of perspective might also
have
some additional pertinence to this issue. If one invokes the universal
audience, it seems to me that more than the thought patterns of either Paul or
his audience must be involked to arrive at a truly 'universal audience' for
this
letter. Always, when one does this sort of rhetorical thinking about a
passage,
the interpreter needs to remember that " the universal consensus invoked is
often merely the unwarranted generalization of an individual institution."
(Perelman, The New Rhetoric, p. 33). Now, by that I do not mean to accuse
Paul
of rabid parochialism. I just think that we need to remember that even what
Paul considers to be 'universal' may be contested. As Jim ably points out, we
are talking about one person's or one group's idea of what 'universal reason'
would/might look like in an ancient setting. Perelman states the bigger
rhetorical task involved in this concept so well: "Hence the primordial
importance of the universal audience, as providing a norm for objective
argumentation, since the other party to a dialogue and the person deliberating
with himself can never amount to more than floating incarnations of this
universal audience." (Perelman, The New Rhetoric, p. 31). In that respect,
for
the interpreter to arrive at a true universal audience, subsequent generations
of interpreters who have engaged the 'logic' of this situation will also need
to
be addressed in any type of rhetorical analysis that would wish to address the
suasion problems in this passage as a Scripture, and not just the suasion
problems of its original audience, keeping in mind, that the text's persuasive
properties as a part of the canon seem to demand a larger picture of the
universal audience. I think that gets more to the point of Harold Zykind's
summation of the concept in the Introduction to The New Rhetoric when he
points
out that "...the new rhetoric rather merges the Rhetoric's [Aristotle]
relativity to the audience and focus on action with dialectic's universal
opinions, and includes some contentious devices." To get at the true
universal
audience here, one must get beyond both parties in this diatribe. Paul's
concept is a starting point, but also, we should also attend to the
contributions of subsequent groups and persons who have engaged his thinking
on
these matters if an interpreter wants to get at the real usefulness of
Perelman's concept, that is, as a means of validating truly convincing
arguments. As I see it, the concept of the Universal Audience is Perelman's
way to address the implicit sense of relativism in his rhetorical theory. By
drawing attention to a larger concept of reason than any one group can offer,
it
attempts to give rhetorical analysis a larger audience to appeal to. As
Perelman himself says: "Is the strong argument the one that persuades
effectively, or is it the one that must convince every reasonable mind? Since
the efficacy of an argument is relative to the audience, it is impossible to
evaluate it above and beyond reference to the audience to which it is
presented.
On the other hand, validity is relative to a competent audience, most often
to
the universal audience." (The Realm of Rhetoric, 1982, 140). If that becomes
the focus, then rhetorical analysis becomes more than a diachronic method, but
also, a tool with synchronic dimensions as well. It also means that the
concept
of the 'universal audience' is never static, but is always developing over the
generations, which is as it should be for any scriptural text.

I am not sure exactly how that answers some of the specific questions about
slaves in Romans, as I am not an expert in Romans. But I can say, the concept
of the Universal Audience, if applied to this text, certainly has dialogical
ramifications which would expand the interpreter's boundaries beyond simply
what
Paul or his audience meant by slave. And in that sense, it is a very pregnant
rhetorical device for the subject at hand, and certainly, has 'generative
possibilities', to use a phrase from Walter Brueggemann. All I am doing is
here is drawing out a few exegetical and hermeneutical qualities of the term
so
that the concept can be given its just desserts. It has been a very useful
term
for me, if only for the sense of humility it calls for when one begins to talk
about the persuasiveness of any given textual argumentation.

- Gary D. Salyer












  • No subject given, gds, 08/02/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page