What Do You Mean, Rhetoric Is Epistemic?

The thesis that rhetoric is epistemic has gained widespread acceptance and has influenced rhetorical theory. The thesis suggests that argumentative justification in rhetorical contexts is fundamentally epistemic. Unfortunately, however, much of the literature developing the thesis has employed vague or inconsistent definitions of key terms, resulting in theoretical errors and needless complications. This essay clarifies the definitions of “rhetoric,” “knowledge,” and “certainty,” showing how the notion that rhetoric is epistemic might be developed in a clearer and more useful way

Is Modernism Really Modern? Uncovering a Fallacy in Postmodernism

Some postmodernists criticize the view that the logics of Western thought can be employed universally. In doing so, they assume without adequate proof that different human societies have greatly different rationalities and employ completely different logics. This essay argues that, on the contrary, widely different cultures often share noteworthy similarities in rationality

Universalism in Policy Debate: Utilitarianism, Stock Issues, and the Rhetorical Audience

The purpose of this essay is to look beyond the current formulations of stock issues. The idea is to make use of the insights from previous theories and accounts of stock issues to create a theory of analysis that is better grounded and that therefore offers a more reasonable way to conduct argumentative analysis. The essay shows how utilitarian theory parallels the concept behind stock issues analysis, proposes the importance of ethics for argumentative analysis, differentiates approaches to utilitarianism, and concludes by examining the implications of utilitarianism for argumentation

African American Rhetoric of Greeting During McKinley’s 1896 Front Porch Campaign

African American speakers who participated in William McKinley’s 1896 Front Porch campaign events used epideictic rhetoric to address the issues of racial equality. They praised McKinley, but presented few arguments on policy matters. This rhetorical strategy helped them to advocate policies in a manner that would superficially appear to be ceremonial more than deliberative. Paradoxically, in doing so, the speakers advocated their views to ameliorate the injustices of the Jim Crow era, while adapting to the campaign’s rituals