Toward a Civil Discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism

by Sharon Crowley

Toward a Civil Discourse examines how, in the current political climate, Americans find it difficult to discuss civic issues frankly and openly with one another. Because America is dominated by two powerful discourses--liberalism and Christian fundamentalism, each of which paints a very different picture of America and its citizens' responsibilities toward their country-there is little common ground, and hence Americans avoid disagreement for fear of giving offence. Sharon Crowley considers the ancient art of rhetoric as a solution to the problems of repetition and condemnation that pervade American public discourse. Crowley recalls the historic rhetorical concept of stasis--where advocates in a debate agree upon the point on which they disagree, thereby recognizing their opponent as a person with a viable position or belief. Most contemporary arguments do not reach stasis, and without it, Crowley states, a nonviolent resolution cannot occur. Toward a Civil Discourse investigates the cultural factors that lead to the formation of beliefs, and how beliefs can develop into densely articulated systems and political activism. Crowley asserts that rhetorical invention (which includes appeals to values and the passions) is superior in some cases to liberal argument (which often limits its appeals to empirical fact and reasoning) in mediating disagreements where participants are primarily motivated by a moral or passionate commitment to beliefs. Sharon Crowley examines numerous current issues and opposing views, and discusses the consequences to society when, more often than not, argumentative exchange does not occur. She underscores the urgency of developing a civil discourse, and through a review of historic rhetoric and its modern application, provides a foundation for such a discourse-whose ultimate goal, in the tradition of the ancients, is democratic discussion of civic issues.

Genres: Textbooks, Religion, Academic, Politics

256 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Tom Fuerst · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not sure Crowley rightly appreciates the historical difference between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. Granted, neither does the media ----and neither do many Evangelicals. So it's a common mistake. However, I expected more from a world-class scholar.

[K8 · Rating 3 out of 5]

One-word reaction: Conflicted

Elaboration

I'm not comfortable with the way Crowley uses the terms "fundamentalists" and "apocalyptics" - while she briefly discusses the differences early in the book, she later uses them seemingly interchangeably.

However, I love chapter two "Speaking of Rhetoric" and chapter three "Belief and Passionate Commitment." As you might expect, Crowley's discussion of rhetoric as grounded in invention appeals to this mls bearer who understands research and inquiry as rhetorical processes connected to the art of invention. She argues that the inability of discursants to find stasis has left us with the inability to find the means to discuss arguments. Specifically, Crowley focuses on the theoretical differences in the approach of modes of liberal argumentation and Christian fundamentalist argumentation. Liberal argumentation is based on reason and rationality, and does not provide the tools for dealing with emotion or faith/values. Modes of argumentation that rely on faith/values operate in ways that are contrary to pure rationality. This conflict leaves debaters at a standstill. An example of her description of the differences between these two approaches can be seen in the following quotations:

"Hegemonic discourses construct and inform community experience to such an extent that their assumptions seem natural, 'just the way things are.' The very inarticulateness of hegemonic belief is a source of power" (12).

"Liberal rhetorical theory assumes that all members of a democratic polity will be willing to examine and weigh contending positions in a rational fashion, aiming for compromise where this is possible and settling for tolerance where it is not. Clearly, apocalypticism is a direct challenge to this belief" (21).

I'm still digesting her discussion of argumentation between these groups.

More things that bother me:

I wish that when Crowley discussed the texts of apocalyptics that she had focused more on those texts than the ways others analyzed those texts. What can I say, I'm a primary source sort of gal.

Also, Crowley focused on those who are the loudest - LaHaye, Focus on the Family folks, Christian Coalition, Falwell, etc. I would love to hear more about those who aren't on tv and talk radio. Granted, that would be a whole 'nother project, but I really would like to hear more about them.

[Zach Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Insightful look at the philosophical functions that define the fundamentalist Christian movement. She examines the reasons why our standard tactics of persuasion simply will not work, and sets forward the framework to counter the movement.

[Andrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book is a really wonderful read--if you are interested in rhetoric and how it can connect to religious fundamentalism--especially thinking about democracy and what is at stake

[Sam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not really sure how much this has to do with rhetoric as much as blatant fearmongering and stereotyping. I didn't really learn anything.

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for Engendering Rhetorical Power.