Barbelith Underground > Head Shop > Argument vs. Rhetoric?

Using the Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Oxford University Press, 1996) we find the four following definitions:

argue v 1 exchange views forcefully or contentiously. 2 maintain by reasoning; indicate. 3 reason. 4 treat by reasoning. 5 persuade.

argument n 1 (esp. contentious) exchange of views, dispute. 2 reason given; reasoning process. 3 summary of a book etc.

rhetoric n 1 art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. 2 language designed to persuade or impress (esp. seen as overblown and meaningless).

reason —n 1 motive cause, cause, or justification 2 fact adduced or served by this. 3 intellectual faculty by which conclusions are drawn from premises. 4 sanity. 5 sense; sensible conduct; what is right, practical, or practicable; moderation. —v 1 form or try to reach conclusions by connected thought. 2 use argument with by way of persuasion. 3 conclude or assert in argument. 4 persuade or move by argument. 5 think out. 6 express in a logical way. 7 embody reason in.

Within the context of our contemporary world rhetoric is often seen as a negative thing where as argument is seen as positive; that is, rhetoric has become a dirty word (as seen by the sentiment expressed in the parentheses in the above definition) and argument is seen as rigourous and acceptable.

However, both argument and rhetoric have persuasion in common. In the above definitions (or with mere reflection), we clearly see that an argument is language used in a manner which is designed to persuade someone of the conclusion drawn from some set of premises, and that rhetoric is also “language designed to persuade or impress.” I do not think it too far a stretch to think that argument is also designed to impress (although perhaps in a slightly different sense than rhetoric). Argument seems designed to impress upon us the truth of a conclusion (or conclusions) drawn from true premises, whereas rhetoric might be seen as designed to impress in the sense of making the producer of the rhetoric come to be seen in a favorable light. Leaving that sense aside, we can see that both argument and rhetoric use language in such a manner that both seek to persuade and impress in the sense that both seek to affect or influence the views of others.

Some might see rhetoric as unreasonable and argument as reasonable; this is, again, to focus on the perceived difference between these two forms of persuasion, but is this not merely a normative judgement? As seen in the definitions above, reason is tied in with notions of sanity, practicality, rightness, and sensibility; however, in turn these notions are intimately tied up with power and authority: we can ask who it is that is giving the criteria for what is seen as sane, what is seen as practical, what is seen as right, and what is seen as sensible. It appears that the label “rhetoric” can be given to an argument that is against the grain of such and such a power or authoritative structure, but the same language expressing the same meaning could be given the label “argument” by a different power or authoritative structure. In either case, we can see that both argument and rhetoric are designed to persuade and impress.

So, where is the real difference between the two? How is the line to be drawn in order to decide that a given set of expressions is reasonable and meaningful, or that the same set is overblown and meaningless?