Deliberative

Deliberative (Genre)
Deliberative rhetoric (sometimes, called “political rhetoric,” “deliberative discourse,” or “legislative oratory”) is a rhetorical genre used to convince an audience to complete or not complete an action. Deliberative rhetoric differs from deliberation in that deliberation occurs as a process (often within deliberative rhetoric) when people weigh alternative options prior to a decision such as voting. Also subject to confusion is the term deliberative democracy, a form of governmental discourse and set of institutions that prioritize public debate in the contexts of plurality, citizen access, and majority rule. Such a form often gets explained in theories of the public sphere as spaces where people can freely and openly discuss potential action.
Aristotle: Three Divisions of Oratory
Aristotle’s Rhetoric outlines three genres: (1) political (deliberative), (2) , and (3) the epideictic, or a ceremonial oratory of display. Deliberative rhetoric focuses on the future. “The political orator is concerned with the future: it is about things to be done hereafter that he advises, for or against”. Speakers and writers use deliberative rhetoric to make a decision regarding future goals of the people involved in the debate, or represented in government. Ultimately, the end goal of deliberative rhetoric is to come to a decision that will profit the audience in the future. It is the role of the political orator to lead the public to a beneficial outcome. A reputable political orator “aims at establishing the expediency or the harmfulness of a proposed course of action; if he urges its acceptance, he does so on the ground that it will do good; if he urges its rejection, he does so on the ground that it will do harm.” Many chapters in Book I of Aristotle’s Rhetoric cover the various typical deliberative arguments in Athenian culture.
Three Spheres of Argument
G. Thomas Goodnight argues that rhetoric is categorized into unique spheres of argument. These “spheres of argument are ‘branches of activity—the grounds upon which arguments are built and the authorities to which arguers appeal’”. Goodnight’s three spheres of argument are personal, technical, and public. The personal sphere is an informal space for private arguments to take place. The technical sphere is where professionals with a greater knowledge of the subject matter debate an argument. The public sphere is the “argument sphere that exists to ‘handle disagreements transcending personal and technical disputes.” Deliberative rhetoric works within these three spheres so that an argument is heard and then those people actively involved in the argument make a decision. Goodnight’s stance is that in each public deliberative argument, the end goal should be to determine what is best for the common good.
The Structure of Deliberative Rhetoric
Amélie Oksenberg Rorty discusses the structure and characteristics of deliberative rhetoric in her research. She cites Aristotle to persuade her audience of the characteristics of deliberative rhetoric’s influential nature. “Aristotle marks as central to deliberative rhetoric: considerations of prudence and justice, the projected political and psychological consequences of the decision and the likelihood of encouraging—or entrenching—similar rebellious attitudes amongst allies.” The outstanding characteristic of deliberative rhetoric is practicality. Rorty argues, “the deliberative rhetorician who wishes to retain his reputation as trustworthy must pay attention to what is, in fact, actually likely to happen.” Additionally, Aristotle focuses on deliberative rhetoric so heavily because “it most clearly reveals the primary importance of truth as it functions within the craft of rhetoric itself.” A path to action is determined through deliberative rhetoric, since an individual following practical means is likely to foresee likely events and act accordingly.
The Necessity of Deliberative Rhetoric
In interpreting Aristotle’s work on use of rhetoric, Bernard Yack discusses the vast need for public discourse and public reasoning. He states: “We deliberate together in political communities by making and listening to each other’s attempts to persuade us that some future action will best serve the end that citizens share with each other…It is this shared goal that distinguishes deliberative rhetoric, and therefore public reasoning, from the other forms of rhetoric and political judgment that Aristotle examines.” Shared goals are of utmost importance when deliberating on an issue that affects the common good. Without such a version of deliberative rhetoric, arguments would unfairly favor the interests of power and neglect the rights of the common people.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu