In Chaim Perelman’s “The Social Contexts of Argumentation,” he discusses the ideas of audience and a quest for truth. Perelman suggests that the power of the argument lies in the realm of the audience. “The development of all argumentation is a function of the audience to which it is addressed and to which the speaker is obliged to adapt himself” (252). Thus, when you are making an argument –whether written or spoken—you must first consider the perspective of the audience. You can only convince an audience of your argument, if you first view your deliberations from the audience’s place in the world. An effective speaker (defined by Perelman as “the person putting forward the argumentation”) must adapt her argument to fit the audience. In fact, in an effective argument, Perelman believes that the audience’s viewpoint is actually more important than the views of the speaker. While this at first seems counter-intuitive, modern modes of marketing certainly support Perelman’s theory. Marketers are making an argument in favor of a certain product, convincing consumers of the need to purchase a particular product. Successful marketing campaigns spend many dollars learning about their audience, developing psychographic profiles of different types of consumers. And, only after examining in-depth customer data, marketing companies will develop their messages (arguments) custom-fit to a variety of target audiences.
Furthering this point, Perelman recognizes that “the diversity of audiences is extreme” (253). He warns against assuming a universal audience when developing your arguments. He believes that a universal audience does not exist. When a speaker envisions a universal audience for his arguments, he is only conjuring up an audience based on his own prejudices and perspectives. “That universal audience,” says Perelman, “which is then not a concrete social reality but a construction of the speaker based on elements in his experience. They can vary in countless other ways—according to age, sex, temperament, competence and every sort of social or political criterion” (253).
Once a speaker has established her audience, she must then determine a common ground – a common language and common ideas – to start her argument. Perelman states that effective speakers adapt to their audience by creating connections over things already agreed. “It follows that all argumentation depends for its premises—as indeed for its entire development—on that which is accepted, that which is acknowledged as true, as normal and probable, as valid . . . the theses granted will sometimes be those of common sense, as that is, conceived by the audience,” says Perelman (253-254). Successful arguments begin when the speaker establishes community with the audience, when she states this is how we are alike. To revisit the marketers’ analogy, market messages in America often invoke images, like baseball, soaring eagles, apple pie and pick-up trucks, that resonate with the American public. These images create an immediate commonality between the message (argument) and the audience.
As for how Perelman’s theories on audience and argumentation might relate to an educational pedagogy, all teaching can be related to an argument. Teachers, when successful, convince students to learn, that learning is important, and that the information they are sharing is relevant, useful and true. Good teachers recognize, like Perelman, that they must consider their audience when developing their lessons (arguments). Successful teaching happens when a teacher understands that contemplating the student perspective, adapting lessons to a students’ worldview, establishing a common language and connections are all more important than his own world view.
We must always consider the audience when preparing an argument. In considering the student as audience, we must be marketers in that we have to convince them that the concepts we provide are for their benefit. I think though that there is a sort of universal audience in that humanity has commonalities that are often hard to discern in language. Ralph Waldo Emerson in his address to the American Scholar states that a good writer is one which portrays "what I had well nigh thought, of said [myself]". In all our inspection of the identity of our audience, we can never really get at who they are. The best we can do is talk to that part of ourselves that lies in them and hope that that part of them listens.
ReplyDeleteI think some teachers fail in their classrooms when they forget that the students are their audience and that they must convince them to take what they're teaching as truth, maybe not Truth but at least true in each student's life. It's very possible for a teacher to get to know his/her students and get at what appeals to them, but it takes hard work. It's easy for a teacher to get stuck in their world of classic teaching techniques and stand separate from their students at the front of the classroom. The teacher is only successful when appealing to students in ways that are true to them.
ReplyDeleteTeaching is a sort of marketing-a selling job particularly when it comes to promoting the mastery of punctuation, spelling, subject verb agreement, etc. As Perelman points out, "the speaker can develop his argumentation only by linking it to theses granted by his auditors" (253). In other words, students determine who they "tune out". As we have seen in the other blogs, capturing a student's imagination and practical application (what's in it for me) play a big role in successful teaching and learning. From the class discussion it is apparent there is a lack of success at both ends of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. You are all reminding me of the connection that can be created between audience and speaker/writer. Speakers and teachers can sometimes note through body language if they are connecting with their audience. Writers never really know how they have connected or will connect with their audiences.
ReplyDelete