Suchergebnisse

In today's increasingly polarized political landscape it seems that fewer and fewer citizens hold out hope of persuading one another. Even among those who have not given up on persuasion, few will admit to practicing the art of persuasion known as rhetoric. To describe political speech as "rhetoric" today is to accuse it of being superficial or manipulative. In Saving Persuasion , Bryan Garsten uncovers the early modern origins of this suspicious attitude toward rhetoric and seeks to loosen its grip on contemporary political theory. Revealing how deeply concerns about rhetorical speech shaped both ancient and modern political thought, he argues that the artful practice of persuasion ought to be viewed as a crucial part of democratic politics. He provocatively suggests that the aspects of rhetoric that seem most dangerous--the appeals to emotion, religious values, and the concrete commitments and identities of particular communities--are also those which can draw out citizens' capacity for good judgment. Against theorists who advocate a rationalized ideal of deliberation aimed at consensus, Garsten argues that a controversial politics of partiality and passion can produce a more engaged and more deliberative kind of democratic discourse

In today's increasingly polarized political landscape it seems that fewer and fewer citizens hold out hope of persuading one another. Even among those who have not given up on persuasion, few will admit to practicing the art of persuasion known as rhetoric. To describe political speech as "rhetoric" today is to accuse it of being superficial or manipulative. In Saving Persuasion, Bryan Garsten uncovers the early modern origins of this suspicious attitude toward rhetoric and seeks to loosen its grip on contemporary political theory. Revealing how deeply concerns about rhetorical speech shaped both ancient and modern political thought, he argues that the artful practice of persuasion ought to be viewed as a crucial part of democratic politics. He provocatively suggests that the aspects of rhetoric that seem most dangerous--the appeals to emotion, religious values, and the concrete commitments and identities of particular communities--are also those which can draw out citizens' capacity for good judgment. Against theorists who advocate a rationalized ideal of deliberation aimed at consensus, Garsten argues that a controversial politics of partiality and passion can produce a more engaged and more deliberative kind of democratic discourse

Abstract: Frustrated by persisting inequality, oppression, and corruption in liberal societies, and disillusioned with liberalism's failures, many are stepping away. Yet liberal societies are still admirable because they offer refuge from the very people they empower . They require rulers to accept limitations on their power and provide escape hatches from the worst parts of political life. Offers of refuge may be found in opposition political parties, independent institutions, reasonably autonomous local communities, powerful civil society organizations, and the market economy. There is a nobility in offering refuge, in the safety and opportunity it presents for building something new.

Abstract: Frustrated by persisting inequality, oppression, and corruption in liberal societies, and disillusioned with liberalism's failures, many are stepping away. Yet liberal societies are still admirable because they offer refuge from the very people they empower . They require rulers to accept limitations on their power and provide escape hatches from the worst parts of political life. Offers of refuge may be found in opposition political parties, independent institutions, reasonably autonomous local communities, powerful civil society organizations, and the market economy. There is a nobility in offering refuge, in the safety and opportunity it presents for building something new.

"Die folgende Darstellung wird zunächst einen Überblick über die Religionsvorlesungen geben (1.) und im Anschluss daran die historische Plausibilität der These Constants unterstreichen, dass die Glaubensfreiheit im Zuge der Versuche zur Wiederbelebung der Freiheit der Alten bedroht war (2.). Schließlich soll gezeigt werden, dass diese Reden die fundamentale Schwäche eines allein ökonomisch begründeten Liberalismus herausstellen (3.). Während der erste Teil der Arbeit eher historischer Natur ist, finden sich im zweiten Teil philosophische Erwägungen. Auf diese Weise soll untermauert werden, dass der Vortrag Über die Freiheit der Alten und der Modernen, der als grundlegend für das Verständnis der Grundlinien und Spannungen des politischen Denkens im 19. Jahrhundert gilt, unvollständig ist ohne die Ideen, die Constant bereits ein Jahr zuvor entwickelt hat - dass folglich die Motive am Grunde der Entwicklung des Liberalismus mit religiöser Freiheit und dem positiven Ziel der menschlichen Selbstentwicklung verbunden sind." (Textauszug)

In his account of how each of us deliberates about what to do, Aristotle remarks that we do not always trust ourselves on important matters and so sometimes take counsel from others. Taking counsel from others is, in some ways, merely an expansion of the internal activity of deliberation; the suggestions come from other people rather than from our ownminds, but the judgment about them remains our own. In other ways, however, taking counsel is quite different from deliberating with oneself. These differences are the subject matter of the art of rhetoric, as Aristotle understands it. The paper compares the political relationship at work in deliberative rhetoric with slavery, which collapses the separateness of persons, and with friendship, which preserves it. And suggests that the importance of anger in Aristotle's treatment of rhetoric can be understood as a reflection on the implications of human separateness.

Among the astonishing variety of sources mentioned in Martin Jay's new book on lying in politics the reader will find ancient Greek philosophical dialogues, pamphlet controversies between eighteenth-century philosophers, post-structural literary theories and, resting easily among the likes of these, a familiar old joke. "How can you tell when a politician is lying?" Jay asks. "He moves his lips" is the answer my grandfather used to give, and that is the punch-line that Jay recounts here. But my grandfather told the joke as part of a syllogism whose unstated premise was "lying is bad" and whose common-sense conclusion was that politics is corrupt. Jay is not satisfied with that conclusion. His book,The Virtues of Mendacity: On Lying in Politics, puts forward a very different argument: He assumes that politics is worthwhile, suggests that it is unavoidably linked to lying, and concludes that lying must not be as bad as we think it is. There are a host of complications and caveats, so many that one could spend a whole review admiring the virtuosity involved in constructing such a rich pastiche of historical episodes and texts touching on mendacity. But the frisson that the book provokes comes almost entirely from its willingness to flirt with the endorsement of vice, so any serious engagement with it cannot avoid responding in some way to that flirtation.

The recent wave of interest in the rhetorical tradition among political theorists can be attributed partly to the rise of theories of deliberative democracy, which focused attention on communication and discourse. Some scholars see in rhetoric a way to challenge the assumptions of Habermasian deliberative theory, while others aim to integrate rhetoric into a broader theory of deliberation. Insights taken from studies of Aristotle have been especially influential in producing a new set of questions for scholars interested in deliberation and in democratic communications more generally, in spite of the vast differences between ancient city-states and modern liberal democracies.

The recent wave of interest in the rhetorical tradition among political theorists can be attributed partly to the rise of theories of deliberative democracy, which focused attention on communication and discourse, Some scholars see in rhetoric a way to challenge the assumptions of Habermasian deliberative theory, while ethers aim to integrate rhetoric into a broader theory of deliberation. Insights taken from studies of Aristotle have been especially influential in producing a new set of questions for scholars interested in deliberation and in democratic communications more generally, in spite of the vast differences between ancient city-states and modem liberal democracies. Adapted from the source document.