Suchergebnisse

Despite the striking affinities of classical Greek and Latin rhetoric with the pragmatist/interactionist analysis of the situated negotiation of reality and its profound relevance for the analysis of human group life more generally, few contemporary social scientists are aware of the exceptionally astute analyses of persuasive inter­change developed by Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian. Having considered the analyses of rhetoric developed by Aristotle (384-322 BCE) and Cicero (106-43 BCE) in interactionist terms (Prus 2007a; 2010), the present paper examines Quintilian's (35-95 CE) contributions to the study of persuasive interchange more specifically and the nature of human knowing and acting more generally. Focusing on the education and practices of orators (rhetoricians), Quintilian (a practitioner as well as a distinc­tively thorough instructor of the craft) provides one of the most sustained, most systematic analyses of influence work and resistance to be found in the literature. Following an overview of Quintilian's "ethnohistorical" account of Roman oratory, this paper concludes by draw­ing conceptual parallels between Quintilian's analysis of influence work and the broader, transcontextual features of symbolic interactionist scholarship (Mead 1934; Blumer 1969; Prus 1996; 1997; 1999; Prus and Grills 2003). This includes "generic social processes" such as: acquiring perspectives, attending to identity, being involved, doing activity, en­gaging in persuasive interchange, developing relationships, experiencing emotionality, attaining linguistic fluency, and partici­pating in collective events. Offering a great many departure points for comparative analysis, as well as ethnographic examinations of the influence process, Quintilian's analysis is particularly instructive as he addresses these and related aspects of human knowing, acting, and interchange in highly direct, articulate, and detailed ways. Acknowledging the conceptual, methodological, and analytic affinities of The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian with symbolic interactionism, an epilogue, Quintilian as an Intellectual Precursor to American Pragmatist Thought and the Interactionist Study of Human Group Life, addresses the relative lack of attention given to classical Greek and Latin scholarship by the American pragmatists and their intellectual progeny, as well as the importance of maintaining a more sustained transcontextual and transhistorical focus on the study of human knowing, acting, and interchange.

Whereas Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Augustine are probably the best known of the early Western philosophers of religion, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE) also played a particularly consequential role in the development and continuity of Greco-Latin-European social thought. Cicero may be best known for his work on rhetoric and his involvements in the political intrigues of Rome, but Cicero's comparative examinations of the Greco-Roman philosophies of his day merit much more attention than they have received from contemporary scholars. Cicero's considerations of philosophy encompass much more than the theological issues considered in this statement, but, in the process of engaging Epicurean and Stoic thought from an Academician (Platonist) perspective, Cicero significantly extends the remarkable insights provided by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Although especially central to the present analysis, Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods (1972) is only one of several texts that Cicero directs to a comparative (multiparadigmatic and transhistorical) analysis of divine and human knowing. Much of Cicero's treatment of the philosophy of religion revolves around variants of the Socratic standpoints (i.e., dialectics, theology, moralism) that characterized the philosophies of Cicero's era (i.e., Stoicism, Epicureanism, Academician dialectics), but Cicero also engages the matters of human knowing and acting in what may be envisioned as more distinctively pragmatist sociological terms. As well, although Cicero's materials reflect the socio-historical context in which he worked, his detailed analysis of religion represents a valuable source of comparison with present day viewpoints and practices. Likewise, a closer examination of Cicero's texts indicates that many of the issues of divine and human knowing, with which he explicitly grapples, have maintained an enduring conceptual currency. This paper concludes with a consideration of the relevance of Cicero's works for a contemporary pragmatist sociological (symbolic interactionist) approach to the more generic study of human knowing and acting.

Whereas Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Augustine are probably the best known of the early Western philosophers of religion, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE) also played a particularly consequential role in the development and continuity of Greco-Latin-European social thought. Cicero may be best known for his work on rhetoric and his involvements in the political intrigues of Rome, but Cicero's comparative examinations of the Greco-Roman philosophies of his day merit much more attention than they have received from contemporary scholars. Cicero's considerations of philosophy encompass much more than the theological issues considered in this statement, but, in the process of engaging Epicurean and Stoic thought from an Academician (Platonist) perspective, Cicero significantly extends the remarkable insights provided by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Although especially central to the present analysis, Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods (1972) is only one of several texts that Cicero directs to a comparative (multiparadigmatic and transhistorical) analysis of divine and human knowing. Much of Cicero's treatment of the philosophy of religion revolves around variants of the Socratic standpoints (i.e., dialectics, theology, moralism) that characterized the philosophies of Cicero's era (i.e., Stoicism, Epicureanism, Academician dialectics), but Cicero also engages the matters of human knowing and acting in what may be envisioned as more distinctively pragmatist sociological terms. As well, although Cicero's materials reflect the socio-historical context in which he worked, his detailed analysis of religion represents a valuable source of comparison with present day viewpoints and practices. Likewise, a closer examination of Cicero's texts indicates that many of the issues of divine and human knowing, with which he explicitly grapples, have maintained an enduring conceptual currency. This paper concludes with a consideration of the relevance of Cicero's works for a contemporary pragmatist sociological (symbolic interactionist) approach to the more generic study of human knowing and acting.

Whereas Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) has long been envisioned as a structuralist, quantitative, and positivist sociologist, some materials that Durkheim produced in the later stages of his career—namely, Moral Education (1961 [1902-1903]), The Evolution of Educational Thought (1977 [1904-1905]), The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915 [1912]), and Pragmatism and Sociology (1983 [1913-1914]) attest to a very different conception of sociology—one with particular relevance to the study of human knowing, acting, and interchange. Although scarcely known in the social sciences, Emile Durkheim's (1993 [1887]) "La Science Positive de la Morale en Allemagne" ["The Scientific Study of Morality in Germany"] is an exceptionally important statement for establishing the base of much of Durkheim's subsequent social thought and for comprehending the field of sociology more generally. This includes the structuralist-pragmatist divide and the more distinctively humanist approach to the study of community life that Durkheim most visibly develops later (1961 [1902-1903]; 1977 [1904-1905]; 1915 [1912]; 1983 [1913-1914]) in his career.

Focusing on Alexander the False Prophet and The Lover of Lies, two texts from the Greek poet-philosopher Lucian of Samosata (circa 120-200) of the Classical Roman era, this paper considers (a) charisma, magic, and spirituality as aspects of an interconnected, collectively achieved, developmental process associated with the emergence of a religious cult. Somewhat relatedly, this paper also acknowledges (b) people's broader, longstanding fascinations with matters that seem incredulous. Depicting a more sustained realm of prophetic activity and an account of people's intrigues with the supernatural, Lucian's texts offer some especially valuable transhistorical and transcultural reference points for the broader sociological study of human knowing and acting. The paper concludes with a consideration of the implications of these matters for the study of people's involvements in religion and spirituality as humanly-engaged realms of endeavor and interchange.

The term "rhetoric" often has been maligned by those lacking familiarity with classical Greek and Latin scholarship. However, a more sustained, historically-informed examination of persuasive interchange is of fundamental importance for the study of human knowing and acting across the humanities and social sciences, as well as all other realms of community life. While acknowledging several contemporary scholars who have reengaged aspects of classical Greek and Latin rhetoric, this statement gives particular attention to the works of Kenneth Burke and the linkages of Burke's writings with Aristotle's Rhetoric, as well as American pragmatist thought and the ethnographically, conceptually-oriented sociology known as symbolic interactionism (Blumer 1969; Strauss 1993; Prus 1996; 1997; 1999; 2015; Prus and Grills 2003). Because scholarship does not exist as isolated instances of genius, even the productions of highly accomplished individuals such as Kenneth Burke are best understood within the context of a horizontal- temporal, as well as a vertical-historical intellectual community. Accordingly, Burke's contributions to the human sciences more generally and pragmatist social theory (along with its sociological extension, symbolic interaction) more specifically are best comprehended within this broader, historically-enabled scholarly context. Kenneth Burke's dramatistic pragmatism is not the only missing link between classical Greek thought and symbolic interactionism, but Burke's work on rhetoric represents a particularly important medium for extending the conceptual and analytic parameters of contemporary symbolic interaction. Indeed, Kenneth Burke's scholarship has important implications for the fuller study of community life as implied in the most fundamental and enabling terms of human knowing and acting.

Lucian of Samosata (circa 120-200) may be primarily envisioned as a poet-philosopher from the classical Roman era. However, the material he develops on religion not only anticipates important aspects of contemporary pragmatist/constructionist approaches to the sociology of religion but also provides some particularly compelling insights into religion as a humanly engaged realm of reality. Following an introduction to a pragmatist approach to the study of religion, this paper presents a synoptic overview of several of Lucian's texts on religion. In addition to the significance of Lucian's materials for comprehending an era of Roman and Greek civilization, as well as their more general sources of intellectual and aesthetic stimulation, these texts also provide an array of valuable transhistorical reference points and alert scholars in the field of religion to some ways in which the study of religion could be more authentically approached within the social sciences. The paper concludes with a consideration of the affinities of Lucian's depictions of religion with pragmatist, interactionist, and associated approaches as this pertains to the study of religion as a realm of human involvement.

Although the works of three early Italian Renaissance poets, Brunetto Latini (1220-1294), Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), and Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375), may seem far removed from the social science ventures of the 21st century, these three Italian authors provide some exceptionally valuable materials for scholars interested in the study of human knowing and acting. As central participants in the 13th-14th century "humanist movement" (in which classical Greek and Latin scholarship were given priority in matters of intellectual development), Brunetto Latini, Dante Alighieri, and Giovanni Boccaccio helped sustain an analytic focus on human lived experience. Most of the materials addressed here are extensively fictionalized, but our interests are in the sociological insights that these authors achieve, both in their accounts of the characters and interchanges portrayed in their texts and in their modes of presentation as authors. Although lacking the more comprehensive aspects of Chicago-style symbolic interactionist (Mead 1934; Blumer 1969) theory and research, these early Renaissance texts are remarkably self-reflective in composition. Thus, these statements provide us with valuable insights into the life-worlds of (a) those of whom the authors speak, (b) those to whom the authors address their works, and (c) the authors themselves as people involved in generating aspects of popular culture through their poetic endeavors. More specifically, these writers enable us to appreciate aspects of pragmatist emphases on human knowing and acting through their attentiveness to people's perspectives, speech, deliberation, action, and interaction. In addressing affective relationships, introducing generic standpoints, and considering morality as community matters, these materials offer contemporary scholars in the social sciences some particularly instructive transhistorical and transcultural comparative and conceptual reference points. Inspired by the remarkable contributions of the three 13th-14th century Italian poets and some 12th- 13th century French predecessors, the Epilogue direct specific attention to the ways in which authors might engage poetic productions as "producers" and "analysts" of fictionalized entertainment.

Whereas the fields of poetic expression and pragmatist philosophy may seem some distance apart, a closer examination of the poetics literature from the early Greeks onward provides testimony to the more general viability of the pragmatist analysis of community life, particularly as this has come to be associated with pragmatism's sociological derivative, symbolic interaction. Following a brief overview of the Greek, Roman, and Christian roots of contemporary fictional representations, attention is given to the ways that pragmatist concerns with human activity were addressed within the context of poetic expression in 12th-13th century France. Whereas the pre-Renaissance texts considered here exhibit pronounced attentiveness to Christian theology, they also build heavily on Latin sources (especially Virgil and Ovid [see Prus 2013a]). Among the early French poets who address the matters of human knowing and acting in more direct and consequential terms are: Alan de Lille (c. 1120-1203) who wrote The Plaint of Nature and Anticlaudianus; Andreas Capellanus (text, c. 1185) the author of The Art of Courtly Love; and Guillaume de Lorris (c. 1212-1237) and Jean de Meun (c. 1235-1305) who, in sequence, co-authored The Romance of the Rose. Given our interest in the ways in which those in the poetic community helped sustain an analytic focus on human lived experience, particular consideration is given to these early French authors' attentiveness to (1) the relationships, identities, activities, and tactical engagements that people develop around romantic relationships; (2) the sense-making activities of those about whom they write, as well as their own interpretive practices as authors and analysts; (3) the ways in which the people within the communities that they portray knowingly grapple with religious and secular morality (and deviance); and (4) more generic features of human standpoints and relationships. Clearly, the poets referenced here are not the first to pursue matters of these sorts. However, their materials are important not only for their popular intrigues, creativity, and effectiveness in "moving poetics out of the dark ages" but also for encouraging a broader interest in considerations of the human condition than that defined by philosophy and rhetoric.

In contrast to those who more characteristically approach emotion as an individual realm of experience of more distinctive physiological and/or psychological sorts, this paper addresses emotionality as a socially experienced, linguistically enabled, activity-based process. While conceptually and methodologically situated within contemporary symbolic interactionist thought (Mead 1934; Blumer 1969; Strauss 1993; Prus 1996; 1997; 1999; Prus and Grills 2003), this statement is centrally informed by the pragmatist considerations of emotionality that Aristotle (circa 384-322 BCE) develops in Rhetoric. Although barely known to those in the human sciences, Aristotle's Rhetoric provides a great deal of insight into people's definitions of, and experiences with, a wide array of emotions. Addressing matters of persuasive interchange in political, judicial, and evaluative contexts, Aristotle gives particular attention to the intensification and neutralization of people's emotional states. This includes (1) anger and calm, (2) friendship and enmity, (3) fear and confidence, (4) shame and shamelessness, (5) kindness and inconsideration, (6) pity and indignation, and (7) envy and emulation. Following an introduction to "rhetoric" (as the study of persuasive interchange) and "emotionality," this paper briefly (1) outlines a pragmatist/interactionist approach to the study of emotionality, (2) considers Aristotle as a sociological pragmatist, (3) locates Aristotle's work within the context of classical Greek thought, (4) acknowledges the relationship of emotionality and morality, and (5) addresses emotionality as a generic social process. Following (6) a more sustained consideration of emotionality within the context of Aristotle's Rhetoric, the paper concludes with (7) a short discussion of the importance of Aristotle's work for studying emotionality as a realm of human lived experience on a contemporary plane.

Ovid (Ovidius – Publius Ovidius Naso; 43 BCE-18 CE) is well known in classical studies and poetic circles for his insightful portrayals of heterosexual relations. However, his The Art of Love and related texts have received scant attention from those in the social sciences. Ovid's writings on love may be best known for their advisory and entertainment motifs, but this same set of texts also provides an extended and comparatively detailed set of observations on heterosexual interchanges, as well as some remarkably astute analysis of interpersonal relations more generally. Developed within a symbolic interactionist frame (Mead 1934; Blumer 1969; Strauss 1993; Prus 1996; 1997; 1999), this paper gives particular attention to the processes by which people engage others in romantic contexts, make sense of their experiences with one another, deal with an assortment of third-parties, and manage wide ranges of related emotional sensations as they work their ways through aspects of the broader relationship process (from preliminary anticipations and initial encounters to terminations and re-involvements of relationships). It is in these respects that this paper considers the more distinctive ethnographic potential of Ovid's depictions of love in the Roman classical era. As an instance of ethno-history, Ovid's considerations of people's involvements with love, sex, and romance, as well as the varying emotional states that people experience along the way, add some highly instructive cross-cultural and trans-historical dimensions to more contemporary, generic examinations of affective relationships. Using Ovid's materials as an ethno-historical database with which to assess contemporary interactionist notions of "developing relationships," this paper concludes with a consideration of the implications of Ovid's works and contemporary interactionist studies for research on intimate relationships, emotionality, and influence work.

In contrast to those who more characteristically approach emotion as an individual realm of experience of more distinctive physiological and/or psychological sorts, this paper addresses emotionality as a socially experienced, linguistically enabled, activity-based process. While conceptually and methodologically situated within contemporary symbolic interactionist thought (Mead 1934; Blumer 1969; Strauss 1993; Prus 1996; 1997; 1999; Prus and Grills 2003), this statement is centrally informed by the pragmatist considerations of emotionality that Aristotle (circa 384-322 BCE) develops in Rhetoric. Although barely known to those in the human sciences, Aristotle's Rhetoric provides a great deal of insight into people's definitions of, and experiences with, a wide array of emotions. Addressing matters of persuasive interchange in political, judicial, and evaluative contexts, Aristotle gives particular attention to the intensification and neutralization of people's emotional states. This includes (1) anger and calm, (2) friendship and enmity, (3) fear and confidence, (4) shame and shamelessness, (5) kindness and inconsideration, (6) pity and indignation, and (7) envy and emulation. Following an introduction to "rhetoric" (as the study of persuasive interchange) and "emotionality," this paper briefly (1) outlines a pragmatist/interactionist approach to the study of emotionality, (2) considers Aristotle as a sociological pragmatist, (3) locates Aristotle's work within the context of classical Greek thought, (4) acknowledges the relationship of emotionality and morality, and (5) addresses emotionality as a generic social process. Following (6) a more sustained consideration of emotionality within the context of Aristotle's Rhetoric, the paper concludes with (7) a short discussion of the importance of Aristotle's work for studying emotionality as a realm of human lived experience on a contemporary plane.

Plato may be best known as a philosopher, but his depictions of people's involvements in religion are important for social scientists not only because of the transcultural and transhistorical resources that they offer those in the sociology of religion, but also because of their more general pragmatist contributions to the study of human group life. Thus, although Plato (a) exempts religion from a more thorough going dialectic analysis of the sort to which he subjects many other realms of human knowing and acting (e.g., truth, justice, courage, rhetoric), (b) explicitly articulates and encourages theological viewpoints in some of his texts, and (c) sometimes writes as though things can be known only as ideal types or pure forms in an afterlife existence, Plato also (d) engages a number of consequential pragmatist (also pluralist, secular) aspects of people's experiences with religion. In developing his materials on religion, Plato rejects the (popular) notions of the Olympian gods described by Homer and Hesiod as mythical as well as sacrilegious. Still, it is instructive to be mindful of Plato's notions of divinity when considering the more distinctively sociological matters he addresses (as in the problematics of promoting and maintaining religious viewpoints on both collective and individual levels and discussions of the interlinkages of religion, morality, and deviance). Still, each of the four texts introduced here assume significantly different emphases and those interested in the study of human group life should be prepared to adjust accordingly as they examine these statements. All four texts are consequential for a broader "sociology of religion," but Timaeus and Phaedo are notably more theological in emphases whereas Republic and Laws provide more extended insight into religion as a humanly engaged realm of endeavor. The paper concludes with an abbreviated comparison of Plato's notions of religion with Chicago- style symbolic interactionist (Mead 1934; Blumer 1969; Prus 1996; 1997; 1999; Prus and Grills 2003) approaches to the study of religion. Addressing some related matters, an epilogue briefly draws attention to some of the affinities of Emile Durkheim's The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life with Plato's analysis of religion.

In contrast to those who more characteristically approach emotion as an individual realm of experience of more distinctive physiological and/or psychological sorts, this paper addresses emotionality as a socially experienced, linguistically enabled, activity-based process. While conceptually and methodologically situated within contemporary symbolic interactionist thought (Mead 1934; Blumer 1969; Strauss 1993; Prus 1996; 1997; 1999; Prus and Grills 2003), this statement is centrally informed by the pragmatist considerations of emotionality that Aristotle (circa 384-322 BCE) develops in Rhetoric. Although barely known to those in the human sciences, Aristotle's Rhetoric provides a great deal of insight into people's definitions of, and experiences with, a wide array of emotions. Addressing matters of persuasive interchange in political, judicial, and evaluative contexts, Aristotle gives particular attention to the intensification and neutralization of people's emotional states. This includes (1) anger and calm, (2) friendship and enmity, (3) fear and confidence, (4) shame and shamelessness, (5) kindness and inconsideration, (6) pity and indignation, and (7) envy and emulation. Following an introduction to "rhetoric" (as the study of persuasive interchange) and "emotionality," this paper briefly (1) outlines a pragmatist/interactionist approach to the study of emotionality, (2) considers Aristotle as a sociological pragmatist, (3) locates Aristotle's work within the context of classical Greek thought, (4) acknowledges the relationship of emotionality and morality, and (5) addresses emotionality as a generic social process. Following (6) a more sustained consideration of emotionality within the context of Aristotle's Rhetoric, the paper concludes with (7) a short discussion of the importance of Aristotle's work for studying emotionality as a realm of human lived experience on a contemporary plane.