Dialectics, post-dialectics, and the democratic argument of Lysias XII

Abstract

The theory of post-dialectics maintains that dialectical perspectives cannot account for the persuasive force of arguments which transgress dialectical norms. One particularly consequential form of post-dialectical argument, called “fascistic argument” by Paliewicz and McHendry, seeks to dominate its discursive space rather than to test claims and give reasons within the terms of that discourse. In this essay I affirm that pragma-dialectics can perceive and explain post-dialectical persuasive forces while retaining a fundamental commitment to dialectical norms. I support this claim with an analysis of the argumentative features of Lysias XII Against Eratosthenes, an instance of forensic oratory from fifth-century BCE Athens. The rhetorical analysis of Lysias XII identifies manifestations of each of Paliewicz and McHendry’s five elements of fascistic argument and describes these manifestations of fascistic argument using the pragma-dialectical terminology of strategic maneuvering. The argument practices of Lysias XII diverge from the theory of fascistic argument by negating disinterested choice instead of choice per se, so they are identified with the distinct but related concept of democratic argument. I further affirm that explaining post-dialectical forces from a dialectical perspective can be enabled by enhancing the generative partnership of rhetoric and dialectics in argumentation studies.