Abstract

Our varied communities of discourse face a rhetorical future shaped by juridical styles reminiscent of the "adversary culture" postulated by post-war American critic Lionel Trilling. Itself the subject of litigious debate. the adversarial spirit today shows few signs of weakening, but its influence can be better understood and guided along certain tracks. To influence this adversarial style in coming decades, we need to explore the difference between evidencebased reasoning, which draws on the sensationalist logic ofinduction. and reflexive reasoning, which draws on the second-order logic of presumption. Understanding the structures and dynamics of this reflexive style forces us to address our responsibilities as speakers, as we seek to shape our rhetorical future. Close examination of adversarial contlict may lead us toward useful consensus on how the new game should be played.

Highlights

  • Our varied communities of discourse face a rhetorical future shaped by juridical styles reminiscent of the "adversary culture" postulated by post-war American critic Lionel Trilling

  • Back in early March The New York Times carried a front-page story on the declining role of juries in the American legal process. It remains a powerful symbol of civic involvement, the American jury seems endangered in much the same way as the family farm: it thrives in the imagination but has virtually disappeared from the modern landscape

  • Saturated with popular novels and courtroom TV dramas, most well-meaning Americans believe that most legal disputes in our country are resolved by juries

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Our varied communities of discourse face a rhetorical future shaped by juridical styles reminiscent of the "adversary culture" postulated by post-war American critic Lionel Trilling. Lust as our legal culture has learned to live pretty much without juries, our broader public culture has learned to focus debate on second-order questions of method and process, beyond the surface issues of evidence and proof. Adversarial argument comes in many forms, but let me distinguish three modes for purpose of analysis.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call