Sunday, 11:00 – Rhetorical genres, Evangelical discourse and Secrecy in the democratic argument

11:00-12:30 Panel 8
Annenberg Forum, Carswell Hall

Seth Mulliken, North Carolina State University

Michael Hoppmann, Northeastern University
‘Genera Causarum and the Burden of Proof’

Kevin Heston, Wake Forest University
‘The Creation Museum: A New Rhetoric for an American Evangelical Movement’

Brandon Inabinet, Furman University
‘Arcana Imperii–Bank Secrets in “Democratical” Argument’

1st speaker: Michael Hoppmann, Northeastern University
Genera Causarum and the Burden of Proof

What reasons justify the need a theory of speech genres in rhetoric?

  • Systematic: organizing and teaching rhetorical knowledge
  • Analytic: understanding speakers obligations and felicity conditions
  • Heuristic: accessing rhetorical knowledge for oratorical praxis

What are the qualities of a good theory of speech?

  • Completeness: cover all rhetoric instances
  • Unambiguousness: each rhetoric instance should fall under only one genre
  • Simplicity: should be preserved

We do not have a clear definition of the genera causarum. Certain specific instances are easy to place (murder trial, eulogy, healthcare debate etc.), but not all of them.

The classical division of genres has three categories:

  1. judicial,
  2. deliberative and
  3. demonstrative.

The distinctions between these categories can be defined with the help of six criteria:

  • Time: past, future, present
  • Place: in court or outside of court
  • Audience: judges or observers
  • Telos: just and unjust; advantageous and harmful; honorable and shameful
  • Activity: accusation and defense; exhortation and dissuasion; praise and blame
  • Certainty: uncertain or certain

An alternative is defining the three genres according to the burden of proof:

  1. Judicial: qualified burden of proof (95%)
  2. Deliberative: simple burden of proof + status quo presumptions (>50%)
  3. Demonstrative: relative burden of proof (to the status quo or to rivaling speakers)

2nd speaker: Kevin Heston, Wake Forest University
The Creation Museum: A New Rhetoric for an American Evangelical Movement

The Creation Museum is more than a wide spot in the road. It is a 68,000 sq ft facility and associated 7 acres of theme park that opened in June 2007 and has since attracted more than 900,000 visitors.

The Museum presents men and women living together with dinosaurs before The Fall.

Graffiti alley: interference of the secular world is what causes problems.

The primary purpose of the Creation Museum: to create an army of apologists.

What does to evangelize mean? Historically used with varying degrees of specificity, but usually taken to mean to promote the Gospel and convert people to Jesus Christ.

Anti-intellectualism and Evangelism: “the more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee.”

Anti-intellectual sentiment and social dynamics – from the rural perspective, they feel

  • Abandonment,
  • Loss of representative voice and
  • Emergence of religious options

Televangelism induced a false sense of recruiting success.

Pat Robertson’s bid for Republican Nomination in 1988 started a spiral of silence and muted the religious discourse.

Simons’ three rhetorical requirements to become and remain a leader:

  1. Attract, maintain, and mold workers into an efficiently organized unit
  2. Secure adoption of ideology by the large structure
  3. React to resistance generated by the large structure

Inversion of Simons’ three:

  1. Ignore the constitutive needs of the followers of a dominant system
  2. Discard the long established constitutive ideology of their followers
  3. Abandon their followers and join the new order

The Creation Museum is primarily about reinvigorating the Christian voice.

Referring back to Langsdorf’s presentation on Friday and the relation between data and backing:

  • Not under pressure to be articulated (not required to be made explicit)
  • When articulated: not required on the level of scientific rigor
  • Instead the goal is Narrative Harmony

3rd speaker: Brandon Inabinet, Furman University
Arcana Imperii–Bank Secrets in “Democratical” Argument

The presentation centers around authority falling under questioning, especially in relation to banking practices.

Early U.S. bank troubles correspond to certain topics today: corruption and government authority. In such a context, the norms of argument change dramatically.

Dominant communicative form of dialogue: the public letter.

Indirect communication was used to distinguish authority from text (see Kierkegaard).

The exclusive status of the bank and its extent of control over the nation became a subject of criticism.

Print circulation of public letters might provide civic implication (they would visualize themselves as participating).

The greatest threat to a republic is secrecy. Conspiracy theories render leader arguments useless, as they are viewed as insincere.

Where will our contemporary anxiety lead us in the following years?


Friday, 11:00 – Presumptions and the burden of proof

11:00-12:00 Panel 1 – An Overview and Conversation: Presumptions and Burdens of Proof: An Anthology

DeTamble Auditorium, Tribble Hall

Chair and Respondent:Frank Zenker, Lund University, Sweden

Hans V. Hansen, University of Windsor, Canada, ‘The Early History of Presumptions and Burdens’

Fred J. Kauffeld, Edgewood College, Wisconsin, ‘Modern Developments regarding Presumptions and Burdens of Proof’

The first panel of the day, facilitated by Frank Zenker, from Lund University, focused on the concept of burden of proof, its historical context and potential developments.

Hans Hansen, from the University of Windsor, gave a concise overview of an Early History of Presumptions and Burdens, referring to issues such as:

  • Behtam’s distinction between legal and natural presumption;
  • Whately’s support for certain presumptions, such as that of innocence until proven guilty, private over public ownership, or supporting the status quo;
  • Sidgwick’s distinction between the burden of proof and the need of proof (that is “requested” by the audience);
  • Thayer’s understanding of burden of proof as having a role that is both a proactive (when supporting a proposition) and a reactive (when arguing against a proposition);
  • Ilbert’s suggestion that natural presumptions are based on experiences, whereas legal presumptions ought to be based on factual evidence.

Hansen’s conclusion pointed out the ambiguity of “presumption” and the lack of a coherent understanding of how burden of proof should work.

Fred Kauffeld, from Edgewood College, expanded on this last point in his presentation on Modern Developments regarding Presumptions and Burdens of Proof, by arguing in favor of a better organization and systematization of our knowledge and an understanding of burden of proof as an obligation in every field (not just in the legal field). Drawing on arguments from Thomas Goodnight, Kauffeld also suggested that we often make the mistake of supposing that presumptions are always in favor of the status quo, when in fact presumptions operating in public discourse rely in a combination of principles (respect for the past, aesthetic, political etc.). Work is still needed to provide a common ground for the various perspectives that account for the burden of proof in a certain field (political, sociological, anthropological etc.)

The Q&A section near the end of the panel engaged the audience in a discussion on issues such as the challenges of understanding the burden of proof in a field such as medicine (which is not an explicit two-party system, unlike the legal one), or working with presumptions as narratives in trying to understand a certain reasoning (such as that of a member of a jury when making up their minds).

Over and out (to lunch).