Rhetorical argument: what it is.

The position of those who make rhetorical arguments is that of *concerned citizen*. In other words, we don't claim the expertise of the authorities in academic, government, or corporate circles. Yet, unlike the experts, we have a legitimate interest in shaping and reflecting a common world that we make by our production of arguments. In a sense it is the common world that is the *special* interest of the citizen.

This view of rhetoric is grounded in the republican vision of oratory. From Cicero and to the British rhetoricians of the 18th century, rhetoric is seen as the art of inventing and shaping arguments. There is no rigid or timeless standard for the production of these arguments; rhetoric is really grounded in the notion of a common adventure. The bond that holds the artifice together is the desire to maintain a common world; the idiosyncratic is not invited.

My questions: What is the condition of rhetoric after the technological revolution? What happens to the public sphere once it requires massive amount of technical expertise to make 'things' operate? What is the condition of rhetoric after the advent of romanticism? When *authentic* discourse replaces the role of artifice, what happens to rhetoric? Do we have a topical system for the invention of arguments today? If so, who has formulated it? Michael C. Leff? Walter Jost? Eugene Garver? Rosa Eberley?

MGreer