| Abstrakt: |
Rhetoric is full of militaristic imagination. This paper focuses on the similarities between rhetorical dispositions and military strategies, especially of deployment, based on a selection of eastern and western rhetorical materials of composition. Quintilian, Sun-Zi and Pak Chiwon address the relation between argumentation and violent conflict, especially war. The rhetoric of argumentation carries this militaristic imagination because argumentation is a substitute for violence, a different way of experiencing and addressing conflict. The rhetoric of military deployment reveals a dominative mode and attitude in persuasion and communication. This betrayal is finally conducive to cooperative dialogue. The rhetoricians need to confront the still heard criticism that they are deceptive and manipulating in the matters of their language use. If war cannot be abolished because we cannot extinguish our aggression ingrained in our blood, our frank concession of our hidden drives of violence and domination can be constructive to our dialogic understanding and communicative grammar of assent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
