Historic Justice and the Rule of Law

Chaim Perelman brings up some very interesting points in his essay "The Social Contexts of Argumentation" relating to how humankind has come to be governed by rules of law. Perelman writes: "it is easy to understand that argumentation should sometimes be favored, sometimes banned and often regulated by those who hold power or authority in society."

From this thought it follows logically that not all arguments are destined to be heard, and that it is possible that some of the best arguments will lose out due to forces of social control that dictate who and what arguments are legitimate.

The power of words is nowhere more evident than in the world of law and order, where legal statutes existing in written form leap from the page to influence the concrete real world and to affect and impact humans' material lives.

In legal situations the power of words makes itself very apparent with words directly affecting peoples' lives. Laws are after all just words, but in our civilized age no one can question the power and importance of the written laws that bind and divide human society.

Perelman explains how "precedent plays a quite primary role in argumentation, the rationalityof which is linked with the observance of the rule of justice, which demands equal treatment for similar situations." As Perelman tells us, "the rule of justice thus appears as the constituent principle of historic reason."

It is a given that over the timeline modern history, there exist many injustices which have been doled out by one nation upon another and by governments upon their own people, the realities of criminal acts of government and state relations will perhaps never cease to exist. In fact, it might be said that human history is shaped as much by the heinous and criminal acts of rulers and governments as it is by good and just actions of ruling powers.

It's a sobering thought to consider how policies which constitute present systems of law and order could have possibly been influenced by negative turns of historic reason. Do unjust laws yet exist?

Rhetorical Darkness

Was there rhetoric in America before Columbus?

Seems like a stupid question, but what strikes me about the timeline of the study of rhetoric is the eurocentric nature of the entire thing. I understand that we are in a world where Western culture and thought is the dominant power, but if rhetoric is such a key element of human social interaction, it follows that people from the dark continents of Africa, Asia, and the Americas also practice and utilize those same elements of rhetoric subscribed to by the towers of the art we are learn from and are taught in the American university.

When our whirlwind tour of the history of the world swept through the Middle Ages (previously called the Dark Ages) of European history, I was reminded of the fact that that era coincided with the rise and spread of Islam. Religion has always been a practical and very serious forum where the arts of the rhetor prove to be especially useful and valuable.

All religions make appeals to the those people who would be true believers (or even sometime subscribers). Islam is not the only major religion of the world in the rhetorical (and often very real) war for the souls of men; Oriental religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism also offer powerful appeals to the ethos, pathos, and logos of the human masses.

Furthermore, in all the corners of the world that humankind has called home indigenous peoples established levels of law and order that sufficed through history. The soil of Africa, Asia, and the Americas has supported empires which practiced advanced forms of government.

In this light, American academic rhetorical studies seem a bit neglectful in sticking to the rhetorical guns of the West.