Contemporary Dialectic Idea

For my contemporary dialectic, I plan to advocate the use of an etic (outsider) approach to the study of other rhetorical traditions as opposed to an emic (insider) approach.  Although I tend to think that both approaches are necessary when describing a culture, I’d like to take this opportunity to delve further into the distinctions between the two approaches and how each one can add to studies on cultural and intercultural rhetoric.  I touched on this topic slightly in an earlier blog post when I discussed whether a cultural insider could objectively study his own culture.  My own interest in this conversation stems from my interest in looking at the shaping of different rhetorical traditions and how they are reshaped in their encounters with the dominant Western rhetorical tradition.

In terms of logic, I’m thinking about using Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric.  Specifically, I’m planning to argue from the quasi-logical definition of the goal of intercultural rhetorical study as it pertains to technical communication epistemology, which tends to prioritize generalizability.  I also plan to use arguments from example by referring to prominent etic-based studies that produce generalizable claims while not ignoring the perspectives of cultural insiders.  Also, the New Rhetoric seems to be more apt for generating argument given that the Toulmin model is geared towards argument analysis as opposed to argument creation.

I’m still working on the finer points of this dialectical exchange, but these are my thoughts at the present time.