Aristotelian and Rogerian Rhetoric.
One of our most influential composition texts is Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. In it, Young, Becker, and Pike distinguish between classical and contemporary "domains of rhetoric"; in accordance with this distinction they differentiate Aristotle from Carl Rogers. In her article, "Aristotelian vs. Rogerian Argument: A Reassessment" (CCC, May 1979), Andrea Lunsford disputed the validity of the distinction, virtually "baptizing" Aristotle as a Rogers of his time. However, upon closer examination, Young, Becker, and Pike's perception of differences between Aristotle and Rogers can be confirmed. Furthermore, there is justifiable reason for maintaining Young, Becker, and Pike's distinction as a service to our students who need help in sensing when it is appropriate to confront "opponents" and when it is more advantageous to strive for change through mutual acceptance and understanding by each party of the other's views. The classical tradition in rhetoric, developed by Aristotle and modified by the Roman rhetoricians Cicero and Quintilian, was designed for use chiefly in law courts, political meetings, and religious ceremonies. The underlying principle of Aristotle's Rhetoric is that man is a rational animal, capable of using logical reasoning as the basis for argument.2 The strategy Artistotle uses to analyze rhetorical transactions is focussed, therefore, on the processes of logical reasoning-rational men using reasonable means (enthymemes) in exhorting or dissuading (deliberative oratory), in praising or blaming (epideictic oratory), and in accusing or defending (forensic oratory). The Rogerian strategy is based upon a different set of conditions and assumptions. Since Rogers is writing primarily from the context of patientclient therapy, his communication theory is applicable especially to rhetorical transactions outside of the advocacy situation. Young, Becker, and Pike, the principal proponents of a Rogerian-based rhetoric, point out that the Rogerian strategy "rests on the assumption that a man holds to his beliefs about who he is and what the world is like because other beliefs threaten his iden-