Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 99–126

Chapter 5
Reason and passion in political rhetoric

The case of Louise Michel’s (1830–1905) revolutionary discourse

The central question, which I wish to answer with the help of the following case study in political rhetoric, can be formulated as follows: Can Louise Michel’s revolutionary rhetoric successfully combine reason (logos), character (ethos) and passion (pathos)? Michel’s revolutionary rhetoric is part of a long tradition of outstanding written and/or spoken freedom discourse. Moreover, it is an example of how an individual speaker adapts to and/or modifies existing preconditions and conventions within the genres of deliberation (communicative activity types within this genre: e.g. political speech, political essay, plenary debate) and adjudication (communicative activity types within this genre: e.g. court proceedings, arbitration; cf. van Eemeren, 2010, p. 143).
In order to explore the general historical background of Michel’s speech, I first briefly summarize the philosophical discussion of the concept of „freedom“. After that, the central question will be tentatively answered on the basis of the classical Aristotelian trichotomy of logos, ethos and pathos. Louise Michel has been praised for her extraordinary courage, altruistic attitude and relentless energy. So there is no doubt that her ethos had a considerable impact on her rhetorical success. She was also highly efficient as far as the arousal of strong emotions in her audience is concerned (pathos).
Less attention has been paid to Michel’s anarchist arguments (logos) and their verbal presentation. In this paper, some of the most important arguments to be found in her political speeches and articles will be analysed and critically evaluated. Moreover, Michel’s verbal presentation techniques will be described.
Apart from the Aristotelian concepts of logos, ethos and pathos, Critical Discourse Analysis (cf. Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012) and Pragma-Dialectics, especially van Eemeren’s (2010, p. 40) elaboration of the concept of “strategic maneuvering” and its adaptation to the context of political rhetoric (cf. van Eemeren & Garssen, 2012), will be taken as a theoretical starting point. I conclude that Michel only partially succeeds in combining rhetorical efficiency with standards of rational argumentation. All in all, however, her political discourse has to be taken seriously.
Article outline
  • 0.Introduction
  • 1.Freedom
  • 2.Louise Michel: Biography
  • 3.Louise Michel: Arguments
    • 3.1Argument from Alternatives
    • 3.2Causal Arguments
    • 3.3Argument from Figurative Analogy
  • 4.Evaluation of Michel’s Arguments
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.06kie
References (83)
References
Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in Political Interviews. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aristoteles (2002). Rhetorik. Ed. and transl. by C. Rapp. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
(2004). Topik. Ed. and transl. by T. Wagner & C. Rapp. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Bakunin, M. (1871/1998). Gott und der Staat. Grafenau: Trotzdem Verlag.Google Scholar
Bieri, P. (2001). Das Handwerk der Freiheit. Über die Entdeckung des eigenen Willens. München: Hanser.Google Scholar
(2005). Der Wille ist frei. Der Spiegel, 10.1.2005, 124–125.Google Scholar
Chastre, L. (2011). Louise Michel. Une femme libre. Paris: Oscar éditeur.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005). Chomsky on Anarchism. Ed. by B. Pateman. Edinburgh: AK Press.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. (2010). Selbst ist der Mensch. Körper, Geist und die Entstehung des menschlichen Bewusstseins. München: Siedler.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen B. (2012). Exploiting the Room for Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Dealing with Audience Demand in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring Argumentative Context (pp. 43–58). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, and Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Special Issue: Perspectives on Strategic Maneuvering. Argumentation, 20 (4), 381–392.Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., Fairclough, N. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis, Oxford: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (2015). A Pragma-dialectical Approach of Legal Argumentation: The Role of Pragmatic Argumentation in the Justification or Judicial Decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice (pp. 99–119). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fromm, E. (1980). Die Furcht vor der Freiheit. München: dtv.Google Scholar
Garssen, B. (1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
(2009). Comparing the Incomparable: Figurative Analogies in a Dialectical Testing Procedure. In F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on Problems of Argumentation (pp. 133–140). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garssen, B., & Kienpointner, M. (2011). Figurative Analogy in Political Argumentation. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck-Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, X. (2013). La vierge rouge. Biographie de Louise Michel. Paris: Les Éditions de Paris.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1988). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1821/1970). Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. von. (1960). Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Gränzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen. In Werke in fünf Bänden (pp. 56–233). Bd I. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Ilie, C. (2009). Strategies of Refutation by Definition: A Pragma-Rhetorical Approach to Refutations in American Public Speech. In F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on Problems of Argumentation (pp. 35–51). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Parliamentary Discourse and Deliberative Rhetoric. In P. Ihalainen, C. Ilie, & K. Palonen (Eds.), Parliament and Parliamentarism. A Comparative History of a European Concept (pp. 133–145). New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
Jelinek, G. (2009). Reden, die die Welt veränderten. Salzburg: Ecowin.Google Scholar
Juthe, A. (2005). Argument by Analogy. Argumentation, 19 (1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahane, H. (1976). Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1788/2012). Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
(1993). The Empirical Relevance of Ch. Perelman’s New Rhetoric. Argumentation, 7 (4), 419–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Vernünftig argumentieren. Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
(2007a). Revolutionary Rhetoric: Georg Büchner’s “Der Hessische Landbote” (1834). A Case Study. Argumentation, 21 (2) (2007), 129–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007b). Zur Revolutionsrhetorik von Georg Büchner, Rosa Luxemburg und Wladimir I. Lenin. Eine vergleichende Analyse. In U. Doleschal et al. (Hg.), Sprache und Diskurs in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Interkulturelle Perspektiven (pp. 91–106). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2012a). Anarchistische Rhetorik gegen den Krieg. Zu Emma Goldmans Rede vom 14. Juni 1917 gegen die Zwangseinberufung in den U.S.A. Forum Artis Rhetoricae, 4 (31), 17–33.Google Scholar
(2012b). When Figurative Analogies Fail: Fallacious Uses of Arguments from Analogy. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.) (2012), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory (pp.111–125). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Strategic Maneuvering in the Political Rhetoric of Barack Obama. Journal of Language and Politics, 12 (3), 357–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Freiheit oder Tod. Zu einem Leitmotiv politischer Rhetorik innerhalb und außerhalb Europas. In G. Ueding (Hg.), Wege moderner Rhetorikforschung (pp. 595–615). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
(2014b). La liberté ou la mort. Les arguments émotionnels dans les Philippiques de Cicéron. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours. [En ligne] 13 (2014) ([URL]). DOI logo
(2016): Argumentation and Latin Linguistics: pico della Mirandola Oration dc Hominis Dignitate. In P., poccetti (ed.), Latinitatis Rationes (pp.840–868). Berlin: de Groyter.
Kienpointner, M., & Orlandini, A. (2005). La doxa de la justice à travers les langues et les époques. Revue Internationale des droits de l’antiquité, 52: 181–206.Google Scholar
Kilian, M. (2008). “Keine Freiheit ohne Gleichheit”. Louise Michel (1830 oder 1833–1905). Lich: Verlag Edition.Google Scholar
Kropotkin, P. (1902/1955). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Boston/Mass.: Extending Horizons Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Don’t Think of an Elephant! White River Junction: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
(2006). Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America’s Most Important Idea. Picador: New York.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lumer, C. (2000). Reductionism in Fallacy Theory. Argumentation, 14 (4), 405–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luxemburg, R. (1918/2005). Zur russischen Revolution. In F. Keller , & St. Kraft (Hg.)(2005), Rosa Luxemburg. Denken und Leben einer internationalen Revolutionärin (pp. 49–50). Wien: Promedia.Google Scholar
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014). Emotive Language in Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maclellan, N. (2004): Louise Michel. Anarchist and Revolutionary Feminist, Jailed and Exiled for Leading the 1871 Popular Uprising in Paris. Melbourne: Ocean Press.Google Scholar
Martin, H. P., & Schumann, H. (1997). Die Globalisierungs-Falle. Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. London: Bildungs-Gesellschaft für Arbeiter.Google Scholar
Mengel, P. (1995). Analogien als Argumente. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Michel, L. (1871/1999). “Mes procès”. In L. Michel, La Commune (pp. 365–374). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
(1883). Le drapeau noir. In: [URL] (seen last time September 26, 2013).
(1890/2010). Prise de Possession. In L. Michel & S. Faure, Discours & articles (pp. 9–41). Noisy-le-Sec: l’Épervier.Google Scholar
(1896). Why I am an Anarchist. Liberty, 3.3, 26.Google Scholar
(1898/1999). La Commune. Histoire et souvenirs. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Micheli, R. (2010). L’émotion argumentée. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
Mill, J. St. (1946). On liberty and Considerations on Representative Government. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mullaney, M. M. (1990). Sexual Politics in the Career and Legend of Louise Michel. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 15 (2), 300–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orwell, G. (1989). Hommage to Catalonia. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1983). Traité de l’argumentation. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Pirie, M. (1985). The Book of the Fallacy. London: Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
Plantin, C. (2005). L’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Plug, H. J. (2015). Transparency in Legal Argumentation: Adapting to a Composite Audience. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice (pp. 121–132). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roth, G. (2004). Aus der Sicht des Gehirns. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Rubinelli, S. (2010). Ars Topica The Classical Techinque of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero, Dordrecht: Clower.Google Scholar
Schellens, P. J. (1985). Redelijke argumenten. Utrecht: ICG Printing.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. G. (2010). Demokratietheorien. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, R. (1962). Philosophie der Freiheit. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben.Google Scholar
Stowasser, H. (2009). Anarchie. Idee – Geschichte – Perspektiven. Hamburg: Nautilus.Google Scholar
Thoreau, H. D. (1849/1983). Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1999). Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werner, K., & Weiss, H. (2003). Das neue Schwarzbuch Markenfirmen. Wien: Deuticke.Google Scholar
Widmer, T. (2011). American Speeches. New York: Library of America. Paperback Classics.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (2009). The Discourse of Politics in Action. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woods, J. (2004). The Death of Argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kienpointner, Manfred
2021. The pen is mightier than the sword. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 9:2 ► pp. 215 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.