The Useless-/Usefulness of Argumentation: The Dao of Disputation

This essay answers the call for culturally diverse studies of argumentation by examining Daoist (1) approaches to argumentation and contrasting them with Greco-Roman theorizing. Daoism is a key component of the Chinese philosophical tradition. Communication scholars increasingly have been interested in examining Daoist thought because it not only sheds light on alternative visions of rhetoric but also promotes understanding of Asian culture and advances intriguing philosophical principles (Chen & Holt, 2002; Combs, 2000; Crawford, 1996; Jensen, 1987, 1992; Lu, 1998; Oliver, 1961, 1971; Xiao, 2002). What has received relatively little attention, however, is the potential for Daoism to contribute to an understanding of argumentation. Perhaps this is because early studies announced the incompatibility of Daoism with argumentation (Jensen, 1987, 1992; Oliver, 1961, 1971). Argumentation is viewed in this scholarship as antithetical to Daoist principles such as unity, harmony, and noncontentiousness. Through analysis of the works of Laozi and Zhuangzi, (2) I go beyond the admonitions against argument found in previous research, and articulate principles of argumentation that stem from the Daoist worldview. It will be shown that Daoism, while differing in many key assumptions about the role and methods of disputation, is a vital addition to Greco-Roman theorizing about argumentation, enriching our understanding of human discursive practices. I begin by outlining and comparing critical Greco-Roman and Daoist views on cosmology, knowledge and reason, and language, in order to demonstrate the larger system of thought that collaborates in argumentation theories. Next, I sketch features of the Dao (3) of disputation by looking at argument as both useless and useful. Daoists are fond of using paradox as a motif for analysis, and Zhuangzi specifically considers useful/ useless in his writings. Finally, I examine potential implications of this study. This analysis contrasts Daoist and Greco-Roman argumentation, engages the nexus between broader philosophical positions and argumentation theories, and offers a more contextualized and deepened understanding of Daoist argument than previous scholarship. It maintains that Daoist argumentation offers a vital enhancement to the trajectories of current western rhetorical inquiry. CRITICAL VIEWS AND ARGUMENTATION Critical views of Laozi and Zhuangzi, specifically, positions they hold on cosmology, knowledge and reason, and language, (4) contrast with corresponding classical Greek perspectives." (5) These views are important philosophical underpinnings of Daoism and clarify key foundations of Daoist argumentation theories and practices. Seeing these foundational principles also allows one to imagine a trajectory for or constellation of Daoist ideas in order to assess my claims about how Daoism might inform contemporary argumentation theory. The distinction between classical Greek and Daoist views begins, at the most basic level, in their different cosmological views. Ames (1993) characterizes the Greek view as a "two-world" theory while the Chinese espouse a "one-world" view. To the Greeks, there is a permanent real world that stands apart from a varying world of appearance. This view assumes "that there exists some preassigned design that stands independent of the world it seeks to order" (Ames, 1993, p. 47). It is starkly exemplified by Plato's distinction between the true world of forms and the seductive pseudo-reality of the sensual world, and later by the Christian distinction between heaven and earth. It is also seen, in a different way, in Aristotle's distinctions between potentiality and actuality. The universal or permanent world also provides a benchmark for appropriate conduct. Actions can be judged as fight or wrong to the extent that they conform to the design or order of the ultimate reality. In Daoism, there is one world, and it alone constitutes reality. …