phrase, retrospective prospect, stolen from Kenneth Burke, describes one of the processes of Burke's book revisions. He would read what he had written, change very little, and then update with essay which both summarizes in new language what he had already written and projects its implications for the future. Thus he looked backwards to view things forwards. purpose of this essay is to summarize what has already been said in the preceding essays and speculate about their implications for our organization as we salute its Golden Anniversary. A REVIEW OF THE PAST It is customary to contextualize our organization, and Reid's opening essay reminds us of our deep roots. He explores the tradition of forensics, but especially debate, through a deal of western history. While our association has come to represent more than debate, the argumentative perspective is probably the motive for its existence. first national conference, held in 1974, emphasized this view by defining forensics as an educational activity primarily concerned with using argumentative perspective in examining problems and communicating with people (McBath, 1975, p. 11). second national conference defined the argumentative perspective by saying it views forensics as a form of rhetorical scholarship, which takes various forms, including debate, public address and the interpretation of literature (Parson, 1984, p. 9). In tracing forensics activities back 2400 years, Reid emphasizes how both the theory and practice was a major focus of schools, initially the sophists. While the goals of Protagoras's exercises were political and legal performances, the scene for his exercises was in the academy, even in its primitive form. When the Romans developed a more elaborate progymnasmata, including the simplest telling of the fable to the more advanced controversiae and suasoriae, these activities were also in the academy. Whether the activities translated to the larger social context depended upon the form of government, and under most of the emperors, the activities were excluded from public discussion. Stated differently, Reid reminds us that debate and other forensic activities are in the academy, and to a very large extent they have remained in the academy to this day, with the attendant benefits and disadvantages. That this assummption is largely taken for granted is evident from the 1974 National Conference description: Forensics serves as a curricular and co-curricular laboratory for improving students' abilities in research, analysis, and oral communication. This perspective organizes scholarship, stimulating research and creative activity to promote understanding of personal and public issues through (McBath, 1975, p. 9). In other words, personal and public issues were to be practiced in the academy, and their transfer to the real world was assumed. notion of a public sphere of argument, borrowed from Jurgen Habermas, outlines a place where personal and public issues were to be discussed. Phillips differentiates the public sphere from the private and technical ones: The private sphere contains the discourse of personal relations, the technical sphere contains the discourse of experts and specialists, and the public sphere is a transcendent one that facilitates discussions related to the public good (Phillips, 1996, p. 236). Goodnight echoes this distinction: Transcending the personal and technical is the public, a domain which, while not reducible to the argument practice of any one group of social customs or professional communities, nevertheless may be influenced by them. But the public realm is discrete insofar as it provides forums with customs, traditions, and requirements for arguers in the recognition that the consequences of dispute extend beyond the personal and technical spheres (Goodnight, 1982, p. 220). Many public figures discussed issues in the technical realm of the academy and later proposed or evaluated legislation on those issues in the public realm. …
Read more