ABSTRACT
The contemporary U.S. political climate is characterized by hyperpartisanship with members on the right and the left complaining that reasonable argument is no longer possible. Jim Cooper (D-TN) said of Congress that “members walk into the chamber full of hatred. They believe the worst lies about the other side” (as cited in Nocera, 2011, p. A27), and former Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN, 2013) lamented that “partisanship is out of control.” This increasing rancor is not caused entirely by a failure to present reasoned arguments for one side or the other. In The Righteous Mind , Professor Jonathan Haidt (2013) explained that recent psychological studies suggest reason provides the post-hoc rationalization for the argumentative positions that people fi nd most appealing. The study of rancorous political argument largely has been pre-occupied with the failure of reason, which for some underlies the “problem of faction” (Rowland, 2011, p. 1). Rhetorical and argument studies have incorporated many of the insights of scientists, psychologists, and sociologists in their studies of the emotional effect on the force of discourse (Hariman & Lucaites, 2001; Waddell, 1990). Though this work is exceedingly valuable, it has heretofore relied on traditional rhetorical categories informed by logo-centric analysis and has yet to be fully appreciated for the possible contribution to argumentation through pathos . This project theorizes a new object of analysis, the patheme , for scholars interested in attending to the effect that emotion plays in shaping and being shaped by rhetorical argumentation.
