Waddell

 141

In the absence of certainty, in the absence of an objective foundation upon
hich to base belief, we must accept that both rational and appropriate are social
:nstructs. In light of the rational bias in Western culture, these two constructs
c e often used almost interchangeably to mean prudent, judicious, or sensible.
~ne goal of this study, however, is to broaden our concept of rationality, with
respect to both arguments and our respons~~s to those arguments, to include
emotional as well as logical appropriateness. 1
'} More accurately, one goal of this
study is to encourage wider acknowledgement and acceptance of the extent to
which our concept of rationality is already shaped by our sense of emotional as
well as logical appropriateness. Thereby, I hope to make the emotional component
of the decision-making process more amenable to criticism. From this
perspective, the question to ask of a behavior, judgment, decision, appeal, or
not "Is it rational?" or "Is it emotional?" but "Is it appropriate?"
which to
then we must simultaneously accept responsibility fOi
a for constructing truths.20 Among the truths we construct are our
determinations of what is rational and what is appropriate. A perennial objection
to constructivist arguments, however, is that they lead to a radical relativism in
which no adjudication between appropriate and inappropriate is possible since
no absolute principles apply across contexts.
Gadamer offers a solution to this problem, however, with his notion of a
"fusion of horizons" between the past and the present (Gadamer 273). From this
perspective, even in the absence of an objective, absolute foundation for belief,
we can still define general principles that cut across immediate contexts because
these immediate contexts are themselves situated within a larger and more stable,
yet still socially constructed, cultural context, what Gadamer calls our "thrownness."
That is, we are born (or "thrown") into a historical context, a culture, a
.... ,_,_,,u·u"' in whose values, prejudices, and presuppositions we are steeped. What
understanding we have, we gain not by freeing ourselves of these prejudices. but
by applying them; for we understand only by virtue of the questions we ask; those
questions are framed by our prejudices. We distinguish appropriate from inappropriate
prejudices when we expose our prejudices to the test of experience
(Gadamer 236-37).
Hence, the prevailing values and presuppositions of a culture cut across
immediate contexts and apply in a wide range of cases much as absolute
principles would. However, unlike moral absolutes, values and presuppositions
are socially constructed and, hence, mutable. The ideal rhetor both embodies and
appeals to what his or her society deems the best and most noble of its sentiments
and prejudices.21 When the times require it, the ideal rhetor helps the society adapt
to new and changing circumstances by helping it to define values that are
appropriate to the issues raised by these new, often more complex, conditions.22

continue on 142!
Appropriateness