ARGUMENT, RHETORIC, AND TRANSCENDENCE

226 Pages·2016·10.03 MB·English

by  Gavin Forrest Hurley

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff RRhhooddee IIssllaanndd
DDiiggiittaallCCoommmmoonnss@@UURRII
Open Access Dissertations
2014
AARRGGUUMMEENNTT,, RRHHEETTOORRIICC,, AANNDD TTRRAANNSSCCEENNDDEENNCCEE:: ““TTHHEE
AADDHHEERREENNCCEE OOFF MMIINNDDSS”” WWIITTHHIINN TTHHEE DDIISSCCOOUURRSSEE OOFF
SSPPIIRRIITTUUAALLIITTYY
Gavin Forrest Hurley
University of Rhode Island, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/oa_diss
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Hurley, Gavin Forrest, "ARGUMENT, RHETORIC, AND TRANSCENDENCE: “THE ADHERENCE OF MINDS”
WITHIN THE DISCOURSE OF SPIRITUALITY" (2014). Open Access Dissertations. Paper 280.
https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/oa_diss/280
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Open Access Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
!
!
ARGUMENT,!RHETORIC,!AND!TRANSCENDENCE:!“THE!ADHERENCE!OF!
MINDS”!WITHIN!THE!DISCOURSE!OF!SPIRITUALITY!!
BY!
GAVIN!FORREST!HURLEY!
!
!!
!
A!DISSERTATION!SUBMITTED!IN!PARTIAL!
FULFILLMENT!OF!THE!REQUIREMENTS!
FOR!THE!DEGREE!OF!DOCTOR!OF!
PHILOSOPHY!IN!ENGLISH!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
UNIVERSITY!OF!RHODE!ISLAND!
2014!
!
DOCTOR!OF!PHILOSOPHY!DISSERTATION!
OF!
GAVIN!FORREST!HURLEY!
!
!
!
!
!
APPROVED:!
Dissertation!Committee:!
Major!Professor:!Robert!Schwegler!
! ! !!!!!!Jeremiah!Dyehouse!
! ! !!!!!!William!Bartels!!
! ! !!!!!!Nasser!H.!Zawia!
! ! !!!!!!DEAN!OF!THE!GRADUATE!SCHOOL!
!
!
!
!
!
UNIVERSITY!OF!RHODE!ISLAND!
2014!
ABSTRACT

My study, “Argument, Rhetoric, and Transcendence: The ‘Adherence of
Minds’ within a Discourse of Spirituality,” addresses the questions: What
persuades Americans to adhere to contemporary discourses of spirituality?
What persuades audiences to adhere to the experiential truths found with this
discourse? Furthermore, how exactly do contemporary writers of spirituality
adhere audiences to reasonable understanding and pursuit of a union with a
higher power? Using Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s The New
Rhetoric as a framework, I analyze how the persuasive machinery of current
Catholic and Anglican spirituality texts guides readers to experience and
understand a subjective union with an ineffable God, while simultaneously
maximizing the social inclusivity of audiences. Contemporary Catholic and
Anglican texts serve as a representative sample of the more general
contemporary discourse of spirituality. Via close critical discourse analysis of
14 Catholic and Anglican texts spanning from 1983 to 2013, I explore the
strategic cooperation of rhetorically argumentative schema found in these
epideictic texts and unpack the implications. Overall, I find that the associative
and dissociative schemas found in the contemporary discourse of spirituality
can persuade diverse audiences into pluralistic communication, pragmatic
contemplative action, and public service: all of which foster and strengthen
human solidarity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to all of those that made this dissertation possible. The University of Rhode Island
Department of Writing and Rhetoric: Bob Schwegler for his support and feedback over the
years; Jeremiah Dyehouse, Libby Miles, Nedra Reynolds, Mike Pennell, and Linda Shamoon
for your wonderful insights and advice; Donna Hayden for helping me through so much
paperwork and for such positive vibes. Dr. Kevin McClure and Dr. Bill Bartels for crucial
perspectives that helped shape this project. The University of Rhode Island Department of
English: especially, Stephen Barber, Ryan Trimm, Kathleen Davis, and Michelle Caraccia.
Brittany Hirth for being such a strong woman, incredible thinker, and supportive partner. My
mother for long ecclesiastical debates and for putting up with my philosophical fervor and
jargon for so long. Jennifer Lee for being an awesome travel buddy and a dear friend. Some of
our conversations were legendary – and helped me rethink parts of this dissertation. The “Little
Family” for provided much needed escape and fantastic food, drink, and comradery: Sara
Murphy, Mike Becker, Dr. Ben Hagen, Don Rodrigues, Kim Evelyn, and Judah Micah-Lemar.
Prof. Richard Doyle for a serendipitous one-hour conversation in Lawrence, Kansas that put a
number of cerebral gears in motion. It helped motivate this dissertation, my research interests,
and my own spiritual practices. Prof. Richard Thames for a group discussion in Orlando,
Florida, which helped me understand Kenneth Burke’s work from an entirely new perspective.
Prof. Beth Bennett for productive feedback regarding the history of rhetoric. The RSA Institute
for a learning opportunity of a lifetime. The RNF discussion groups at the 2013 CCCC. Tim
Amidon for being a positive influence and an inspiring member of our URI 2014 cohort. John
Jasso for assembling excellent conference panels and academic solidarity regarding the
rhetoric of the Middle Ages and mysticism. Ora et labora! Dr. Jerry “J-Man” Hionis for being
a model of spiritual commitment and spiritual practice. Gary Zimmaro for helping me keep my
priorities straight; also for exposing me to (the brilliant) George R.R. Martin. The Song of Ice
and Fire provided much needed relief during the dissertation process. Dean Hurley for being
the rock of the Hurley family. Cheers!
! iii!
DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my father, Ronald F. Hurley (1947-2010), who taught me to
never give up – and to never settle for mediocrity.
! iv!
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………….......................iii
DEDICATION.………………………………………………………………..iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………....v
LIST OF TABLES...………………………………………………………......vi
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUNDS AND HISTORIES…………………….1
CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY, METHODS, AND
FRAMEWORK……………………………………………………………….41
CHAPTER THREE: FIRST ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATIVE SCHEMA:
STRUCTURES OF REALITY AND PRAGMATIC STAGING ……….…..67
CHAPTER FOUR: SECOND ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATIVE SCHEMA:
UNENDING DEVELOPMENT …………….…………………………….....95
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS OF DISSOCIATIVE SCHEMA:
MOVEMENT AWAY FROM RELIGION…………………...…………….132
CHAPTER SIX: COOPERATION OF SCHEMA, IMPLICATIONS, AND
AVENUES OF INQUIRY ………………………………………………….173
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………...210

! v! !
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: TABLE OF TEXTS ANALYZED…………………………..43-46
! vi!
CHAPTER ONE:
BACKGROUNDS AND HISTORIES

Spirituality and Mysticism
To begin plotting the overlaps of spirituality and rhetorical constructed
discourse, I must first define the abstract term of “spirituality.” Generally,
spirituality is the connection or relationship with something greater than the
self; in the monotheistic Christian tradition, this connection to “something
greater” is a connection with God. Defining spirituality more specifically is a
tricky task. For example, as I will reference in the study, communicators of
spirituality can use apophatic means of expression and argumentation: in other
words, expression and argumentation “applied to knowledge of God obtained
by way of negation” (OED). Why are apophatic means of expression and
argumentation used? In the Christian tradition, God is ineffable; in other
words, God is “too great for words; transcending expression”; the nature of
God is “unspeakable, unutterable, inexpressible” (OED). For instance, Meister
Eckhart, Christian spiritual authority and mystic of the Middle Ages, explains
of spiritual truth, “If I have spoken of it, I have not spoken, for it is ineffable”
(Katz 3). So how do the contemporary Christian authorities describe the nature
of God if God is ineffable? This question was most recently asked of the
current Monsignor of the Cathedral of Peter and Paul in Providence, Rhode
Island; his answer was both simple and vast. He posited that, “God is Being as
Idea” (Mancini) - a thoughtful answer, but again quite abstract. The
! 1!
transcendent nature of God will be a component of this investigation; however,
it is a component that is deliberately and appropriately abstract and difficult.
And it is not just Catholic clergy that reveals these abstractions. Steven T. Katz
of Boston University, scholar of Judaism and authority of spiritual linguistic
expression, explains that “all language … is too impoverished” to capture to
the “true unity of Being”: thus creating a communicative problem (3) - and
regarding spirituality, these types of traits are all we need to know about the
nature of God – for now. Theologians, philosophers, and postmodern critical
theorists seem better equipped to philosophize about the overlap of God and
Being.1
For the sake of this study, we need to understand that the Christian God
is ineffable. What other traits factor into spirituality? Various definitions of
spirituality surface in the Christian tradition, and these definitions generally
emphasize individuals uniting with this ineffable God. Martin Laird, an
Augustinian monk and theologian at Villanova University, describes Christian
spirituality as “as grounding union between God and the human person (2);
Donald W. Mitchell, professor of religion at Purdue University and an
authority on Eastern and Western religious dialogue, defines spirituality as
“becoming divine by sharing in that reality at the inner most core of our
consciousness” (Mitchell and Wiseman 32); and finally, Thomas Merton,
renowned Catholic monk who popularized spirituality in the 1960s, describes
spirituality as “in and through and beyond everything that we are […] it
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!Especially!relevant!in!contemporary!discussions!is!the!20th!Century!work!of!
existentialism,!process!philosophy,!and!neo=orthodoxy:!Heidegger,!Levinas,!Buber,!Barth,!
Bultmann,!among!others.!!
! 2!