The relationship between the practice of public rhetoric and the nature of political judgment is complex. The essay analyzes a pivotal constitutive controversy, the public Constitutional ratification debate of 1787–1788, and uncovers conflicting objects and standards of judgment. The essay demonstrates that Federalists advocated a “formal” and “spectator‐oriented” model of judgment while Anti‐Federalists depicted a “substantive” and “actor‐oriented” model. The concluding section of the essay explores certain theoretical implications (rhetorical distance, interest time, and prudence) that emerge from the constitutive rhetoric of the ratification debate.
Rhetoric and judgment in the constitutional ratification debate of 1787–1788: An exploration in the relationship between theory and critical practice
Reprints and Corporate Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:
Academic Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:
If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.
Related Research Data
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.