The Art of Polemic: A Correction

In my last post on the subject, I wrote that polemic was a stylistic device that consists in overstating an argument or opinion for the purpose of making a point, etc.

I need to correct this.

Some days after I wrote it, I per chance stumbled upon wikipedia’s definition of “polemic” which seems to be shared by a lot of online dictionaries or encyclopedias. This definition construes a polemic to be a specific type of text, rather than a stylistic device. From this point of view, a polemic is a text that argues against or attacks an opponent’s arguments or position on an issue with the aim of refuting it. The opposite type of text, i.e. a text defending a certain position, is called an apologia.

I would object to this definition of the term on the ground that I believe it to be a pars pro toto. If you look at the way people use the concepts of polemic or apologia, you will find that there are certain connotations involved. Rather than generally designating all texts that aim at refuting an opponent’s point of view, “polemic” refers to texts that try to do this in a certain manner. Observe that, when you are in an argument, people sometimes will exclaim: “Oh, this is far too polemical!”, implying that your previous argument was “one-sided”, i.e. it did not take into account all the relevant facts and had an “emotionalistic” undertone. The same is true of the concept of apologia, since an apologist is not merely a person who defends a particular point of view, but a person who does so “one-sidedly”, i.e. by being unjust and/or dishonest in regard to his opponent’s arguments.

A polemic, therefore, is not per se a text aiming at the rebuttal of an opponent’s point of view. Observe that there are also texts written for the same purpose in a dry and factual manner. And often, esp. in (German) academia, polemic is regarded as unsound or unscientific. The scientist, it is said, has to be fact-oriented and therefore unemotional–which is reflected very much in the unendurably dry treatises of some academics.

If “polemic” does not designate a certain type of text, what then? It clearly is not a stylistic device, as I had stated earlier. If it were a stylistic device, one would be able to point to some part of the text and say: “This is polemic.” But observe that there is no distinctive stylistic device called “polemic”, a device that could be pinned down in textbooks and learned by short sentence examples, as is possible with other stylistic devices. Instead, if one asks what is specifically polemic about a given text, one will find it necessary to point to such things as the use of sarcasm, etc.–which are stylistic devices of their own!

Now, the specific use of stylistic devices constitutes what is called a style, i.e. a characteristic manner or mode of executing one’s writing purpose. It therefore seems reasonable to classify “polemic” not as a stylistic device, but as a specific style of writing.

To paraphrase my definition at the beginning of the post: Polemic is a style of writing that consists in overstating an argument or opinion for the purpose of making a point in the rebuttal of an opponent’s point of view. To make a point is to emphazise or highlight that which is essential to the issues at stake, leaving all factors of lesser importance aside. And this “highlighting” is achieved by employing certain stylistic devices, such as sarcasm, or the arousal of emotions. A polemical text is a text that argues in terms of essentials and does so aggressively and with passion.

This is the reason why a polemical style is regarded as being “unscientific”: It has an emotional appeal, instead of merely giving the “dry facts”–which allegedly is the way reason would have it. Clearly, this artificial dichotomy of “polemic vs. scientifically sound” is just another variation on a well known dichotomy: the reason/emotion dichotomy. Since reason and passion are seen as two distinctive and diametrically opposed things, an argumentative text that at the same time has an emotional appeal to its readers is disqualified by the standards of unemotional “reason”.

In the mind of a person who accepts this distortion of the reason/emotion relationship and then goes on to choose the side of what he thinks to be reason, the difference between (legitimate) “emotional appeal” and the fallacy of “appeal to emotions” is obliterated. Such a person believes that an argument brought forward with passion is nothing but an emotionalistic “argument”, i.e. a claim not based on fact, but on whim–and accordingly he views an unemotional, dry style of writing as the hallmark of the scientific.

But since there is no dichotomy between reason and emotion, and since an argument brought forward passionately is not the same as an argument from passion, polemic is as valid a style of writing as mere factual analysis and argument. In fact, it is a much more powerful way of arguing–if it is done properly. Polemic is not only more powerful, it is also more difficult. A polemic, in order to be good and convincing, must be rooted in facts. If it is not, if it looses its connection to the factual argument it should be based opon, then the emotional appeal the writer tries to evoke will inevitably turn into an emotionalistic bubble. This is what makes it so hard to be a good polemicist.

But, in my opinion, there are only few texts as entertaining and illuminating at the same time as are those done in the art of polemic.

What is polemic?

Polemic is a stylistic device that consists in overstating an argument or opinion for the purpose of making a point. To make a point is to emphazise or highlight that which is essential to an issue from the perspective of a particular problem or the context in which it is treated.

Good polemic has a summarizing function. It draws upon a solid, fact-oriented argument that either is developed simultaneously or had been put forward beforehand, and tries to hightlight the argument’s essentials in such a way that the reader inevitably feels the inner urge to exclaim: “That is just so true!” Good polemic derives its effectiveness and credibility from the soundness of the argument it is based upon, as well as it grants a special vigor to that argument.

Bad polemic misses its point. Either it highlights non-essentials and thus gives the impression of being out of place, or it does not sufficiently draw upon the underlying argument, or that argument is unconvincing or non-existent. Bad polemic is free floating and emotionalistic, whereas good polemic is rooted in facts. Since bad polemic actually consists of pointless overstatements, it gives the impression of being grotesque, laughably inflated and even embarrassing for its author.