AFTERWORD: IN RETROSPECTIVE PROSPECT.

• Author: Parson, Donn W.
• Position: American Forensic Association

The phrase, "in retrospective prospect," stolen from Kenneth Burke, describes one of the processes of Burke's book revisions. He would read what he had written, change very little, and then update with an essay which both summarizes in new language what he had already written and projects its implications for the future. Thus he looked backwards to view things forwards. The purpose of this essay is to summarize what has already been said in the preceding essays and speculate about their implications for our organization as we salute its Golden Anniversary.

A REVIEW OF THE PAST

It is customary to contextualize our organization, and Reid's opening essay reminds us of our deep roots. He explores the tradition of forensics, but especially debate, through a good deal of western history. While our association has come to represent more than debate, the argumentative perspective is probably the motive for its existence. The first national conference, held in 1974, emphasized this view by defining forensics as "an educational activity primarily concerned with using an argumentative perspective in examining problems and communicating with people" (McBath, 1975, p. 11). The second national conference defined the argumentative perspective by saying it "views forensics as a form of rhetorical scholarship, which takes various forms, including debate, public address and the interpretation of literature" (Parson, 1984, p. 9).

In tracing forensics activities back 2400 years, Reid emphasizes how both the theory and practice was a major focus of schools, initially the sophists. While the goals of Protagoras's exercises were political and legal performances, the scene for his exercises was in the academy, even in its primitive form. When the Romans developed a more elaborate progymnasmata, including the simplest telling of the fable to the more advanced controversiae and suasoriae, these activities were also in the academy. Whether the activities translated to the larger social context depended upon the form of government, and under most of the emperors, the activities were excluded from public discussion.

Stated differently, Reid reminds us that debate and other forensic activities are in the academy, and to a very large extent they have remained in the academy to this day, with the attendant benefits and disadvantages. That this assummption is largely taken for granted is evident from the 1974 National Conference description: "Forensics serves as a curricular and co-curricular laboratory for improving students' abilities in research, analysis, and oral communication. This perspective organizes scholarship, stimulating research and creative activity to promote an understanding of personal and public issues through argument" (McBath, 1975, p. 9).

In other words, personal and public issues were to be practiced in the academy, and their transfer to the "real world" was assumed. The notion of a public sphere of argument, borrowed from Jurgen Habermas, outlines a place where personal and public issues were to be discussed. Phillips differentiates the public sphere from the private and technical ones: "The private sphere contains the discourse of personal relations, the technical sphere contains the discourse of experts and specialists, and the public sphere is a transcendent one that facilitates discussions related to the public good" (Phillips, 1996, p. 236). Goodnight echoes this distinction: "Transcending the personal and technical spheres is the public, a domain which, while not reducible to the argument practice of any one group of social customs or professional communities, nevertheless may be influenced by them. But the public realm is discrete insofar as it provides forums with customs, traditions, and requirements for arguers in the recognition that the consequences of dispute extend beyond the personal and technical spheres" (Goodnight, 1982, p. 220).

Many public figures discussed issues in the technical realm of the academy and later proposed or evaluated legislation on those issues in the public realm. Hubert Humphrey, for example, debated the topic of medical care in school and later authored Medicare legislation. Public figures such as Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon credited their debating experience as training for public life. While public officials argue policies in the public sphere, the initial development of arguments on those policies was essentially in the technical sphere.

But how well does technical expertise learned in the academy prepare future policy-makers for the public sphere? Reid quotes Alcidamas's attack on Isocrates for not preparing students to debate in the public sphere. Similar comments are made today that the expertise necessary for success in the technical sphere, most often exemplified by contests and tournaments, are not the ones demonstrated in the public sphere.

While the tradition of forensic practice has been in the academy, there are instances of movement into the public sphere, sometimes sponsored by the American Forensic Association and its members. One of the moves occurred in the 1960s with Championship Debates, co-sponsored by the AFA and the American Student Foundation. Klumpp's essay details these debates held in 1962 and again in 1964, and then laments: "unsuccessful efforts to reprise the television debates continued into the late 1970s." Other efforts, notably the Bi-Centennial Youth Debates of 1975 and 1976...