Popular Culture Review Vol. 11, No. 1, February 2000 | Page 151
Synthesizing Eastern and Western
Religious Traditions
In a period of heightened religiously-oriented “culture wars” within and
between countries and regions, the study of how words, arguments, and narratives
function to synthesize, ameliorate, and reconcile religious differences seems
particularly relevant. In this article, we first describe the cultural/intellectual
environment that encourages the synthetic impulse in Eastern and Western traditions.
Then, using two case studies, we examine the ways contemporary East/West
syntheses are crafted and communicated, with special emphasis on the concepts of
rhetorical synthesis, rhetorical bridge, and syllogistic progression.
Chapel (1996) described rhetorical synthesis as “The process of unifying into
a coherent whole ideas (arguments, policies, themes, narratives and visions) that
first appear disparate or contradictory. Further, he says, “rhetorical synthesis tends
to be situated in public controversy and functions to resolve or ameliorate
divisiveness, often providing a third alternative to conflicting points of view” (p.
354). Our rationale for studying rhetorical synthesis is that in an “increasingly
interdependent world fraught by divisiveness and dialectical tensions, the study of
synthesizing rhetoric seems a particularly relevant endeavor.” A critical examination
of the synthetic impulse in public discourse should provide insights into how words,
arguments and narratives work to divide and unite individuals, groups, and cultures
in our present age. Chapel stresses the importance of a rhetorical bridge as “an
encompassing conception that serves as an organizing principle pulling the synthesis
together and making it a coherent whole.” Without this organizing principle, there
is no synthesis, merely a commingling of disparate ideas, or the assertion of
synthesis. Put another way, the rhetorical bridge is the central rationale making the
synthesis viable, justifiable, and understandable.
Chapel (1996) suggests four reasons why rhetorical synthesis is intrinsically
appealing: First, in a general sense, synthesis is persuasive because it offers a
positive, consistent, and coherent vision that fosters conciliation and reduces
psychological and sociological stress in individuals and groups. By seeking to
resolve dissonance and polarization it works toward a “healing” of the controversy.
A second reason rhetorical synthesis is appealing is because the content and
form of the synthesis (and the style of the speaker or writer) do not alienate many
on either side of the original controversy. By not alienating its listeners, rhetorical
synthesis prepares the way for persuasion and makes persuasion less difficult by
rendering the audience less hostile.