The line between philosophers and rhetoricians is so blurry, that I'm not sure why it even exists. This chapter of ARCS brings Foucault's views of discourse to light, focusing namely on his views of sexuality and individual identity.
"We all know that the university and the whole education system that is supposed to distribute knowledge we know that the university system maintains the power in their hands of a certain social class, and exclude other social classes from this power" -Michael Foucault
I have a lot of respect for Foucault. I, too, have a great deal of interest in psychology and the human mind, and I believe that a knowledge of how it works contributes greater understanding of rhetoric as a whole. His argument that it is our position to question our institutions, and to question supposed neutrality is how I happen to approach writing in general. It is absolutely our duty as citizens to call into question the decisions made by our government, and the choices they make in the name of "independence."
Toulmin does appear to be more traditional with his approach. His arguments concerning arguments are far less abstract, though no less significant. I had a much more difficult time emotionally connecting with his perspective, though he does effectively detail a successful argument. The result is a strong contrast between a modern rhetorician, and someone who adheres to more classical perspectives.
