COMMGRAD 6022: Critical Methods
We 5:30-8:20 Lang 346
Catherine H. Palczewski, Ph.D.
office hours, Lang 341:
Description: The purpose of this seminar is to introduce you to the processes of rhetorical criticism. A guiding assumption of this course is that rhetorical criticism is not composed of a single method. Theories do not create a blueprint that can be applied to any text. Instead, texts and theories interact with one another, as they enable us to better understand the complexities of human communicative interaction. As the Critical Questions textbook explains, theory and method are best understood as "conceptual heuristics or vocabularies" that enable us to see and hear more clearly the variety of things a text may be trying to communicate.
Accordingly, the class is generally divided into two parts:
Thus, the goal of this course is not to teach you a universal, or universalizable, approach to the study of human communication. Human communicative practices are as diverse as human beings. Instead, this seminar hopes to teach you the craft of theory reading and critical application. No act of criticism will be like any other act of criticism. (In contrast, the steps one might go through in a survey study do tend to be relatively similar). Instead, one takes an approach to criticism where one engages with a text in its own terms, not in terms imposed by the critic. Criticism is an inventional process.
1) Familiarize one's self with rhetorical criticism as an inventional process.
2) Develop a more precise vocabulary with which to describe the functions and forms of communication.
3) Learn how to summarize vast theoretical tracts in order to develop a heuristic vocabulary with which to analyze texts.
4) Complete a thesis chapter or a presentation/publication quality paper. Accordingly, extensive time should be spent on the research and writing process.
Required texts: (available at UBS)
RRC: Burgchardt, Carl R. Readings in Rhetorical Criticism. 4th ed. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, 2010. (Please make every effort to get the 4th ed. If you already own the 3rd ed., then check the syllabus to see if essays are different. I've included info for both the 3rd and 4th editions on the syllabus. 3p46 means third edition page 46 and 4p55 means 4th edition page 55.)
OSS: Burke, Kenneth. On Symbols and Society. Ed. Joseph R. Gusfield. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
CRT: Lucaites, John Louis, Celeste Michelle Condit, and Sally Caudill. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader. New York: The Guilford Press, 1999.
CQ: Nothstine, William L., Carole Blair, and Gary A. Copeland. Critical Questions: Invention, Creativity, and the Criticism of Discourse and Media. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
General information necessary to survival (really, you should read this): see this link. This site includes my late policy, the university accommodation policy, as well as paper format descriptions.
Assignments: The total worth of the assignments is 100 points. The individual point value of each assignment is noted in (parenthesis) immediately following the assignment title. Simply doing the base requirements of each assignment will earn you a "C" -- this means you have done acceptable work. To earn a "B" you must go beyond the assignment expectations or fulfill them in an above average way. To earn an "A" you must go far beyond the assignment expectations and fulfill the base expectations in an exceptional manner.
Page limits on all assignments will be rigorously enforced. You should spend time finding ways to write more concisely and clearly. If I find your paper long-winded, and you go over the page limit, I will quit reading. (If however, you are brilliant and keep me captivated, I may not notice). And, given the expectations of each of the assignments, you probably will need to use the number of pages required. If, however, you are exceptionally concise, then I may not notice if your paper falls short of the required pages.
A bibliography should be turned in with every assignment. It will not count toward your page limit. On the top of the page, indicate the style (APA or MLA) that you think you are using. Follow UNI thesis or research paper format for spacing. If you do not yet have a thesis pamphlet, one may be found online.
Detailed descriptions of all assignments appear on this syllabus. You are free to ask questions in class about the assignments, or contact me outside of class by email or phone. But, please be aware, I will NOT answer any questions about an assignment in the week before it is due (most assignments are due on thursday, which means you have until the thursday before it is due to ask questions). I recognize that students procrastinate, so, consider this an inducement to begin work early. This means if you have a question, you need to be prepared to ask it in the class sessions during the week before the paper is due. I will not answer questions after that time.
Two tracks of paper assignments are possible: Track 1) criticism focused and Track 2) method focused. The first option is meant to produce a stand alone paper, suitable for submission to a conference or for publication. The second option is meant to produce something that would be suitable for a "method/literature review" chapter for a thesis. When using rhetorical criticism as a method, a significant part of the literature review focuses on how the rhetorical concepts developed into a heuristic vocabulary. Both options should produce a final product between 20-25 pages. Students may pick which track they would like to follow for assignments 1-5, but all students are required to complete assignments 6-8.
Track 1: Textual Criticism: All assignments assume you are studying a fixed, verbal, single text produced and delivered by an identifiable rhetor. However, if you would like to analyze some other type of communicative act, please feel free to talk to me. Most of the theories discussed in class assume a verbal text. However, similar techniques can be applied to more ephemeral, visual, or collective texts.
The assignments outlined below constitute a "progressive paper." This means each paper you complete is folded into the next paper after receiving editing from me as well as from one of your peers. The first paper becomes the introduction for the 2nd, the 2nd becomes the first part for the 3rd and 4th, and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th papers are combined to become the foundation for the final paper, to which you will add an additional level of criticism as well as a conclusion. Page limits include the folded in papers. You will need to learn appropriate citation format (APA or MLA), and will be expected to complete extensive revision and editing of your work as the paper progresses. If a paper has numerous typographical, citation, or grammatical errors, I will return it ungraded and the "late clock" will start ticking.
Page limits on all assignments will be rigorously enforced. You should spend time finding ways to write more concisely and clearly. If I find your paper long-winded, and you go over the page limit, I will quit reading. (If however, you are brilliant and keep me captivated, I may not notice). And, given the expectations of each of the assignments, you probably will need to use the number of pages required. If, however, you are exceptionally concise, then I may not notice of you fall short.
I also suggest, if this project is to become part of your thesis, that you use thesis format for all assignments, meaning wider left margin, no right justification, single spaced block quotations, and appropriate sub-headings. If you do not yet have a thesis pamphlet, one may found online. (A slight page limit modification will be made in these instances (basically, one extra page for every 5 required).
A bibliography is to be turned in with every assignment. It will not count against your page limits. The bibliogrpahy should correctly and studiously follow whatever form you choose (APA, MLA, Chicago). If serious errors appear on the bibliography, I will return the paper ungraded.
Paper 1) Text Selection: (5) [5 pages]. Write a 5 page justification for studying your text. The justification should include:
A) an introduction that situates the topic within a larger context,
I suggest you find a text that is approximately 10-20 pages long. Bring enough clean copies of your text to class so that all class members can have their own copy. Due January 30:
Paper 2) Descriptive analysis of the text: (10) [10 pages]. Conduct a detailed criticism of the text using the methods outlined during the first class period. This paper expands upon the short description of the text provided in subpoints B, C and D from above. To prepare to write this paper, your should first complete the descriptive analysis outline. Link to descriptive analysis outline. Attach the outline of answers to questions concerning the rhetorical situation and an outline of the seven elements of the speech to your paper. Remember, your answers to these questions form the background work to writing the paper. The outline of answers should NOT be the outline of the paper. When completing the outline, think of it as a way to organize your data. As you answer each question, provide data from the text to support your claim. So, if you say a rhetor assumed a particular persona, provide quotations from the text or rich descriptions of the visual to support your conclusion. Note: when describing the audience as part of the textual analysis, remember audience here refers to the second persona, not the demographics of the physical audience. For the rhetorical situation component, use the outline to organize all the research you have done about the rhetor, the audience, and the subject. Again, you should be providing quotations from sources to support the claims advanced in the answers to these questions. Once you have figured out what choices a rhetor has made about subject, persona, tone, etc., then ask: Why? Why was this choice made? Your description of the rhetorical situation should help you figure out the answer. In addition, in the process of answering all the questions, you may also see themes, trends, interesting elements of the text. Each of the seven elements will not figure equally into your analysis (for some texts, tone is most important, for others evidence). Use the outline to help you figure out what is most interesting in a text. If you cannot figure out why something was done, but find it interesting, then you are on the right track -- giving yourself direction on how to focus your lit review. The purpose of this paper is to make sure you are intimately familiar with your text and to determine those places where you do not have the vocabulary to yet complete a detailed analysis. Keep in mind, the function of this paper is to come to a complete understanding of the text in context. You are not expected to apply your critical vocabulary in this paper. Instead, this paper is preparation to be able to do that. The general structure of the paper should be: 3-4 page intro (ending with a preview/preliminary thesis paragraph), and then 6-7 pages of detailed descriptive analysis (as guided by the attached outline). Due: February 20.
Paper 3) Literature review: (10) [15 pages]. This paper should provide a summary of the theoretical concepts to be used in your analysis, as well as a review of others' exploration and application of the theory. This section also should include a summary of others' analyses of your text (if any) and lay out how your analysis expands upon or differs from theirs. When folding in the previous papers, my guess is that you will organize the paper as follows: intro, literature review, descriptive analysis. Feel free to use readings not yet discussed in class if they are appropriate to your text. You will be expected to conduct additional research on the theory and, in all cases rely on primary texts for significant quotations. I want to read YOUR summary of the theory. (Footnotes indicating others agree with your analysis are fine, but do not substitute them for your own work). A comprehensive literature review of communication books and journals is expected. For a general discussion of what a literature review should do, follow this link to literature review guidelines. Due: March 13. Link to general literature review guidelines
Paper 4) Developed criticism: (15) [20 pages]. This paper should take the heuristic vocabulary developed in paper 3 to rewrite the initial analysis in paper 2. Develop and expand upon (or change) your initial insights given the new terministic screens offered by your reading of theory. Peer edit draft due: March 27 Final draft due: April 3.
Paper 5) Final paper: (25) [25 pages]. Using the work done in earlier papers, write a final criticism of your text. The final paper should include additional research and may include additional arguments. Peer edit draft due: April 24. Final draft due: May 8.YOU ALSO MUST SEND YOUR PAPERS AS AN EMAIL ATTACHMENT TO CATE AT firstname.lastname@example.org. Your papers will not be considered "turned in" until you send them as an email attachment and until you also turn in all the peer edits done of your paper.
Track 2: Method: Nothstine, Blair and Copeland make clear that criticism often involves an inventional process. Thus, when we talk about criticism using a method, we typically are talking about the weaving together of insights from multiple locations to develop a vocabulary that helps explore a text. Thus, the point of this assignment track is to: identify and summarize primary documents that provide the foundation for a vocabulary, conduct an exhaustive literature review of others who have used this method and summarize the themes present in these writings, and identify where your approach adds to existing understandings of method.
A bibliography is to be turned in with every assignment. It will not count against your page limits. The bibliogrpahy should correctly and studiously follow whatever form you choose (APA, MLA, Chicago). If serious errors appear on the bibliography, I will return the paper ungraded.
Paper 1 (5) [5 pages]: The overview and bibliography: This paper should introduce the reader to rhetorical concept that helps explain the functioning of a text. It should provide a cursory summary of the primary text, as well as examples of where the concept has been used by others. The bibliography attached to this paper should be exhaustive (in fact, this should be where you spend the bulk of your time). I do not expect you to have read everything, but I do want to see evidence that you have spent significant time doing bibliographic work. ComIndex, CIOS, Project Muse, books and book chapters, NCA conference presentations, MA theses, dissertations, etc. should all be searched. Due: January 30.
Paper 2 (10) [10 pages]: The primary text: This paper should provide a detailed summary of the concepts as they appear in the primary theory text. Careful selection of quotations should occur. However, remember to write through the quotation; do not just toss it out there, but talk about what it means and how it might be deployed in criticism. Due: February 20.
Paper 3 (10) [15 pages]: The applications: This paper should add a section that reviews others' writing on/use of the concept outlined in paper 2. Due: March 13.
Paper 4 (15) [20 pages]: Situating the theory in the larger literature on rhetoric and reorganizing the mess, try one. Here is where you experiment with interweaving the primary documents with the secondary sources/applications. The organization should be thematic (see lit review guidelines). And, you ought to be making connections to broad understandings of criticism. Clearly articulate your understanding of the function of language, of the public, of rhetoric, etc. Is your method situational or positional? Do you believe language constructs, structures or reflects reality? What role does language play in relation to social change? Is language more important that materiality? Peer edit draft due: March 27. Final draft due: April 3.
Paper 5: Final paper (25) [20-25 pages]. This paper should demonstrate extreme attention to organizational detail. It should make an argument about how language functions, and why the particular element you have identified is worth studying. Peer edit draft due: April 24. Final draft due: May 8. YOU ALSO MUST SEND YOUR PAPERS AS AN EMAIL ATTACHMENT TO CATE AT email@example.com. Your papers will not be considered "turned in" until you send them as an email attachment and until you also turn in all the peer edits done of your paper.
The remainder of the assignments apply to all.
6) Peer editing: (10) We will use peer editing as a way to improve the papers. When peer editing, you are expected to provide both stylistic and substantive suggestions. You also are expected to proofread the bibliography. Use the sample editing marks provided on the 1st day of class. Throughout the semester, you will have 5 opportunities to edit each others' work.
7) Presentation: (5). During the final exam period (May 8, 5:00-6:50pm), we will have a formal presentation of all the papers. These presentations will be modeled after conference presentations of papers. Students will have 12 minutes to present their papers. Depending on class size, the length of the presentation may be changed. The presentation should provide sufficient background on the text and outline the core argument made in the paper. The student should also provide evidence to support the main argument. Bring TWO copies of your presentation outline to class (one for you and one for me on which to take notes).
More helpful hints:
A) Do NOT simply read your paper for your presentation. The presentation should be formal and professional, but not scripted. I suggest you speak from a detailed outline (remember to include quotations from the text in the outline to illustrate the points you want to make). Please bring two copies of the outline: one to speak from and one for me. DO practice the presentation to make sure your outline fits within the time limits. Time limits will be enforced.
8) Discussion: (20) Graduate seminars at their best are open and free flowing discussions, where you engage each others' hearts and minds. The professor should serve as a muse or a guide, but not a drill sergeant. For a seminar to be a location of invention, and not just regurgitation, you must come ready to talk, to think, to rethink and to engage. Otherwise, seminars can devolve into just being an instance where the professor tells you what to think. Being a good participant does not mean that you always have the answer; it can also mean that you know when to ask the right questions and when to recognize that the answers have already been offered by the class but need to be synthesized. Discussion is a central component of this class insofar as each person's analysis of the readings can be enhanced by others' insights. For a detailed description of the criteria used in the assessment of discussion, see my discussion link.
TO BE A GOOD PARTICIPANT IN DISCUSSION YOU MUST HAVE COMPLETED ALL THE READINGS.
You do NOT need to use all the space. Think of the first half as preparation for discussion, and the second half as a chance to make an argument about 1) how well you did, and/or 2) how you can improve.
Syllabus: (This syllabus is subject to change, although that rarely happens.) If changes happen, they will be in hot pink. The citation format used in this syllabus is MLA.
Week 1: January 16: Method, Shmethod: Or, how to talk about non-linear methods
Read RRC Black 3p46/4p55*; CRT intro, CQ 1-3
*I've included info for both the 3rd and 4th editions on the syllabus. 3p46 means third edition page 46 and 4p55 means 4th edition page 55
Week 2: January 23: Introduction to Burke: or dramatism as a heuristic vocabulary
Read : OSS Intro by Gusfield, (read in this order) 8, 1, 19, 2, 6, 13 or RRC 3p188/4p238
Condit, Celeste Michelle. "Post-Burke: Transcending the Sub-stance of Dramatism." Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): 349-355.
Week 3: January 30: The pentad: or how to explain differing stories about the same event
Read : OSS 7, 9, 10; RRC Tonn et al. 3p203/4p253 and
Meisenbach, Rebecca J., Robyn V. Remke, Patrice M. Buzzanell, and Meina Liu. "'They Allowed: Pentadic Mapping of Women's Maternity Leave Discourse as Organizationa Rhetoric". Communication Monographs 75.1 (March 2008).): 1-24. link
Paper 1 due January 30
Week 4: February 6: The Comic Frame and scapegoating: or how to describe different frames and their implications
Read : OSS 16, 20, 21, RRC Ott & Aoki 3p220/4p270
Condit, Celeste. "Framing Kenneth Burke: Sad Tragedy or Comic Dance?" Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (February 1994): 77-82.
Dow, Bonnie J. "AIDS, Perspective by Incongruity, and Gay Identity in Larry Kramer's '1,112 and Counting'." Communication Studies 45 (Fall-Winter 1994): 225-240.
Palczewski, Catherine H. "Comic Heroism and the Scope of Fire." LINK
Christiansen, Adrienne E. and Jeremy J. Hanson. "Comedy as Cure for Tragedy: ACT UP and the Rhetoric of AIDS." Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (May 1996): 157-170.
Week 5: February 13: The rhetorical situation and spheres of argument: or how to talk about text and context's interaction
Read : CRT Part 3, CRT Goodnight p251, and
Fabj, Valeria and Matthew J. Sobnosky. "AIDS Activism and the Rejuvenation of the Public Sphere." Argumentation and Advocacy 31 (Spring 1995): 163-184.
Pfister, Damien. "The Logos of the Blogosphere." Argumentation and Advocacy 47.3 (Winter 2011): 141-162.
Supplemental readings (spheres of argument):
Olson, Kathryn M., and Goodnight, G. Thomas. "Entanglements of Consumption, Cruelty, Privacy, and Fashion: The Social Controversy over Fur." Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (August 1994): 249-276.
Week 6: February 20 (Wisconsin-0Fritch guest lectures): Identification: or how to describe rhetoric in a way different from persuasion and Terministic catharsis: or how to explain when a word's meaning changes
Read: OSS 4, 11, 12, 14, 17
Paper 2 due February 20
Week 7: February 27: The audience (2nd, 3rd, and 4th personae): or how to articluate the nature of rhetoric as addressed
Read CRT part 5; RRC Morris 3p664/4p595; CRT Condit p494; RRC Zaeske 3p377/4p417
Supplemental bibliography (public sphere):
Habermas, Jürgen. "The Public Sphere." Jürgen Habermas on Society and Politics: A Reader. Ed. Steven Seidman. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. 231-236.
Fraser, Nancy. "Rethinking the Public Sphere." Habermas and the Public Sphere. Ed. Craig Calhoun. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992. 109-142.
Habermas, Jürgen. "Further Reflections on the Public Sphere."Habermas and the Public Sphere. Ed. Craig Calhoun. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992. 421-461.
Asen, Robert. "Seeking the 'Counter' in Counterpublics." Communication Theory 10 (2000): 424-446.
Week 8: March 6: The words (and images): or how to study a single word, or how to study "texts" in a postmodern world
Cloud, Dana L. "'To Veil the Threat of Terror': Afghan Women and the <Clash of Civilizations> in the Imagery of the U.S. War on Terrorism." Quarterly Journal of Speech 90.3 (August 2004): 285 - 306 . Accessible with Informaworld
Condit, Celeste Michelle, and John Louis Lucaites. "The Rhetoric of Equality and the Expatriation of African-Americans, 1776-1826." Communication Studies 42 (Spring 1991): 1-21.
Edwards, Janis L., and Carol K. Winkler. "Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph: The Iwo Jima Image in Editorial Cartoons." Quarterly Journal of Speech 83 (August 1997): 289-310.
Delgado, Fernando Pedro. "Chicano Movement Rhetoric: An Ideographic Interpretation." Communication Quarterly 43 (Fall 1995): 446-454.
CRT Scott p131
Week 9: March 13: Getting postmodern and critiquing the visual: or how to analyze visual rhetoric
Read: CRT Poulakos p25, Brummett p153; RRC Blair et al. 3p602/3p118, DeLuca & Demo 3p647/4p673
Langer, Susanne K. Philosophy in a New Key. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957. 79-102.
Biesecker, Barbara A. "Remembering World War II: The Rhetoric and Politics of National Commemoration at the turn of the 21st Century." Quarterly Journal of Speech 88 (November 2002): 393-409.
DeLuca, Kevin Michael. "Unruly Arguments: The Body Rhetoric of Earthfirst!, Act Up, and Queer Nation." Argumentation and Advocacy 36 (Summer 1999): 9-21.
Fabj, Valeria. "Motherhood as Political Voice: The Rhetoric of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo." Communication Studies 44 (Spring 1993): 1-18.
Conquergood, Dwight. "Review Essay: Ethnography, Rhetoric, and Performance." Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (February 1992): 80-97.
Hopkins, Mary Frances. "The Performance Turn--and Toss." Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (May 1995): 228-236.
Lockford, Lesa. "Social Drama in the Spectacle of Femininity: The Performance of Weight Loss in the Weight Watcher's Program." Women's Studies in Communication 19 (Fall 1996): 291-312.
Butler, Judith. "Critically Queer." Bodies that Matter. New York: Routledge, 1993. 223-242.
Hasian, Marouf, Jr. "Jurisprudence as Performance: John Brown's Enactment of Natural Law at Harper's Ferry." Quarterly Journal of Speech 86 (May 2000): 190-214.
Capo, Kay Ellen and Darlene M. Hantzis. "(En)Gendered (and Engendering) Subjects: Writing, Reading, Performing, and Theorizing Feminist Criticism." Text and Performance Quarterly 11 (1991): 249-266.
Paper 3 due March 13
Week 10: March 20: Spring Break
Week 11: March 27 (NDT): in class edit of paper 4
Week 12: April 3: Metaphoric criticism and Genre criticism: or how to analyze metaphors and speeches of a type
Read OSS 15; RRC Osborn 3p306/4p438, Kuusisto 3p335 or QJS "Heroic Tale, Game, and Business Deal? Western Metaphors in Action in Kosovo" link, Campbell & Jamieson 3p400/4p444, Ware & Linkugel 3p417/4p462
Paper 4 due April 3!!!!
Week 13: April 10: What is good criticism
Read for April 21: Selections from a collection of essays published in Communication Studies, 54.3 (Fall 2003) -- available on Expanded Academic ASAP. You are required to read 3 of the following.
1. Sandra J. Berkowitz, "Originality, conversation and reviewing rhetorical criticism."
Good criticism need not agree
RRC Hill 3p138/4p148, Campbell 2p200
Newman, Robert P. "Under the Veneer: Nixon's Vietnam Speech of November 3, 1969." Quarterly Journal of Speech 56.2 (April 1970): 168-178.
Week 14: April 17: Critiquing class and race: or how to analyze rhetorical texts that perform identity
Read CRT McKerrow p441, Aune p5;, RRC Nakayama & Krizek 3p628/4p634; CRT Asante p552
Week 15: April 24: Close textual criticism: or how to perform a careful read of a powerfully artistic text
Read: RRC Leff 3p564/4p200, Lucas 3p205/4p569, Leff & Mohrmann 3p151/4p161
Drafts of final papers should be exchanged for peer editing on April 24, to be done outside of class.
Week 16: May 1: Challenging the tradition (sex and beyond)
Read: CRT Campbell p397, Blair et al. p 563, Shome p591, Epilogue
Benson, Thomas W. "Rhetoric and Autobiography: The Case of Malcolm X." Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.1 (February 1974): 1-13.
James, Lawrence B. "The Influence of Black Orality on Contemporary Black Poetry and its Implications for Performance." Southern Speech Communication Journal 45 (Spring 1980): 249-267.
Madison, D. Soyini. "'That Was My Occupation': Oral Narrative, Performance, and Black Feminist Thought." Text and Performance Quarterly 13 (July 1993): 213-232.
Miller, Lynn C. "'Polymorphous Perversity' in Women's Performance Art: The Case of Holly Hughes." Text and Performance Quarterly 15 (1995): 44-58.
Condit, Celeste Michelle. "Opposites in an Oppositional Practice: Rhetorical Criticism and Feminism." Transforming Visions. Ed. Sheryl Perlmutter Bowen and Nancy Wyatt. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc., 1993. 205-230.
Condit, Celeste M. "Gender Diversity: A Theory of Communication for the Postmodern Era." Communication: Views from the Helm for the 21st Century. Ed. Judith Trent. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1998. 177-183.
Foss, Sonja K. and Cindy L. Griffin. "Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric." Communication Monographs 62 (March 1995): 2-18.
Dow, Bonnie J. "Feminism, Difference(s), and Rhetorical Studies." Communication Studies 46 (Spring-Summer 1995): 106-117.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. Man Cannot Speak for Her, vol. 1. New York: Praeger, 1989. 1-16.
Biesecker, Barbara. "Coming to Terms with Recent Attempts to Write Women into the History of Rhetoric." Philosophy & Rhetoric 25 (1992): 140-161.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. "Biesecker Cannot Speak for Her Either." Philosophy & Rhetoric 26 (1993): 153-159.
Biesecker, Barbara. "Negotiating Our Tradition: Reflecting Again (Without Apologies) on the Feminization of Rhetoric." Philosophy & Rhetoric 26 (1993): 236-241.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. "The Discursive Performance of Femininity: Hating Hillary." Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 (Spring 1998), 1-19.
Dow, Bonnie J., and Mari Boor Tonn. "'Feminine style' and Political Judgment in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards." Quarterly Journal of Speech 79 (August 1993): 286-302.
Peer edits of paper 5 due May 1
Week 17: Wednesday, May 8, 5:00-6:50 pm
Final paper due
presentations of final project