COMMGRAD 6022:03: Critical Methods

Spring 2015 (last updated December 12, 2014, still undergoing construction)

We 5:30-8:20 Lang 346

Catherine H. Palczewski, Ph.D.

office hours, Lang 341:

tba

No office hours

If these times do not work, feel free to call (319.273.2714) or email to make an appointment.

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.

To develop a heuristic vocabulary, the class is divided into two parts:

1) An introduction to Kenneth Burke and dramatism, both in the form of primary writings and essays that apply dramatistic concepts. This section enables you to see how scholars pull concepts from theoretical writings and then deploy them in the process of criticism.

2) A review of key rhetorical theories and model critical essays. This section introduces you to a range of critical vocabularies that are central to the understanding of the critical process.

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.

 

Objectives:

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 will 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 for 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.

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 general questions about an assignment's expectations in the week before it is due (most assignments are due on wednesday, which means you have until the wednesday 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 session 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 developing the rhetorical concepts 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.

TurnItIn requirement: For all written assignments, students are required to use TurnItIn in order to check they are not plagiarizing. Thus, for an assignment to be considered "turned in", students must have submitted an electronic version to TurnItIn before the assignment's due date and time, and also turn in a paper copy to the professor at the assigned due date and time. I have activated the TurnItIn website in such a way that you are allowed to submit drafts of your paper and receive originality reports. These reports should be used to assist you in making sure you are attributing authorship in an ethical way. The only originality report I will see is the final report on the version of the paper you turn into me. Students can access the TurnItIn website for each assignment via the class's eLearning site. TheTurnItIn link for each assignment is located in the folder labeled turnitin. Please understand: using TurnItIn is only the first step in making sure your are abiding by citation guidelines and providing fair attribution. TurnItIn is only one way to check the originality of your work, and just because your work passes the TurnItIn check does not guarantee you have not plagiarized. You are responsible for using style manuals to make sure your citation format is correct and consistent. Given this process, there will be ZERO TOLERANCE for any citation or paraphrase errors that result in you plagiarizing (presenting others' words as your own). Even a minor infraction will result in a zero on the assignment and a permanent letter placed in your file. A major infraction will result in an F for the class.

Track 1: Textual Criticism: All assignments assume you are studying a fixed, single text produced and delivered by an identifiable rhetor (or group of rhetors) that has a strong, if not central, verbal component. 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 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.

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).

Paper 1) Text Selection: (5) [5 pages]. Write a 5 page justification for studying your text. The justification should include:

  • an introduction that situates the topic within a larger context,
  • background on when, where and to whom the text was delivered,
  • a description of the rhetor,
  • a description of the text,
  • a description of reactions to the text (this may include an assessment of the text's effects),
  • an explanation on why the text is rhetorically interesting, and
  • a preview paragraph that outlines your preliminary arguments (this paragraph will transform into your thesis paragraph).

Note: This is NOT an outline for the paper, but a list of topics to be covered. 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 28:

Paper 2) Descriptive analysis of the text: (10) [10 pages]. Conduct a detailed criticism of the text using the descriptive analysis 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 yet to 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 19.

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 11. 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 you did 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: April 1. Final draft due: April 3. (leave in my main office mailbox and EMAIL to me).

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 22. Final draft due: May 6.YOU ALSO MUST SEND YOUR PAPERS AS AN EMAIL ATTACHMENT TO CATE AT palczewski@uni.edu. 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.

Paper 1 (5) [5 pages]: The overview and bibliography: This paper should introduce the reader to rhetorical concepts that help explain the functioning of a text. It should provide a cursory summary of the primary theory text (i.e., for the pentad, you would summarize Burke's Grammar of Motives), 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. CMMC, Project Muse, books and book chapters, dissertations, etc. should all be searched. Due: January 28.

Paper 2 (10) [10 pages]: The primary theory 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 a passage out there, but talk about what it means and how it might be deployed in criticism. Due: February 19.

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 11.

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: April 1. Final draft due: April 3 (leave in my main office mailbox and EMAIL to me).

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 22. Final draft due: May 6. YOU ALSO MUST SEND YOUR PAPERS AS AN EMAIL ATTACHMENT TO CATE AT palczewski@uni.edu. 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.

Bring two (2) copies to class: one to turn in to me, and another to share with a peer editor. For each paper, your peer editor will change so that you may get as much diverse advice as possible. Peer editors should return the paper on these dates (edits for paper 1 due February 4, paper 2 due February 25 , paper 3 due March 25, paper 4 due in class April 1, paper 5 due April 29). Peer editors can make a copy of the edited paper to turn into me on the same day they return it to the author. Remember to sign the paper you edit so you can get credit for the work.

Writing only "good job" will earn your zero (0) credit for that peer edit.

Editing guidelines: In order to receive the minimum passing credit for editing, you are expected to provide the following each time you edit:

1. Substantive edits: You are expected to provide a minimum of three (3) substantive suggestions. In order to make a good substantive suggestion, it usually requires at least a paragraph of writing. Given the length of these edits, you may want to type them. These suggestions can include:

a. Additional arguments to be made. You can point to additional evidence that supports their argument, or that modifies their argument in some way.

b. Additional citation on the history of the topic. You can provide the citation for a relevant essay or book, and explain the contribution it makes.

c. Additional variables or concepts that develop the thesis/research questions. You can provide a quotation and page number from the class texts, and explain what is revealed by using the concepts from the texts.

d. Additional scholarly citations. You can provide citations for articles from scholarly journals and books. You should summarize the concept from the scholar, and then explain it.

e. Major organizational changes. You can suggest a major reordering of the paper. This is more than moving the order of two paragraphs. Instead, it would constitute an alternative way to develop the argument.

f. Major differences in interpretation. You may disagree with some interpretive move the author makes. If so, make a case for an alternative interpretation, providing evidence.

2. Stylistic edits: You are expected to make a minimum of ten (10) style edits. They can include:

a. bibliographic citation corrections

b. internal citation corrections

c. typographical error corrections

d. grammar corrections

e. spelling corrections

f. sentence rewordings

7) Presentation: (5). During the final exam period (May 6, 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.

B) Presume the audience is not familiar with your paper, but is educated about rhetorical criticism. Thus, your presentation should include: a description of the speech, a description of historical context, and illustrative quotations from the text. Your presentation does NOT need to include detailed definitions of common rhetorical terms (i.e. rhetorical situation, persona, metaphor). However, do provide sufficient theoretical explanation of more complicated concepts so that the audience can follow your analysis.

C) Do not try to present all the arguments in your paper. You will not be able to cover everything in just 8 minutes. Instead, give a brief overview of all your arguments, and then pick one or two on which to focus the presentation.

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.

In order to be a full participant in discussion, you MUST have completed the assigned reading. I will open every class asking if there are questions, but beyond that, I will not review the readings. Instead, I will assume you have completed the reading, taken notes, and are ready to apply and analyze the readings. AnaLouise Keating (Teaching Transformation, 2007, p. 196) provides the following description of "graduate level academic practices" in regards to reading for class:

(1) I expect you to complete all readings by the date listed on the syllabus;

(2) I expect you to read the material thoughtfully and in an engaged manner;

(3) I expect you to read all endnotes and footnotes;

(4) I expect you to read (not skim) all of the required readings--even those you find "boring" or difficult;

(5) I expect you to reread those texts that you have previously read;

(6) I expect you to seek out definitions for words and terminology you don't know . . . try the following websites:

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

http:///www.theory.org.uk/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/culture/glossary.htm ...

http://www.popcultures.com/

http://www.cios.org/ [added by Cate]

For those who are uncertain about their ability to participate consistently, I suggest you do the following. For each week, I would like you to prepare a discussion log, no more than 1 single space typed page for each half, due the next class period. The log should have 2 halves:

A. Pre-class: a description of how you prepared to contribute to discussion (key concepts outlined, examples developed, questions formulated.);

B. Post-class: A self-assessment of your contribution to class using the five elements outlined in the discussion link. You should attach a grade to your participation for the class period in question.

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 14: 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 21: 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

Supplemental Bibliography:

Condit, Celeste Michelle. "Post-Burke: Transcending the Sub-stance of Dramatism." Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): 349-355.

 

Week 3: January 28: 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 28

 

Week 4: February 4: The Comic Frame and scapegoating: or how to describe different frames and their implications

Read : OSS 16, 20, 21, RRC Ott & Aoki 3p220/4p270

Stuckey, Mary. "Arguing Sideways: The 1491s' I'm an Indian Too. In Disturbing Argument, ed. Catherine H. Palczewski. New York: Taylor & Francis, in press. on eLearning

Supplemental Bibliography:

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 11: 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.

Branham, Robert J., and Barnett Pearce. "Between Text and Context: Toward a Rhetoric of Contextual Reconstruction." Quarterly Journal of Speech 71.1 (February 1985): 19-36.

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.

Pfister, Damien. "The Logos of the Blogosphere." Argumentation and Advocacy 47.3 (Winter 2011): 141-162.

 

Week 6: February 18: 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

Palczewski, Catherine Helen. "Contesting Pornography: Terministic Catharsis and Definitional Argument." Argumentation and Advocacy 38.1 (Summer 2001): 1-17. link

Paper 2 due February 18

 

Week 7: February 25: The audience (2nd, 3rd, and 4th personae): or how to articluate the nature of rhetoric as addressed and audiences as constituted

Read CRT part 5; RRC Morris 3p664/4p595; CRT Condit p494; RRC Zaeske 3p377/4p417

Charland, Maurice. Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the Peuple Québécois." Quarterly Journal of Speech 73.2 (May 1987): 133-150. link

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 4: The words (and images): or how to study a single word, or how to study "texts" in a postmodern world

Read CRT McGee p65, McGee p425; RRC Lucaites & Condit 3p467/4p513, Edwards & Winkler 3p487 OR Palczewski 4p534, Dow 4p576 or R&PA "Feminism, Miss America, and Meida Mythology" link

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

Supplemental bibliography:

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 11: 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

Supplemental bibliography:

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 11

 

Week 10: March 18: Spring Break (cate returns edits)

 

Week 11: March 25: 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

 

Week 12: April 1: (NDT)

in class peer edit of Paper 4 April 1. Paper 4 due April 3. (leave paper version in my main office mailbox and EMAIL to me).

 

Week 13: April 8: 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."

2. Barry Brummett, "Double binds in publishing rhetorical studies."

3. Joshua Gunn, "Publishing peccadilloes and idioms of disposition: views from the habitus of scholarly adolescence."

4. Steven B. Hunt, "An essay on publishing standards for rhetorical criticism."

5. Catherine Helen Palczewski,"What is "good criticism"? A conversation in progress."

EVERYONE must read:

1. Mike Allen. "Special section: what constitutes publishable rhetorical scholarship: heavy lies the editor's fingers on the keyboard."

2. John W. Jordan, Kathryn M. Olson, Steven R. Goldzwig. "Continuing the conversation on "what constitutes publishable rhetorical criticism?": a response."  

Supplemental bibliography:

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 15: (DePauw): Dr. Ryan McGeough guest lectures. Topic tba.

 

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

 

Week 15: April 22: 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

 

Drafts of final papers should be exchanged for peer editing on April 22, to be done outside of class.

 

Week 16: April 29: Challenging the tradition (sex and beyond)

Read: CRT Campbell p397, Blair et al. p 563, Shome p591, Epilogue

Supplemental bibliography:

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.

 

Week 17: Wednesday, May 6, 5:00-6:50 pm

Final paper due

presentations of final project