One of the overriding themes of this course is that rhetorical theory construction is both a critical and creative process through which we produce, perform, and act upon an understanding of otherwise mysterious "rhetorical" phenomenon. Such theories do not (or at least ought not) develop in an intellectual vacuum, but should represent the theorist's engagement with existing bodies of disciplinary knowledge, access to a phenomenon to be interpreted and explained, and the ability to invent and conceptualize interesting or significant problems and questions (or to reconceptualize old problems and questions in engaging and provocative ways).

Central to such a process is the capacity to identify and integrate various (and sometimes inconsistent or apparently unrelated) strands of thinking and analysis as one critically and creatively engages specific issues and problems. Rhetoric, by its very nature, invites interdisciplinary considerations; thus, one of the things that a rhetorical theorist must be ready to do is to take account of the theories, concepts, critiques, and explanations of theories operating outside of the formal discipline of rhetorical studies in a vocabulary that is nonetheless central to rhetorical theorists. Put simply, one way in which theory construction occurs is when theorists creatively and intelligently intertextualize various theories in the context of explaining specific rhetorical phenomenon. By "intertextualize" I mean two things simultaneously: (1) To interpret two (or more) things in terms of one another. To intertextualize Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric and Lenin's What Is To Be Done? is to use the Art of Rhetoric as a critical/theoretical lens to read and interpret What Is To Be Done?, and, conversely, to use What Is To Be Done? as a critical/theoretical lens to read and interpret the Art of Rhetoric. (2) To juxtapose two (or more) thinkers/ theories as if they were actually in a debate or dialogue with one another. This can frequently be difficult because we are either forced to construct a plausible "issue" that separates/connects two thinkers, and/or to infer and project how they might respond to a particular issue based on what we know they actually wrote.

In this assignment I am asking you to prepare a review essay in which you critically and creatively theorize the relationship between two thinkers by intertextualizing their writings. Each of you has been assigned two books relevant to issues in contemporary rhetorical theory. In most instances, you have one author who is (or could be) generally identified within the received tradition of Anglo-American rhetorical theory, and one author whose disciplinary affiliation is less clearly affiliated with this tradition. Your task is to study these two works carefully and then to write a theoretical review essay in which you relate the significance of these books to an audience of contemporary rhetorical theorists likely to read QJS. There are any number of ways to approach this assignment, and I will be happy to discuss them with you individually once you have had a chance to work through your readings and develop a preliminary approach, but central to any approach is discovering a point of "unity" that links them together somehow -- even if that connection is nothing more than an opposition over a particular problem or issue that is of concern to each thinker, as pro-choice and pro-life advocates are "connected" by their mutual concern for how the state legislates the issue of abortion -- and is arguably significant to contemporary rhetorical theory.

As you prepare for this assignment you should keep several things in mind:

First, a good review essay is an exercise in rhetoric, and thus it should be audience-conscious. You would not review the same works in the same way in front of vastly different audiences. Here your audience is the discipline of contemporary rhetorical theorists from Biesecker and Charland to Hariman and McGee and from Burke to Perelman, and it is expected that you will develop your review with consideration for what is (or arguably should be) significant to such thinkers. The course syllabus and class discussions provide an important and useful initial context for focusing audience interests and concerns.

Second, like any good journal article, the review essay must advance a central argument -- a thesis that is explained, evidenced, and warranted through your subsequent analysis of the works involved -- that places a claim on the beliefs and behaviors of your readers. Hence, while a primary focus of the essay is to review the two works you have been assigned, in a larger sense the essay is really about your theory/argument, and the books under review are the context in which to make and develop that argument. You can find good examples of review essays as the "lead book reviews" in QJS and History and Theory. Diacritics, and The Journal of Sociological Reviews also specialize in such review essays.

Third, in view of the above directions, it will almost be essential that you consult and use materials other than the targets for the review. So, for example, if you were to use the problem posed by the relationship between rhetoric and "public opinion" as a unifying context to talk about Aristotle and Lenin you would certainly need to intertextualize these volumes with relevant contemporary work in that area. It might also be helpful to consult material concerning the historical contexts in which these authors wrote, as well as any other relevant materials you can imagine.

1. The first stage in this process is to prepare an outline of the first of the two books assigned to you. Each of these books operates within and/or speaks directly to the received tradition of rhetorical theory in the past fifty years and each represents a body of research with which anyone laying claim to an expertise in "contemporary rhetorical theory" needs to have more than passing knowledge. We can't all possibly read all of these books this semester; we can, however, take advantage of our collective labor to produce detailed outlines that should provide each of us with a minimum amount of knowledge on each book so as to avoid complete ignorance on our part as we address the problems and possibilities of rhetorical theory (or as we prepare for comprehensive examinations). In order to make these outlines as useful as possible I am asking that you follow a comment format as follows:

a. Starting in the upper left-hand corner record the precise and complete bibliographic entry according to MLA 4th. ed.

b. Skip three lines and write a one-paragraph statement and summary explanation of the primary thesis of the book. Avoid being judgmental in this summary.

c. Develop a conceptual outline of the book. A conceptual outline is different from the traditional "chronological" or "spatial" outline that traces the development of an argument from page one to the end of the book as the author intended it. Rather, a conceptual outline identifies the logical or propositional structure of the book as it develops an argument in support of the overarching theoretical claim being advanced (or implied) regardless of the particular form the author chooses. This is a powerful tool for discerning the implicit theory of a non-propositional text as, for example, a novel or play, for it forces us to consider the power of form as it implicates meaning in the process of representation. What is true about narrative texts is equally true about analytical texts, i.e., they are constituted in a rhetorical form that often masks the assumptions and implications of the argument they advance. A conceptual outline helps us to read such texts more actively by considering the underlying logic or propositional structure guiding the development of a theoretical claim that is presented in a more-or-less unified way (as an analytical argument). It is also useful in trying to engage a book of essays where the arguments and analyses of the various chapters support a larger unifying theoretical claim or perspective that is not specifically advanced in anyone of the essays.

Your task here, then, is to develop a conceptual outline of the book with which you are working, identifying the main thesis and between four and seven sub-theses or claims that serve as the supporting structures of that argument. Do not excede the four to seven sub-theses limits. Each sub-thesis or claim should be numbered using Roman numerals. Be as specific as possible in stating the sub-theses, making sure that each is no longer than one complete sentence. Under each roman numeral you should have two main points. Under "A" you should provide a brief description (two to four sentences) in your own words of the meaning or significance of the sub-thesis. Under "B" you should have one or two short quotations (with page citations) which illustrate the author's mode of amplifying or proving the proposition.

d. Put your name and the date at the end of the review, flush right.

Outlines should be single-spaced and should be no more than 5 pages in length. Outlines will be due on 2/15. I will review them, request revisions where necessary, and then ask that you supply me with fifteen copies of the outline for distribution to the members of the class. I will place a sample outline on the course web page in the next week or so.

2. The final essay should be 15-20 pages (4,000-5,000 words) + however many pages of endnotes as are necessary to substantiate your case (typed or printed by computer, double spaced) on 8 1/2" X 11" white paper. The specific works you are reviewing should be listed at the top of the essay in proper bibliographic format (MLA 4th Ed. or Chicago are preferred). Specific page references to the works being reviewed may be placed in the text of the essay inside of parentheses, e.g., (Burke, 212-13). Do not include the primary works in endnotes, which should be reserved for references to other works you use, or as content notes. Margins should be at least one inch on all sides of the page in order to leave room for comments. Be sure to retain one copy of the essay.

3. You will turn in a first draft of the essay in class no later than 3/22. Although this is a first draft I expect it to adhere to the format requirements above. I don't expect that the first draft will be stylistically polished, but I do expect that it be proof read and corrected for spelling, grammar, etc. I will read and comment on the first drafts and return them to you within 14 days The final draft will be due in class on 4/30. As I indicate on the syllabus, I will not grade the first draft, though I will provide detailed comments for revision and development. The theoretical review essay will count as 75% of your final grade for the course. Assignments turned in late at any stage of the process will result in a one-third grade reduction in the final grade for the assignment.

Bailey: Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: U of California Press, 1962. Orig. pub. 1950.

Felski, Rita. Beyond Feminist Aesthetics: Feminist Literature and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1989.

 

Carter: Burke, Kenneth. Counterstatement. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1968. Orig. pub. 1931.

Taussig, Michael. Mimesis and Alterity A Particular History of the Senses. New York: Routledge, 1993.

 

Cobb: Burke, Kenneth. The Philosophy of Literary Form. Berkeley, CA: U of California Press, 1945.

Jameson, Frederic. The Political Unconscious. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1981.

 

Cochran: Booth, Wayne. Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent. Chicago U of Chicago P, 1974.

Caputo, John D. Against Ethics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1993.

Cooper: Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame P, 1968.

White, James Boyd. Justice As Translation: An Essay in Cultural and LegalCriticism. Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1990.

LaMaster: Atwill, Janet M. Rhetoric Reclaimed: Aristotle and the Liberal Arts Tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1998.

DeMan, Paul. Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nieztsche,Rilke, and Proust. New Have, CT: Yale UP, 1979.

Lewis: Wells, Susan. Sweet Reason: Rhetoric and the Discourses of Modernity. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.

Bahktin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. Carly Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1981.

Madaus: Weaver, Richard. Language is Sermonic: Richard Weaver on the Nature of Rhetoric. Ed. Richard L. Johannesen, et al. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State UP, 1970.

Harvey, David. Justice, Nature & The Geography of Difference. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996.

McGarrity: Ong, Walter J., S.J. The Presence of the Word: Some Prolegomena for Cultural and Religious History. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1967.

Mitchell, W. J. T. Iconology: Image, Ideology, Text. U. of Chicago P., 1986.

Olbrys: Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1945.

Ulmer, Gregory L. Heuretics: The Logic of Invention. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP, 1994.

Pojman: Searle, John. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Random House, 1979. Orig. pub. 1975.

Ruggerio: Burke, Kenneth. Rhetoric of Religion: Studies in Logology. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press, 1961.

Said, Edward. Beginnings: Intention and Method. New York: Columbia UP, 1975.

 

Welsh: Grassi, Ernesto. Rhetoric As Philosophy: The Humanist Tradition. University Park, PA: Penn State UP, 1980.

Schrag, Calvin O. Communicative Praxis and the Space of Subjectivity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Worthington: Barthes, Roland. Image/Music/Text. Trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977.

White, Hayden. Content of the Form: Narrative Discoure and Historical Representation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987.

 

 

Return to C513 Assignments