Return to the COMM 652 Home Page
In the last half of the twentieth century, rhetorical study attained an importance it had not enjoyed since classical Greece and Rome. The discovery of that half century was the importance of human symbolic activity in making human action. Often called "the linguistic turn," the interest in rhetoric was startlingly clear throughout the intellectual estate. Contemporary rhetorical theory became an interdisciplinary activity with people contributing from a dozen academic disciplines. There were a number of problems on which these various scholars are working. They had to do with the shape of human sociality, the strength of human culture, and the place of those with the power of human speech in the complex societies of our time.
As we enter the twenty-first century, does that interest in rhetorical theory continue? Most assuredly. In a world of instant communication and globalization old questions about language, power, interpretation, and social action are renewed as central concerns. We may live in a time of the warrior and hegemony of power, but the role of symbolic forms in motivating and directing human lives permeates the texture of the world within which the warrior acts. Rhetorical theorizing may have slowed and a consolidation set in. If so, it simply means that criticism and invention are working out the possibilities of our underlying theories.
And perhaps that is the key: the work we do – with artifacts, with construal of rhetorical action, with ways of understanding socio-cultural reality – is framed by the theory with which we encounter it. So, contemporary rhetorical theory has multiplied the ways we understand rhetorical activity. We want to understand those ways more thoroughly to equip you for a more fertile trip through rhetoric. This move will tie contemporary rhetorical theory directly to your specific research interests. For example, I know some of you are interested in visual rhetoric. Many of the moves we will talk about have implications on how we understand the visual. You may want to carry the ideas that direction.
So, our task this semester is to understand the linguistic turn and its influence on how we think about the power of symbolic action. We will read a considerable distance beyond the communication discipline into literature, linguistics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and history. But the focus of this course is still on the contributions that communication scholars have made to the dialogue.
The tendency has been to organize the study of rhetorical theory around people, to study one theorist and then the next. (You will notice the Foss, Foss, and Trapp review of contemporary theory still does.) Some time ago, I decided that there were three weaknesses with that approach: (1) it left people unengaged in the disciplinary literature (of whatever discipline) in rhetorical theory; (2) it left students either incapable or unwilling to offer their own contribution to the literature of those disciplines; and (3) it failed to fully communicate the increasingly exciting and radical changes occurring in contemporary rhetorical theory. I sought to remedy this problem by reorganizing the course around problems contemporary theory is attempting to address. Such a focus should inject you into developments in the field in such a way that you can identify the leading edge of work.
Hopefully your semester will help you engage the liveliness of the contemporary
study of rhetoric.
Return to the Contents of this page
Return to the COMM 652 Home Page
About anyone with some basic knowledge of the sorts of things rhetorical theory attempts to do will be able to handle the course. In fact, this is not a bad course for people with little knowledge of rhetorical theory who want to learn more about it. Because of the newness of contemporary theories, those without previous biases are almost in a better position than those with trained incapacities. Perhaps a more important determinant of your affinity for this class than previous training is your comfort with abstraction. The course will be easier for those who are comfortable with theory, with thinking at abstract levels.
I need to address another issue as well, specific to those of you in communication. This course is now required of rhetoric students in the Department of Communication. YUCK!!!! I opposed this. Still do. There are a couple reasons, neither of which is: I don't want all you here. I bask in your presence. I delight in having you to explore CRT with. The first reason I opposed the change is that the requirement and the established trajectory of CRT into critical methods makes it sound like CRT is in the service of criticism. I do not believe this. Theoretical work is a way of coming to an understanding just as criticism is. CRT is itself a vital and active pursuit. For example, work on Kenneth Burke is widening all the time. We are understanding more about his theory, its relationship to his time, its relationship to his biography. In the great scheme of things, Burkean criticism is proportionately less prominent at the Kenneth Burke Conference than it was two or three conferences ago. It would be a disservice if you thought of CRT as just training for criticism. Second, contemporary theory is not the only way to approach criticism. Neo-Aristotelian criticism, for example, is as viable as Burkean criticism; it is just different. Indeed, I am a critic who believes that critics ought not see themselves as doing work that is derivative of theory. Of course, there will be theory underlying critical insight; but insight is what is important not theory. Oh, well, enough on my soap box. If I do a good job this semester, you will have what you need for taking criticism next semester: you will develop a flexibility in giving an account of a rhetorical act that will yield fecund insight as a critic. But you will also learn to love CRT. If you do a good job this semester, you will not think of this course as preparatory to criticism but will explore the perspectives on language and society that flow from contemporary rhetorical theory in their own right.
Finally, I want to emphasize the importance of flexibility of mind on the semester. When the linguistic turn happened, it destroyed a hegemony. And, at its best, it did not replace that hegemony. Rather it did what the hermeneutic folks call "bracketing"; that is, it taught us to set assumptions aside to look at things different ways. I will try to provide you some ways early to bracket things. It will be your responsibility to make the moves with me to see more and more things as alterable in how we look at rhetorical action.
Return to the Contents of this page
Return to the COMM 652 Home Page
In terms of your knowledge, I expect both breadth and some depth. The breadth comes from knowing the overall landscape of contemporary theory. You should have a knowledge of who the important theorists are and how they relate to the primary projects which structure contemporary theory. I do not expect you will have the opportunity to have depth in the full breadth of the study, but there will be at least one particular theoretical project that you have mastered to the extent necessary to participate in the debate. That includes the ability to read the work, isolate the problems yet to be solved in the theory, the strengths and weaknesses of past efforts to solve these problems, and the ability to propose and work through potential solutions on your own. At the heart of this is the skill of thinking in terms of theoretical problems and their solutions.
Return to the Contents of this page
Return to the COMM 652 Home Page
This is a seminar. I expect lots of discussion. That being said there are three forms that discussion will take:
Above all, participate. I want you to master some fairly sophisticated skills of analysis and argument, and you need to have the experience of articulating the problem-solution and question-answer structure of contemporary theory if you are going to master that. So I hope we will have a lively discussion of the issues framed by each of the theoretical projects.
The last few times I have taught this seminar I have let things pretty much flow in the direction they will flow. Although I will continue to do that, I suspect that the expectations that are defined by the department in requiring the course for some will lead me to impose myself a bit more in the flow. In short, the department now has some expectations of things you will get from the course. If I do this skillfully you will probably not perceive the move on my part. So, we will see how ham-handed I am.
Return to the Contents of this page
Return to the COMM 652 Home Page
In addition, there will be many shorter readings. I will make material available to you and you will be responsible for getting it photocopied for your use.
Return to the Contents of this page
Return to the COMM 652 Home Page