48C:236:03: Critical Methods
Spring 2005
Weds 6:00-8:50 Lang 346
Catherine H. Palczewski, Ph.D.
office hours, Lang 341:
Tu 2:00-3:00Thurs: 10:30-11:30
I also am available for quick questions at the following times (when other students have scheduled regular meetings with me):
Tu 11:00-11:30Weds 1:30-2:30
Lang 218 debate office hours:
Weds: 3:00-5:45
If none of these times work, feel free to call 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, theories are best understood as "heuristic 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: 1) An introduction to Kenneth Burke and dramatism, both in the form of primary writings and studies 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.
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.
Goals:
1) Familiarize one's self with rhetorical criticism as a 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 or 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. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, 2000.
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.
Assignments: (You can earn up to 100 points in this course. Points are indicated in parenthesis next to the title of the assignment.)
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.
Page limits on all assignments will be rigorously enforced. 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 be picked up from the graduate college. (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.
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,B) background on when, where and to whom the text was delivered,
C) a description of the rhetor,
D) a description of the text,
E) a description of reactions to the text (this may include an assessment of the text's effects),
F) an explanation on why the text is rhetorically interesting, and
G) a preview paragraph that outlines your research questions (this paragraph will transform into your thesis paragraph).
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 26
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. Link to descriptive analysis outline. This paper expands upon the short description of the text provided in subpoints B, C and D from above. Attach an outline of answers to questions concerning the rhetorical situation and an outline of the seven elements of the speech. 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. Link for outline. Due: February 16.
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 9. 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. Due: April 6.
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. Due: May 4, 5:00pm.
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 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 26.
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 16.
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 9.
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? Due: April 6.
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. Due: May 4, 5:00pm.
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. 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.
A. Papers 1, 2, and 3: For the 1st three assignments, 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 within one week of receiving it (edits for paper 1 due February 2, paper 2 due February 23, paper 3 due March 23). Peer editors should 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.B. Papers 4 and 5: With the 4th and 5th papers, peer editing will happen in class or prior to turning the paper in. Please check the syllabus for in-class peer editing days, and bring a copy of your paper to class on those days for feedback. When this occurs, the editor should sign the paper. When the final version of the paper is turned in, the author should include all copies of peer edited papers. For a single class period, multiple people should edit the paper.
1. Paper 4: In class peer editing of paper 4 happens on March 23, which means authors should have a draft of it completed by then.2. Paper 5: students should bring a draft to class on April 20. Peer editors should have editing completed, and return the paper to the author no later than April 27 in class.
7) Presentation: (5). During the final exam period (May 4, 5:00-6:50 pm, can anyone say potluck?), we will have a formal presentation of all the papers. These presentations will be modeled after conference presentations of papers. Students will have 12-15 minutes to present their papers. Depending on class size, the length of the presentation may be changes. 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.
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) 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 text can be enhanced by others' insights. For a detailed description of the criteria used in the assessment of discussion, see my discussion link.
For those who are uncertain about their ability to pariticpate 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.
General Information: see this link. This site includes my late policy, the university accommodation policy, as well as paper format descriptions.
Syllabus: (This syllabus is subject to change, although that rarely happens.) If changes happen, they will be in hot pink.
Week 1: January 12: Method, Shmethod
Read: CQ 1-3; RRC Black p47, Lucas p88; CRT intro
Key concepts: element of rhetoric, assessing the rhetorical situation, positional v. situational criticism
Week 2: January 19: Introduction to Burke: Dramatism
Read: OSS Intro by Gusfield, 8, 1, 19, 2, 6, 13 or RRC Burke p208
Supplemental Bibliography:
Condit, Celeste Michelle. "Post-Burke: Transcending the Sub-stance of Dramatism." Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): 349-355.
Week 3: January 26: The pentad
Read: OSS 7, 9, 10; RRC Ling p223
Paper 1 due
Week 4: February 2: The Comic Frame and scapegoating
Read: OSS 16, 20, 21, RRC Tonn et al. p229
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." Submitted to Communication Studies, December 2001. Revised and resubmitted June 2002. 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 9: Identification, Terministic catharsis
Read: OSS 11, 4, 12, 14, 17
Week 6: February 16: The rhetorical situation
Read: CRT Part 3; Goodnight p251
Supplemental readings (spheres of argument):
Fabj, Valeria and Matthew J. Sobnosky. "AIDS Activism and the Rejuvenation of the Public Sphere." Argumentation & Advocacy 31 (Spring 1995): 163-184.
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.
Paper 2 due
Week 7: February 23: The audience
Read: CRT part 5, Condit p494; CCR Foss & Foss p526
Suplemental bibliography (public sphere):
Habermas, Jürgen. "The Public Sphere." In Jürgen Habermas on Society and Politics: A Reader. Ed. Steven Seidman. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. 231-236.
Fraser, Nancy. "Rethinking the Public Sphere." In Habermas and the Public Sphere. Ed. Craig Calhoun. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992. 109-142.
Habermas, Jürgen. "Further Reflections on the Public Sphere." In 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 2: The words
Read: CRT McGee p65, Scott p131, McGee p 425; CCR Lucaites & Condit p 471
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.
Week 9: March 9: Close textual criticism
Read: RRC Leff & Mohrmann p176; CCR XII
Paper 3 due
delayed to week 11
Week 10: March 16: spring break
Week 11: March 23: peer editing
A draft of paper 33333 should be ready for editing during this class period. Edit it during the class, and then it will be due on Monday, March 28 -- which is when I get back in town.
Read: Selections from a collection of essays published in Communication Studies, 54.3 (Fall 2003) -- available on Expanded Academic ASAP. You are required to read 2 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."
March 28 paper 3 due. leave in my mailbox in the main office before 5pm.
Week 12: March 30: Metaphoric criticism
Read: OSS 15; RRC VII
Week 13: April 6: Genre criticism
Read: CCR IX
Paper 4 due
delayed to week 14
Week 14: April 13: Good criticism need not agree
Read: Hill p164, Campbell p200
Supplemental bibliography:
Newman, Robert P. "Under the veneer: Nixon's Vietnam speech of November 3, 1969." Quarterly Journal of Speech 56.2 (April 1970): 168-178.
Paper 4 due
I will try to get editing done this week, but Friday night, and leave the papers on my office door, so you have the edits to refine the draft of paper 5, which is due next week.
Week 15: April 20: Beyond the verbal; getting postmodern
Read: CRT Poulakos p25, Brummett p 153; CCR Blair et al. p604
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.
Drafts of final papers should be exchanged for peer editing, to be done outside of class.
Week 16: April 27:Challenging the tradition
Read: CRT Part 8, McKerrow p441, Campbell p397, 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." In 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." In 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 Canot 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, Karyn Kohrs. "Biesecker Cannot Speak for Her Either." Philosophy & Rhetoric 26 (1993): 153-159.
Biesecker, Barbara. "Negotiating Our Tradition: Reflecting Again (Without Aplogies) 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 4 wednesday, 5-650 final
Final paper due