Communication 712 Advanced Historical/Critical Methods in Communication Research

Transcription

1 Communication 712 Advanced Historical/Critical Methods in Communication Research Fall 2012 Instructor: Trevor Parry Giles; 2105 Skinner Building; ; National Communication Association, 1765 N St., NW, Washington, DC; ; tparrygiles@natcom.org. Meeting Time: Thursday, 3:30 6:30 pm; 3112F Skinner Building Office Hours: By appointment Objectives: COMM 712 begins with the premise, borrowed from teachers of rhetoric beginning with Isocrates, that the best way to learn rhetoric is through understanding the theory of rhetoric, imitating excellent models of rhetoric, and practicing skilled rhetoric on a regular basis. This seminar applies those same lessons to rhetorical criticism. One becomes a skilled rhetorical critic by understanding the theory of rhetorical analysis, by observing and modeling excellent models of rhetorical criticism, and by practicing rhetorical criticism on a regular basis. Textbooks: See course schedule for assigned readings. Course Schedule: Topic Readings Th 8/30 Course Introduction Th 9/6 Beginnings Hoyt H. Hudson, The Field of Rhetoric, Quarterly Journal of Speech Education 9 (1923): Martin J. Medhurst, The History of Public Address as an Academic Study, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, Loren D. Reid, The Perils of Rhetorical Criticism, Quarterly Journal of Speech 30 (1944): Herbert A. Wichelns, The Literary Criticism of Oratory, in Studies of Rhetoric and Public Speaking in Honor of James Albert Winans, edited by A.M. Drummond. New York: Century Co., Special Section, What Constitutes Publishable Rhetorical Scholarship, Communication Studies 54 (2003):

2 Th 9/13 Th 9/20 Intent & Effects Oratory/Public Address Richard A. Cherwitz & John Theobald Osborne, Contemporary Developments in Rhetorical Criticism: A Consideration of the Effects of Rhetoric, in Speech Communication: Essays to Commemorate the 75 th Anniversary of the Speech Communication Association, edited by Gerald M. Phillips & Julia T. Wood (pp ). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, James Jasinski & Jennifer R. Mercieca, Analyzing Constitutive Rhetorics, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, Richard Leo Enos, Rhetorical Intent in Ancient Historiography: Herodotus and the Battle of Marathon, Communication Quarterly 24 (1976): Charlotte Jorgensen, The Relevance of Intention in Argument Evaluation, Argumentation 21 (2007): Mary E. Stuckey, Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and Instrumental Effects of Presidential Rhetoric, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, J. Michael Hogan, Public Address and the Revival of American Civic Culture, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, Robert D. King, Franklin D. Roosevelt s Second Inaugural Address: A Study in Text Authenticity, Quarterly Journal of Speech 23 (1937): Stephen E. Lucas, The Renaissance of American Public Address: Text and Context in Rhetorical Criticism, Quarterly Journal of Speech 74 (1988): Martin J. Medhurst, The Contemporary Study of Public Address: Renewal, Recovery, and Reconfiguration, Rhetoric & Public Address 4 (2001): David Zarefsky, Public Address Scholarship in the New Century, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, Th 9/27 Text Leah Ceccarelli, Polysemy: Multiple Meanings in Rhetorical

3 Criticism, Quarterly Journal of Speech 84 (1998): Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar, Object and Method in Rhetorical Criticism: From Wichelns to Leff and McGee, Western Journal of Speech Communication 54 (1990); Davis W. Houck, Textual Recovery, Textual Discovery, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, Th 10/4 Th 10/11 Ideas Method Michael Leff, Textual Criticism: The Legacy of G.P. Mohrmann, Quarterly Journal of Speech 72 (1986): Michael Leff, Things Made by Words: Reflections on Textual Criticism, Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): Michael Leff & Andrew Sachs, Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Text, Western Journal of Speech Communication 54 (1990): Michael Calvin McGee, Text, Context, and the Fragmentation of Contemporary Culture, Western Journal of Speech Communication 54 (1990): Joseph L. Blau, Public Address as Intellectual Revelation, Western Speech 21 (1957): Thomas Rosteck, Form and Cultural Context in Rhetorical Criticism: Re Reading Wrage, Quarterly Journal of Speech 84 (1998): Malcolm O. Sillars, Rhetoric as Act, Quarterly Journal of Speech 50 (1964): Ernest J. Wrage, Public Address: A Study in Social and Intellectual History, Quarterly Journal of Speech 33 (1947): A. Craig Baird & Lester Thonssen, Methodology in the Criticism of Public Address, Quarterly Journal of Speech 33 (1947): Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Rhetorical Criticism 2009, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, 2010.

4 Donald C. Bryant, Some Problems of Scope and Method in Rhetorical Scholarship, Quarterly Journal of Speech 23 (1937): Marie Hochmuth, Kenneth Burke and the New Rhetoric, Quarterly Journal of Speech 38 (1952): Marie Hochmuth, Burkeian Criticism, Western Speech 21 (1957): James Jasinski, The Status of Theory and Method in Rhetorical Criticism, Western Journal of Communication 65 (2001): W. Charles Redding, Extrinsic and Intrinsic Criticism, Western Speech 21 (1957): Th 10/18 Th 10/25 No Class Richmond Theory Edwin Black, A Note on Theory and Practice in Rhetorical Criticism, Western Journal of Speech Communication 44 (1980): James Darsey, Must We All Be Rhetorical Theorists?: An Anti Democratic Inquiry, Western Journal of Communication 58 (1994): Roderick P. Hart, Doing Criticism My Way: A Reply to Darsey, Western Journal of Communication 58 (1994): Roderick P. Hart, The Wondering Imperative: Better Criticism through Science, A paper presented at the NCA Summer Conference on Teaching Rhetorical Criticism & Critical Inquiry, July 24, John M. Murphy, Theory and Public Address, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, Christine Oravec, Where Theory and Criticism Meet: A Look at Contemporary Rhetorical Theory, Western Journal of Speech Communication 46 (1982): Th 11/1 History Barnet Baskerville, Must We All Be Rhetorical Critics? Quarterly Journal of Speech 63 (1977): Barbara A. Biesecker, Of Historicity, Rhetoric: The Archive as

5 Scene of Invention, Rhetoric & Public Affairs 9 (2006): Bruce E. Gronbeck, Rhetorical History and Rhetorical Criticism: A Distinction, Speech Teacher 24 (1975): Th 11/8 Th 11/15 Morality No Class NCA Robert G. Gunderson, Reflections on History and Rhetorical Criticism, Communication Education 35 (1986): Davis W. Houck, On or About June 1988, Rhetoric & Public Affairs 9 (2006): Charles W. Lomas, Rhetorical Criticism and Historical Perspective, Western Speech 32 (1968): Shawn J. Parry Giles, Archival Research and the American Presidency, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, Douglas C. Bock, Axiology & Rhetorical Criticism: Some Dimensions of the Critical Judgment, Western Speech 37 (1973): Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Conventional Wisdom Traditional Form : A Rejoinder, Quarterly Journal of Speech 58 (1972): Forbes Hill, Conventional Wisdom Traditional Form The President s Message of November 3, 1969, Quarterly Journal of Speech 58 (1972): Thomas A. Hollihan, Evidencing Moral Claims: The Activist Rhetorical Critic s First Task, Western Journal of Communication 58 (1994): James F. Klumpp & Thomas A. Hollihan, Rhetorical Criticism as Moral Action, Quarterly Journal of Speech 75 (1989): Thomas R. Nilsen, Criticism and Social Consequences, Quarterly Journal of Speech 42 (1956): Philip Wander and Steven Jenkins, Rhetoric, Society, and the Critical Response, Quarterly Journal of Speech 58 (1972):

6 Th 11/22 Th 11/29 Th 12/6 Th 12/13 No Class Thanksgiving Ideology Identity Final Exam Sharon Crowley, Reflections on an Argument that Won t Go Away: Or, a Turn of the Ideological Screw, Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): Anne Makus, Stuart Hall s Theory of Ideology: A Frame for Rhetorical Criticism, Western Journal of Speech Communication 54 (1990): Michael Calvin McGee, The Ideograph : A Link between Rhetoric and Ideology, Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (1980): Lawrence Grossberg, Marxist Dialectics and Rhetorical Criticism, Quarterly Journal of Speech 65 (1979): Philip Wander, The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism, Central States Speech Journal 34 (1983): Philip Wander, On Ideology: Second Thoughts, Western Journal of Communication 75 (2011): Edwin Black, The Second Persona, Quarterly Journal of Speech 56 (1970): Bonnie J. Dow, Feminism and Public Address Research, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, Charles E. Morris III, Pink Herring & the Fourth Persona: J. Edgar Hoover s Sex Crime Panic, Quarterly Journal of Speech 88 (2002): Philip Wander, The Third Persona: An Ideological Turn in Rhetorical Theory, Central States Speech Journal 35 (1984): Eric King Watts, The Problem of Race in Public Address Research, in The Handbook of Rhetoric & Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry Giles & J. Michael Hogan (pp ). London: Wiley Blackwell, 2010.

7 Course Assignments: I. Participation: A seminar is only successful because of the engaged involvement of the participants. As such, I expect that you will read the assigned materials for each class period and that you will be prepared to actively and interactively discuss the material in the seminar. We will potentially be dealing with controversial subjects disagreements may, and probably will arise. Heated exchange and spirited debate are good things to be embraced, not breaches of propriety to be avoided. However, there must be an atmosphere of respect and good will for the seminar to succeed. II. You are asked to select and present/summarize a critical exemplar that illustrates or exemplifies a specific critical construct. You should be prepared to guide the discussion in the seminar about your chosen critical exemplar. III. PARC Analysis: You are asked to prepare two PARC analyses (approximately 2,000 2,500 words) over the course of the semester. These will be brief, researched critical analyses of a single political advertisement. Your analyses will be posted to IV. Critical Essay: You are asked to prepare a developed, fully researched critical essay (approximately 8,500 10,000 words). Your criticism should, obviously, advance a critical argument and present a systemic and evaluative analysis of a chosen and well justified text(s). Ideally, your essay should be of publishable/convention presentation worthy. General Course Policies: Incompletes: As reprinted from the University Catalog: The mark of "I" (Incomplete) is an exceptional mark that is an instructor option. It is given only to a student, whose work in a course has been qualitatively satisfactory, when, because of illness or other circumstances beyond the student's control, he or she has been unable to complete some small portion of the work of the course. In no case will the mark "I" be recorded for a student who has not completed the major portion of the work of the course. Academic Dishonesty: As reprinted from the University Undergraduate Catalog: The University is an academic community. Its fundamental purpose is the pursuit of knowledge. Like all other communities, the University can function properly only if its members adhere to clearly established goals and values. Essential to the fundamental purpose of the University is the commitment to the principles of truth and academic honesty. Accordingly, The Code of Academic Integrity is designed to ensure that the principle of academic honesty is upheld. While all members of the University share this responsibility, The Code of Academic Integrity is designed so that special responsibility for upholding the principle of academic honesty lies with the students. Definitions of Academic Dishonesty: any of the following acts, when committed by a student, shall constitute academic dishonesty: Cheating: intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise. Fabrication: intentional and unauthorized

8 falsification or invention of any information or citation in an academic exercise. Facilitating Academic Dishonesty: intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another to violate any provision of this Code. Plagiarism: intentionally or knowingly representing the words or ideas of another as one's own in any academic exercise. Responsibility to Report Academic Dishonesty: Academic dishonesty is a corrosive force in the academic life of a university. It jeopardizes the quality of education and depreciates the genuine achievements of others. It is, without reservation, a responsibility of all members of the campus community to actively deter it. Apathy or acquiescence in the presence of academic dishonesty is not a neutral act. Histories of institutions demonstrate that a laissez faire response will reinforce, perpetuate, and enlarge the scope of such misconduct. Institutional reputations for academic dishonesty are regrettable aspects of modern education. These reputations become self fulfilling and grow, unless vigorously challenged by students and faculty alike. All members of the University community, students, faculty, and staff share the responsibility and authority to challenge and make known acts of apparent academic dishonesty. The University has a nationally recognized Honor Code, administered by the Student Honor Council. The Student Honor Council proposed and the University Senate approved an Honor Pledge. The University of Maryland Honor Pledge reads: I pledge on my honor that I have not given or received any unauthorized assistance on this assignment/examination. You will be asked to sign a statement to this effect on the final page of your exams. In addition, you will be asked to submit a written version of this pledge each time you submit an essay for evaluation. Students who fail to write and sign the Pledge will be asked to confer with the instructor. Classroom Atmosphere & Respect: As reprinted from the University Undergraduate Catalog: The University of Maryland values the diversity of its student body and is committed to providing a classroom atmosphere that encourages the equitable participation of all students. Patterns of interaction in the classroom between the faculty member and students and among the students themselves may inadvertently communicate preconceptions about student abilities based on age, disability, ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation. These patterns are due in part to the differences the students themselves bring to the classroom. Classroom instructors should be particularly sensitive to being equitable in the opportunities they provide students to answer questions in class, to contribute their own ideas, and to participate fully in projects in and outside of the classroom. Of equal importance to equity in the classroom is the need to attend to potential devaluation of students that can occur by reference to demeaning stereotypes of any group and/or overlooking the contributions of a particular group to the topic under discussion. Joking at the expense of any group creates an inhospitable environment and is inappropriate. Moreover, in providing evaluations of students, it is essential that instructors avoid distorting these evaluations with preconceived expectations about the intellectual capacities of any group. Sexual harassment of any kind (unwanted/unwelcome sexual comments; unwanted/unwelcome requests for sexual favors; the creation of a hostile educational environment) will not be tolerated.

9 Attendance: This class does not have an attendance policy largely because the University does not allow such policies and because I believe you are responsible for your own education. Should you choose not to attend class, then, you are responsible for the consequences of that choice.