Richard Weaver
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE AGRARIAN RHETORIC OF RICHARD M. WEAVER BY R. McKAY STANGLER Submitted to the graduate degree program in Communication Studies and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. __________________________________________ Chairperson: Dr. Jay Childers __________________________________________ Dr. Beth Innocenti __________________________________________ Dr. Donn Parson __________________________________________ Dr. Robert Rowland __________________________________________ Dr. Charles Marsh Date Defended: June 15, 2015 ii The Dissertation Committee for R. McKAY STANGLER certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: THE AGRARIAN RHETORIC OF RICHARD M. WEAVER __________________________________________ Chairperson: Dr. Jay Childers Date approved: June 15, 2015 iii Abstract The rhetorician and philosopher Richard Weaver has been an unfairly marginalized figure in rhetorical studies, consigned to the margins for his conservative political views and insistence upon the reality of Platonic transcendental forms. In this dissertation, I advance an argument that Weaver is not only a major figure who deserves reexamination, but also that a true understanding of Weaver must be based upon his education and training by the Southern Agrarian writers, critics, and poets. Analyzing Weaver’s writings through the framework of Agrarian thought, I use the categories of practice (practical and traditional knowledge), place (geographic identity), and solidarity (societal common purpose) to suggest new ways forward for rhetorical studies, rhetorical education, and civic life. iv Acknowledgements One of the goals of doctoral work in the humanities, more than a few faculty members remarked to me during the last half-decade, is to “enter the conversation”: to take one’s place at the table of scholarly debate and discussion. The subtext of this reminder is that there is no such thing as the mythical lone scholar, toiling away like Montaigne in a neo-Gothic castle tower. Indeed, no scholar gets through any level of work alone. Many people have helped me in manners beyond measure. In the Department of Communication Studies, students and faculty alike are fortunate to count Suzanne Grachek and John Fackler as allies. Suzanne and John make the department run, and I am extremely grateful to them for all the help over the years. John and I talked literature and politics many times, and I doubt he knows how much those conversations meant to someone desperately needing a break from high theory. My fellow students were a constant source of support, friendship, and amiable academic rivalry. I became good friends with many of them, and I hope our relationships endure as we spread out to other schools. I’d like to particularly thank Benjamin Garner, Chelsea Graham, Cooper Wakefield, Vince Meserko, Mike Anderson, and Eddie Glenn. Dr. Brent Steele was a highly respected professor of political science here at KU when I first encountered him in a class on international relations and social theory. Aside from being incredibly intelligent, he is also an amazing and dynamic teacher. It was in that class that I first encountered the objections to Enlightenment thought that sent me down the road toward this dissertation. He is now at the University of Utah, and I doubt he could ever know just how much his lectures influenced my thinking. v Dr. Charles Marsh served as my outside committee member, and I’m so grateful to him for the lessons in Isocratean thought and the helpful research suggestions. Dr. Marsh is a classical rhetoric scholar in the journalism school—no easy feat in the age of the algorithm. I have told every journalism major I’ve encountered at KU to seek him out, take his class, and simply listen. He is a true bright spot in the KU professoriate. Dr. Beth Innocenti was my first teacher in my first class on my first day of the doctoral program, and on that day we read none other than Richard Weaver—excerpts from The Ethics of Rhetoric, to be exact. If you’d told me on that day that he would be the subject of my dissertation, I would likely have replied: “This boring curmudgeon?” Surely Dr. Innocenti’s enthusiasm for that text lodged somewhere in my subconscious, for when I came across an excerpt from Ideas Have Consequences two years later, purely by chance while looking for another work, something in my mind clicked. She is a remarkable scholar, a kind and supportive teacher, and owner of the greatest laugh in Lawrence. She also gave me two of the best pieces of advice in graduate school: “When in doubt, return to the text,” and “Make every sentence true.” Seems shallow, until you try to follow it exactly. Anyone in rhetoric will know the name of Dr. Robert Rowland, but to know him by his (frighteningly prolific) publishing reputation alone is to miss what a truly amazing scholar and teacher he is. When I was doing my written comprehensive exams in an office across from his, I overhead an unhappy undergraduate complaining to Dr. Rowland about his grade in an inappropriately angry voice. Dr. Rowland replied, calmly but firmly, “Those are just opinions— make arguments!” It was excellent advice, delivered in an almost Homerically intercessory way, and I’d like to think my answers from that point forward were a little better. He is a brilliant vi debater, a helpful and supportive teacher, and he has one of sharpest minds I’ve ever encountered. His influence on my thinking was, and remains, profound. I had one stroke of great fortune in the fall of 2013: despite his retirement, Dr. Donn Parson agreed to serve on my committee. What can one say about him? Yes, is a legendary figure in debate and argumentation. Yes, he has shaped the field in ways yet to be understood and has shepherded legions of students through the realm of rhetoric. But he is more than that. He is one of the wisest people I’ve ever known, and without question one of the broadest thinkers. He always encouraged us to think beyond narrow disciplinary confines and to ponder the deepest questions. He taught me more than I think he will ever realize, and his questions still guide my search for answers—at a time and in a place, of course. My wife, Bridey, has been an unshakeable foundation of calm, patience, assistance, resolve, and general support. I would never have survived this past half-decade if it were not for her. We certainly didn’t make it easy on ourselves; we moved an incredible six times during the program—oh, and we had a child—but through it all she was positive, supportive, and endlessly patient with her husband, who grew more and more morose with each new chapter of social theory and cultural critique. Misanthropy, apparently, loves company—and I have the best company of all. *** In June 2013, after completing a hellish season of comprehensive exams, I went through a bit of an emotional crisis. My work seemed of little tangible value; my scholarly accomplishments paled when held up to material problems; I wondered if academia was right for vii me. I explained as much in a rambling and occasionally incoherent email to my adviser, Dr. Jay Childers. A couple of days later he wrote back, greeting my complaints head-on and addressing my qualms with personal stories of his own. It is clear to me now that it was one of the most important messages I’ve ever received in any medium. (He probably wishes there weren’t many such emails.) It seems banal to say that Dr. Childers has been more than an adviser to me; surely every graduate student has felt the same way. But since the banal things usually end up being the truest things, I’ll go ahead and assert it. He has seen me through every question, every breakdown, and every achievement of the last five years. He praised, criticized, cajoled, rebuked, edited, coaxed, and lectured me into what I am today. It often took me far too long to accept his advice, which led me to say “You were right” to him more times than I could possibly count. Every positive professional and scholarly attribute I have is due to him. Every negative trait I still possess endures in spite of his effort. He is at once a man of extraordinary intelligence, vast wisdom, and wide interests: as apt to quote poets as rhetoricians, quick to recommend novels and academic works alike, fearful of society’s path but optimistic about the capacity for change. I fear I can never hope to repay him for all he has done for me. Doubtless he has shaped me in ways I have yet to grasp. I dedicate this work to him, with great admiration and unending gratitude. viii Table of Contents Abbreviation Guide ix Chapter 1: Introduction 1 The Treatment of Weaver in Rhetorical Studies 9 A Brief Weaver Biography 16 The Philosophy of Agrarianism in America 20 How This Dissertation Proceeds 32 Chapter 2: Weaver and the Forms of Agrarian Knowledge 44 Contrasting Types of Knowledge 47 The Agrarian View of Knowledge 53 History, Tradition, and Memory in Agrarian Thought 59 Weaver on the Elements of Practice 65 Historical Tradition in Weaverian and Agrarian Thought 70 Final Thoughts 78 Chapter 3: Rhetoric, Culture, and Place 85 The Concept of Place in Agrarianism 88 The Southern Agrarians and the Place of the South 91 The South in the Thought and Rhetoric of Weaver 99 Place, Rhetoric, and the Good Life 106 Property, Metaphysics, and Rhetoric 111 Final Thoughts 115 Chapter 4: Solidarity and Rhetoric 126 Cultural Solidarity in Agrarianism 129 Weaver, Rhetoric, and Individualism vs. Community 137 Solidarity, Rhetoric, and Ethics 144 Sermonic Language and Cultural Solidarity 152 Final Thoughts 156 Chapter 5: Conclusion 167 Rhetoric as Moral Education 170 Agrarian Rhetoric as a Model for Criticism and Education 173 Problems of the Weaver Rhetorical Program 182 Rhetoric, Aiming Upward 193 ix Abbreviation Guide: Ideas Have Consequences: IHC The Ethics of Rhetoric: ER Language is Sermonic: LS Life Without Prejudice: LWP Visions of Order: VO The Southern Tradition at Bay: STB The Southern Essays of Richard M.