Part Six

MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC

ti ••

'' ' Introduction

Al the beginning of the twentieth cenlury, rhetoric appeared to be in decline. As $fill ,fi,.{_ C(llK. ', an academic discipline Tit no longer occupied u prominenl place in the university. In Su La,{<>.,.,.. Europe, some universitie i; discarded it altogether as a relic of the outmoded classical curriculumT and in olhcrs it was absorbed into the study of classics. In England, where debate developed into a competitive sport, rhetoric nonetheless progressively Josl its academic presence. In the United Stales, it was reduced to a few courses in writing and speaking that served the needs of a new curriculum dominated by mod· cm languages and science. Specialization and departmentalization in the modem ( i1,,.,s '1~~ t..>.wd, university dispersed the many traditional intellectual concerns of rhetoric to other \ S\'X 1.....t+1 ...... :._ c~: disciplines such as psychology, linguistics, philosophy, and literary studies. \f\n..:'A{ b< • • J..t {"<-"> But in the course of the twentieth century rhetoric became, once again, a valu­ able interdisciplinary theory of language and meaning. Philosophers and literary St-i••·v· ik.i. 'l <.i"- critics rediscovered rhetoric - or reinvented it under some other rubric, such as Cvv-h-J "discourse" or "dialogism" - as a solution to problems raised by traditional theo­ ries of language and meaning. Rhetoric has been enriched by their efforts. 11 has grown to encompass a theory of language as a form of social behavior, of intention and interpretation as the determinants of meaning, of the way thal knowledge is cre ­ ated by argument, and of the way that ideology and power arc extended through language. In this same period, the history of rhetoric has been rediscovered and reimagined . Enlarged as a theoretical resource . rhetori1: has also expanded its grasp of the ways that women, people of color, and cultural or ethnic minorities use lan­ guage to gain a hearing for themselves. In short, rhetoric has become a comprehen ­ sive theory of language as effective discourse. The themes or language and meaning, ethics and ideology. and argument and knowledge recur and overlap al each stage in the formulation of rhetorical theories during the twentieth century. The chronological stages outlined below are arbitr.iry conveniences that locate groups of ideas around the dates of major texts. But it is the interconnection of these ideas - not just their chronological succession - that best characlerizes twentieth -cenlury rhetoric.

INTRODUCTION n83 RHETORIC AND COMPOSITION troduction of literary , gued English profcssc By the end or the nineteenth century, college rhetoric in the United States had be­ lo wrile about other th come freshman English, a one · or two-semester writing course focusing on techni­ was not an expert. cal skill in grammar and usage, paragraph coherence, and exercises in the modes or lnlercst in rhetoric discourse - description, narration, exposition, and argumentation (as described in glish departments (me the introduction to Part Five). Invention, in the classical sense of discovering proba­ Aristotelian movemen bilistic arguments, was rarely studied, for it was believed that knowledge came and Renaissance lileri! from the sciences and from careful observation. The job of rhe1oric was therefore to periods, there appcar c­ record and transmit this knowledge with a minimum of 1.Jil;tortion. glish professors such : Professors in the newly established English departments advanced their profes­ scholars who took part sional interests through the study of modern literature, far from the outdated tradition (Clas.\"ical Rhctoric.fm of rhetoric and what they regarded as the philistinism of technically oriented compn · Rhetoric," 1965), and J sition. Composition instructors - graduate students and junior faculty members of lessons of the rhetoric: the English department, most of whom were cager to gain higher status and leave basis of the discipline I composition behind as soon as possible - were content to rely on the nineteenth ­ But in the 1960s an century approach now known as "currenHraditional," which emphasized expository pcarcd to be the chief . writing, lhe modes of discourse, and prescriptive grammar, usage, and style. Although turned to the composit some professors who urged a focus on public discourse and argumentation expressed rights movement and t opposition to the current-traditional approach, that method prevailed and, indeed. that required new appr continued to be the predominant approach to composition through the first two-third~ search for an "authenti of the twentieth century - and on some campuses much longer. sonul and oppressive E In the first decades of the twentieth century, composition courses in some of the face of the corporate ar more elite colleges used creative writing, renective essay s, and autobiography as an ity of cxpressivism, t alternative to the dominant model of expository writing. Students were to express widely used method o their own meanings, to regard themselves as artists, and to be original in thought and Nonetheless, expressiv sly le. Personal writing advocates drew some support from the new field of psycho­ composition theory by analysis - self-expression seemed lo be therapeutic, not merely self-indulgent ­ to the experience of the and, later, from the student-centered pedagogy associated with the Progressive The process model < movement in education during the 1920s and 1930s. The concerns of the Progres­ logical approach remin sives merged with the modem (perhaps now we would say 11wdcmist) development writers al work and alll of the social sciences in the communication movement of the succeeding decades. The process model has Co1111111111icatio11was a way of thinking about language and rhetoric as a means or tion, arrangement, and a "technology" for sharing experience s in a social setting . Thus communication "prewriting" slage of ti theory drew on psychology, sociology, and even anthropology, while incorporaling and arrangement. But 1 insights from information theory and semantic s. Thi i. movement, although short­ live" processes and "sc lived in most colleges and schools, was an imporlant precursor of an interdiscipli­ teachers, the relationsh1 nary approach to the study of language that would become prominent later in the rather tenuous. century. As the discipline of For the most part, however, the technical concern s that dominated the undergrad· of literary study, the Ii uate curriculum during the first part of the twentieth century meant that expository stronger. The "acadcm writing and grammar suited the generally practical goal s of most colleges and their rhetorical analysis of th students. The expressive writing cour se never seriom,ly challenged the current­ at conventions of addrei traditional model for dominance and soon became identified as a separalc course in Moreover, the difficult 1 creative writing. A more lasting effect of the creative writing approach was the in- program was exlcnsivel)

MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORI C troduction of literary study into the composition course, which was appropriate, ar­ gued English professors, because literature provided teachable content, something 1 • ric in the United Stales had be­ to write about other limn oneself or arbitrarily chosen subjects in which the teacher iting course focusing on techni ­ was not an expert. :, and exercises in the modes of Interest in rhetoric as a historical and theoretical discipline revived in some En­ argumentation (as described in glish departments (most notably in the University of Chicago, home of the neo­ ical sense of discovering proba­ Aristotelian movement) in the fifties and sixties. In addition to studies of medieval believed that knowledge came and Renaissance literature that acknowledged the importance of rheloric in those job of rhetoric was therefore to periods, there appeared scholarly analyse s of rhetorical history and theory by En­ of distortion. glish professors ~uch as Richard Weaver and Richard McKean. Weaver and other trtments advam:ed their profes­ scholars who look parL in the rhetorical revival - for example, Edward P. J. Corbett ·, far from the outdated tradition (Cla.,·.,·ica/Rlwtoric for the Modem Stmlem, 1965), Wayne Booth ("The Revival of of technically oriented compo­ Rhetoric," 1965), and James Kinneuvy (A Tlworyof Discourse, 1971)- applied the und junior faculty members of lessons of the rhetorical tradition to composition, arguing that rhetoric was the true to gain higher staius and leave basis of the discipline for both pedagogy and research. 1tent to rely on the nineteenth­ But in the 1960s and 1970s, self-expression rather than rhetoric once again ap­ " which emphasized expository peared to be the chief alternative to the current -traditional model. Expressivism re­ mar, usage, and style. Although turned to the composilion course as a response to political events, chicny the civil ,e and argumentation expressed rights movement and the Vietnam War, and to the increase in college admissions method prevailed and, indeed, that required new approaches to "basic" writing. Personal writing, the individual's tion through the first two-thirds ~arch for an "authentic voice," was regarded as a form of opposition to the imper­ ch longer. ~onal and oppressive Es1nhlishment: It was an assertion of personal freedom in the iosition courses in some of the face of the corporate und political forcei,, that urged conformity. For all the popular­ ,says, and autobiography a-; an ity of expressivism, the current -traditional approach continued to be the most ting. Students were to express widely used method of composition instruction during the sixties and seventies. 1d to be original in thought and Nonetheless, expressivism had the salutary effect of sparking renewed interest in from the new field of psycho ­ composition theory by questioning the prevailing approach and by turning attention , not merely self-indulgent ­ to the experience of the writer in the process of writing . .ociated with the Progressive The process model of composing that emerged during the 1970s uses a psycho­ The concerns of the Progrcs - !ogical approach reminiscent of the communication theory movement-it observes d say modernist) development writers at work and attempts to identify those activities that produce good writing. ,nt of the succeeding decades , The process model ha~ clear alfinities with the traditional rhetorical model of inven­ ge and rhetoric as a means or tion, arrangement, and style. For example, the "heuristics" that operate in the setting. Thus communication ··prewriting" stage of the writing process can be regarded as versions of invention ropology, while incorporating and arrangement. But many advocates of the process theory emphasized "cogni­ s movement, although short ­ tive" processes and "scientific" methods of research, so thaL for most composition precursor of an interdiscipli - teachers, the relationship between their work and the rhetorical tradition remained ecome prominent later in the rather tenuous. As the discipline of composition became more vigorous and more independent hat dominated the undergrad ­ of literary study, the links between composition and traditional rhetoric became :entury meant that expository stronger. The "academic discourse" theory of composition, for example, favors ·,~ v»ovul, l,.,d,1. als of most colleges and their rhetorical analysis of the genres of academic writing. In doing so, this theory looks usly challenged the current - at conventions of addres~ as well as at the persuasive intent of all forms of writing. ,Jowa--J..~iil~~ 1tilied as a separate course in Moreover, the difficult relationship between the English department and its writing writing approach was the in- progmm was exten sively examined anti its history analyzed as composition programs

INTRODUCTION 1185 f-i'-4 , ; ,(,(. soughl greater respect Another positive sign is Lhat literary criticism has come to velopmcnt of new th, take a brighter view of rhetoric. Most important for the growing connection be· garde positions in th< t.A~. +~ n.o.lv-, tween composition and rhetoric, however, is the profcssionalization of composition: tablished fields. But i1 the development of graduate programs in the Held and the increasing number of !crest in theory, e~p, lilLc..-~ scholars who study rhetoric from the point of view orcomposition. Burke, Chaim Perelrr protest movements of ing internal criticism SPEECHCOMMUNICATION plines, the result has l Departments of speech formed in the United States at the tum of the twentieth cen­ of rhetoric, alongside tury, breaking away from English departments, whose primary focus was liternture. statistical studies of la The curriculum of the new speech department was based on the public speaking course, which had been oddly neglected by most universities at a time when public ACADEMIC RHET• lectures were eagerly attended and when popular political oratory was a powerful force. The speech course was, and continues to be, quite popular with students for At the beginning of whom the ability to speak confidently, both on the job and in community life, may secondary level was t be as important as the ability to write well. western European sci In speech as in composition, the prevailing view of rhetoric since the beginning Belgium, recalls cram of the twentieth century has been instrumental or managerial: The purpose of about rhetoric until ye rhetoric, in other words, is lo convey knowledge clearly and efficiently. For this ered the counterpart c purpose, an Aristotelian approach proved entirely satisfactory. The basic course in Aristotelian logic tha public speaking continues lo be dominated by the traditional categories of invention spised. "• His discover (or research), arrangement, style, memory (or practice), and delivery, and by the trn· sible for a resurgence , ditional forms of appeal to reason, emotion , and authority. For most Europea The basic speech course (like the composition course) focuses on a practice Foucault , and Jacques rather than an abstract body of knowledge, and so rhetorical theory is rarely a who speak of ii positi, course topic. Instructors arc more likely to be interested in pedagogical theory, fo. discovery and rehabili • cusing, for example, on the comparison between the so-culled skill-oriented and So, too, in the Unil function-oriented models of teaching speech communication. As long as depart· Burke (p. 1295) annm menls of speech were devoted entirely to these basic undergraduate courses, as they come obscured when r were for the first quarter of the twentieth century, there was little cause to look into plines such as esthetic large theoretical questions. fore (so that esthctics In the twenties, however, speech departments sought to develop a graduate cur· mentioned look over, c riculum and a research agenda , and so they turned to the psychological and socio­ ics would ban).'' 2 Bur logical study of speech (in the so-called Midwestern :,;chool) and to the history of "esthctics"), with soci, rhetoric (in the so-called Cornell school) . The Midwesterners sought to base the ceplion follows the his new discipline in science, discovering through behavioral psychology the springs of lure was the chief opr oral persuasion . Their speech curriculum included oral interpretation, drama, speech posed rhetoric in Eu and diction, and speech pathology, to which they later added interpersonal, group, Linguistics and semant organizalional and mass communication, public relations, and journalism. The ity, a relationship that Cornell group focused on rhetorical theory and oratory, including speech criticism story of rhetorical thee (based, as the public speaking course was, on cJao;sical principles), and soon gcncr· story of how the phi lo ated a plethora of historical studies of rhetoricians and orators .

For both composition and speech communication, however, the disciplinary gcs· 'Sec p. 1390 in lhis book talion period that extended through much of the twentieth century delayed the de- ' Sec p. 1324 in this book

1186 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC terary criticism has come to velopment of new theoretical perspectives or even the active assimilation of avant­ the growing connection be­ garde positions in the philosophy of language that influenced scholars in more es­ ;ionalization of composition: tablished fields. But in the fifties and thereafter, academic rhetoricians took more in­ 1d the increasing number of terest in theory, especially by converting the work of I. A. Richards, Kenneth ;:)Inposition. Burke, Chaim Perelman, and Stephen Toulmin into analytical methods. The social '16""(;."' .... ld.~ protest movements of the sixties affected speech and composition similarly, spark­ 1., ~o""r­ ing internal criticism and an investigation of traditional assumptions. In both disci­ ~"'-~t'.__.:,..,.._,v,J•""'-- plines, the result has been a turn toward an ideological and epistemological analysis 'J: L,~ he tum of the twentieth cen­ of rhetoric, alongside a more rigorously scientific approach to psychological and Jrimary focus was literature. statistical studies of language behavior. 1sed on the public speaking rsities at a time when public ACADEMICRHETORIC IN EUROPEAND THE UNITEDSTATES ical oratory was a powerful le popular with students for At the beginning of the twentieth century, a vestigial course requirement at the and in community lifo, may secondary level was all that remained of the study of rhetoric in French and other western European schools. Philosopher Chaim Perelman (p. 1372), educated in rhetoric since the beginning Belgium, recalls cramming for an exam on the names of tropes and then forgetting 1anagerial: The purpose of about rhetoric until years later, when he learned that rhetoric had once been consid ­ rly and efficiently. For this ered the counterpart of dialectic. He fell then that he had "rediscovered a part of factory. The basic course in Aristotelian logic that had long been forgotten, or at any rate, ignored and de­ onal categoric .~ of invention spised."' His discovery is detailed in The New Rhetoric, which was largely respon­ and delivery, and by the tra­ sible for a resurgence or interest in rhetoric on the Continent y. For most European language theorists, including Stephen Toulmin, Michel 1rse) focuses on a practice Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, rhetoric is a limited and moribund subject. Those 1clorical theory is rarely a who speak of it positively, like Perelman or I. A. Richards, speak in terms of its re­ J in pedagogical theory, fo­ discovery and rehabilitation. ,o-called skill -oriented and So, too, in the United Stales. In his 1950 book, A Rhetoric of Motives, Kenneth cation. As long as depart ­ Burke (p. 1295) announces his aim lo "rediscover rhetorical elements that had be­ lergraduate courses, as they come obscured when rhetoric as a term fell into disuse, and other specialized disci­ was little cause to look into plines such as esthetics, anthropology, psychoanalysis, and sociology came to the fore (so that esthetics sought to outlaw rhetoric, while the other sciences we have to develop a graduate cur­ mentioned iook over, each in its own terms, the rich rhetorical elements that esthet · ie psychological and socio ­ ics would ban)." : Burke sees rhetoric as the loser in a connict with literature (or hool) and lo the history of "esthetics"), with social science available for additional depredations. Burke's per· ;temers sought lo base the ception follows the history of rhetoric in American universities. But whereas litera­ .I psychology the springs of ture was the chief opponent of rhetoric in America, linguistics and semantics opT 1terpretation, drama, speech posed rhetoric in European intellectual life at the beginning of the century. 1dded interpersonal, group, Linguistics and semantics sought the "true" relationship between language and reaJT .ons, and journalism. The ity, a relationship that was not illuminated, or so it then seemed, by rhetoric. The including speech criticism story of rhetorical theory in the twentieth century is, lo a considerable extent, the 1rinciples), and soon gener ­ story of how the philosophy of language on the one hand and literary criticism on ators.

¥ever, the disciplinary ges• •Sec p, 1190 in thi~ book. th century delayed the de· •Sci: p. I )24 in this boo!...

IN I RODUCT ION the other moved to consolidate once again the richness of rhetoric as a theory of SEMANTICS AN[ language in use. Semantics is the bn such issues as mean PHILOSOPHYOF LANGUAGEVERSUS RHETORIC I a111bi;:11i1y,lite ral ve In his excellent introduction to Jacques Derrida's Spcccl, and Pflenomena, Newton ing (such as e.xpres.i· Garver notes that "the mediaeval trivium {grammar, logic, and rhctoricl is a much language and the sir sounder approach to the study of language and gives a much more adequate frame­ semantic theory is sc work for understanding the philosophy of language than its all too fashionable ne­ American philoso glect might lead one to suppose."3 Grammar, as Garver explains, concerns linguis­ ory of semiotics in t tic competence; logic is a matter of knowing what expressions arc sensible or not; heir to the trivium: c and rhetoric, released from bondage to tropes and figures, is "not a matter of pure meaning; logic bccot fonn but has to do with the relation of language to the world (to life) through the re­ the study of the rel;. lation of linguistic expressions to the specific circumstances in which their use Peirce says, by callin makes sense." 4 Garver goes on to say, "In these traditional terms, the central issue tant is also a sign, bu of philosophy of language, the issue around which all other issues revolve and to "semiosis" leads fron which they all return and in terms of which we can surely sec the relation of Derrida one, has a referent in to other philosophers, is the issue about the relation of logic and rhctoric." 5 the intcrpretant nor c, Derrida 's project, Garver says, is to attack "the whole tradition in which language is of the proposition upc conceived as founded on logic rather than on rhetoric."<•Such an attack is necessary "pmgmatism ." Later partly because, "unlike gmmmar and logic, rhetoric has not been refurbished by "syntactics." "scmant new ideas and new vigor but remains a weak and ancillary discipline about which interpreter , philosopht few students of language have strong or clear idcas.'' 7 ignore its connections Traditional language philosophy treats language as an imperfect expression of The Swiss linguist logic. Since philosophy is conducted in language and dependent on it, many similar theory of sign branches of philosophy rellect on language, quite often in the effort to render it, or guage (la11;:11e)make s at least its philosophical manifestations, more nearly perfect. Thus in metaphysics a a kind of social cuntn persistent concern has been to determine the relationship between real things and must use to communit the linguistic expressions that (presumably) name them. Epistemology faces the peels, the diachronic 1 same problem with respect to the relationship between our ability to know some­ mcnt). Saussure strcs C,... 1 thing and the way we express or describe it. Logic itself has a similar concern with Meaning, for Saussure c.--rc:.l"'l-10"'.o.l ..S language and its perfectibility, for logic seeks to analyze the truth values of state· guistic signs call up n ments based on inferential reasoning. In its more recent history, too, philosophy ha.c; science of semiology: • been shifting to a more language-oriented analysis of concepLs. Instead of seeking psychologist .''" phenomena that correspond to concepts (morality, justice , and causality , for ex­ Peirce inlluenced m, ample) or of positing the ideal existence of concepLc;, philosophers arc now more The decisive influence likely to ask what it means to speak of a concept, to define the tenns that identify however, comes from E concepts, and to be self-conscious about semantic problems that arise in dealing ginning of the century, with concepts. 10 a form that would all making a linguistic am And Wittgenstein says ~Newton Garver. "Preface," in Jacque.~ Derrida. Speu h u11dPh cnomc11a( 1967; trans. David Allison, Evanslon; Nonhwe~tem University Press, 1973), JI,ix . ositions arc pictures or 4 Garver, p, x. follows the work of R 5Garvcr, p. xi. ''Garver, p. xiii. "Ferdinand de Saus ~urc. 7Qarver, p . xvii. c Wade Baskin (New York: Phi

1188 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC !SS of rhetoric as a theory of SEMANTICSAND SEMIOTICS Semantics is the branch of philosophy that focuses on language itself, examining )RIC : such issues as mem1i11,:,sy11011ymy, 1mlysemy (multiple meanings of single words), ~ llm!,i,:uity,li1eml vcrsusfi,:11mtil'e expression, distinctions between types of mean­ •ch and Phenomena, Newton ing (such as expres.,·iveand emotive), and the relationship between the structure of >gic, and rhetoric] is a much language and the structure of reality. In the twentieth century, the most significant much more adequate frame- semantic theory is semiology or semiotics - the theory of signs and signification. 1n its all loo fashionable ne- ' American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, who produced an inlluential the­ r explains, concerns linguis­ ory of semiotics in the first years of the twentieth century, describes semiotics as ·ressions arc sensible or not· heir to the trivium: Grammar, in semiotics, becomes the study of the conditions of res, is "not a mauer of pur; meaning; logic becomes the study of the conditions of truth; and rhetoric becomes 1orld (lo life) through lhe re- the study of the relations among signo;. A sign (a word, for example) operates, 1stances in which their use Peirce says, by calling up an "interprt!tant" in the interpreter's mind. The interpre~ )nal terms, the central issue tant is also a sign, but ii is a mental one. Thus the operation of what Peirce called other issues revolve and to "semiosis" leads from one sign to another: The mental sign, not the communicative Y see the relation of Denida one, has a rclcrent in the world . Meaning, in Peirce's scheme, is not identified with n of logic and rhetoric.".5 the interpretant nor even with the interpretant's reference, hut rather with the effect tdition in which language is of the proposition upon the interpreter . Thus defined, he called the study of meaning Such an attack is necessary "prag1m1tism." Later philosophers referred to the clements of Peirce's trivium as ts not been refurbished by '\yntactics, " "semantics," and "pragmatics," names given them by Peirce's chief ary discipline about which interpreter, philrn,opher C. W. Morris. Later discussions of Peirce's theory generally ignore iL, connections to rhetoric and the medieval trivium. m imperfect expression of The Swii,s linguist Ferdinand de Saussure developed, independently of Peirce, a d dependent on it, many similar theory of signs that he called !.cmiology. For Saussure, the system of Ian• n the effon to render it, or guage (la111-:11e)makes possible and givei, meaning to utterances (parole). la11,:11eis ect. Thus in metaphysics a a kind of social contract, the general grammar and lexicon that particular speakers P between real things and must use to communicute succt:ssfully. Linguists study lw1,:11e,which has two asT '· Epistemology faces the pcct'i, the diachronic (its history) and the synchronic (the system at a given mo­ >ur ability to know some- ment). Saussure stresses that signs arc arbitrary and without inherent meaning . 1as a similar concern with Meaning, for Saussure, is a psychological phenomenon, a matter of the way that lin· the truth values of state­ guistic sign!. call up mental images. Meaning is not, therefore, the concern of the story, loo, philosophy has science of semiology: "To determine the exact place of semiology is the task of the tcepts. Instead of seeking p~ychologist." 11 :e, and causality, for ex­ Peirce inlluenced mainly American philosophers, and Saussure Continental ones. ilosophers are now more The decisive innuence on Anglo-American philosophy of language in this period, 1e the terms that identify however, comes from Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Russell, al the be­ :ms that arise in dealing ginning of the century, promoted "logical utomism," a method of reducing language to a form that would allow philosophers to determine how reality was constituted by making a linguistic analysis of propositional statements (assertions about reality). And Wittgenstein says, in the Tracta111sLogicophilo.mpl,ic11.1· of 1922, that prop­ "" (1967; lrans David Allison, ositions are piccures or models of reality. The school of analytic philosophy that follows the work of Russell and Wittgenstein holds that much of philosophy is

Ferdinand Jc S uUS!.1lr C. Count' ill Ge11emlU11,:11i .1·tics ( 1916), ed. C. R:illyanJ A Scchch,1yc:, lrJnS . Wade Baskin (New York: Philosophic,11 Lihmry. 1959), p. 16,

INTR0DUC1 JON 1189 meaningless because philosophers have misused ordinary languugc. From this I. A. Richards, in hi premise, two conclusions have emerged. One conclusion, preferred by the so-called cism, also observes the ncopositivists, is that language is inherently confusing and illogical and should be ground of meaning for purified, at least for philosophical purpo!>cs. The other conclusion, adopted by the They arc both sign sysu "ordinary language" philosophers, is that use determines mcuning. Wittgenstein in Criticism ( 1924), Richa his later work takes this' position, and speech-act theorist J. L. Austin is one of its that readers experience, most important defender!>. experiences of langUaf The recent history of language philosophy thus shows some tolerance for theo­ poems arc understood. ries of meaning based on context and use, but its main tendency is a continued re­ But, like other form; 1>,llc\ Wt CM\ luctance to move away from the search for a universal basis for language in univer­ was the basis of mcanin NO..r ,tk.n~ sal grammar or in psychology if not in logic itself. Rhetoric has been, at best, a of readers and then cla aFJ . Lt>"lv.. marginal concern for both Continental and Anglo-American philosophy. the contrary, Richards a NN'(, eu,I\, It is against the background of these developments in the philosophy of language In Practical Critici.m1 ( that I. A. Richards and Mikhail Bakhtin call for a reexamination of the meaning of appropriate associatiom \'I"t,V meaning. ings sec the metaphoric word sounds, and so on THE MEANINGOF MEANINGIN PHILOSOPHYAND LITERATURE not on the reader's fccl1 literary me:ming, Riehm I. A. Richards ( I 893- 1979; p. 1270) and his collaborator, Cambridge philosopher lo the reader. But for all C. K. Ogden, discuss the work of Peirce, Saussure, Russell, and Wittgenstein in suit of his work is to car their influential book, The Meaning of Mec111i11K( 1923). Richards and Ogden illus­ As for the rift bctwec trate Peirce's theory of signs with u communication triangle, in which the linguistic crary language as cmoti sign directly calls up the mental sign or reference and only indirectly stands for the thor to reader). In The J extramental and extralinguistic "referent" out in the world of things or ideas. They scale just like Mill's: At also endorse Saussure's principle of the arbitrariness of signs. But Saussure side­ upper end meaning shift steps the problem of meaning, which is precisely the issue that concerns them. C D "'l:-<.,,t.J-4NI ~ from literary criticism tc I Signs, to be meaningful, require interpretation, and Richards and Ogden conclude t-tf•i I h n3 depends on the expcricr that sign interpretation is conditioned by the situations in which the sign has been not have literal mcanin~ experienced. Meaning therefore inheres not in word!>themselves but in the remem­ (or any sign) takes its m bered contexts in which they have appeared to the interpreter. Richards carried this of other words in whose analysis of meaning into literary criticism and eventually identified it with the to some degree of conic essence of rhetoric. scale shows. Richards In the twenties and thirties, the aesthetically oriented New Criticism arose in the words" that determines United States, and Formalism, based on structural linguistics, developed in eastern each other's range of me Europe. Both of these approaches eschewed the previously popular historical and ary principle that was the biographical approaches to literary scholarship, focusing instead on the aesthetic tics; it reveals the need experience of the text and the attempt to describe the text's meaning, from which the "context" to the immed reader's aesthetic experience was inseparable. The artful quality of literature was distinction between liter; taken lo be evidence that li1er.uy language wa~ more emotive, suggestive, and power­ ful than ordinary language. This distinction was nol new: Dmwing ml Wordsworth's idea that poetry is the expression of feeling. nineteenth·century philosopher John MEANINGAND DIAi Stuart Mill had posited a scale in which expressive language (in the form of lyric po­ Like Richards and moi etry) was placed al the top and mere exposition at the bottom. The most expressive Bakhtin ( 1895- 1975; r genres were the most literary, followed by the lesser. mixed genres. and finally the Saus!>urc.Bakhtin , too, , noncxpressive, purely descriptive genres. Literary language was complex and finds faulty. He accept,; metaphoric, whereas ordinary language sought clarity in simplicity. sign system, that lhc sii MODERN AND ros, MODERN RHETORI C , I ' ·.. ·· ...~.~ : ·,.u,,,VJ · ..., .... .: : •.:. )1 ,~·;) : •.,. ,1 :.. ., ~ ...... ,. \ ary language. From this I. A. Richards , in his role as founder of an influential variety of formalist criti­ ·,.,"'J :"'t..1.J,4 .. :,...,• ... , preferred by the i.t1-called cism, also observes the literary -ordinary language distinction, but he argues that the ,. ',, ,.,._, • ....,.., r• • •I ,."'1, 1d illogical and lihould be ground of meaning for both literary language and ordinary language is the same: o •..- • :•: ,o I • .. ., Jnclusion, adopted by the They arc both sign systems. In his early literary -critical work, Pri11ciple.l'of Literary .·~ '/j 1. meaning. Willgeno;tcin in Cririd.1·111( 1924), Richards says that poems must be treated like other sign systems J. L. Austin is one of its that readers experience, as he had explained in The Meaning of Meaning: Previous C..I h~~•b,-S ~ experiences of language use - in this case, of reading poetry - detennine how i,.>\-.,.1--L11v--lr.e"""­ , some tolerance for thco· poems arc understood . ca lt... p[, ,/;,.-.-...a,\

·ndency is a continued re­ But, like other formalists who claimed that the reader's psychological response olr-AVV\(l~ ( O.lr'lol. ;is for language in univcr ­ WU!>the basis of meaning, Richards did not intend to examine the actual experience ,i.;fu.-~al o~) :toric has been, at hcst, a of readers and then claim that those experiences constituted literary criticism. To an philosophy. the contrary, Richards anuly1.es the failure of readers to understand poems correctly. 1c philosophy of language In Practical Critici,m1 ( 1929) , he uses psychology to explain how readers bring in­ ,ination of the meaning of appropriate associations to poems, thus distorting their meaning. Successful read­ ings see the metaphoric resonances, the modulation of images, the tonal quality of word sound,, and so on. In other words, correct readings focus on the poem itself, not on the reader's feelings. In attending to the reader's experience as the basis of ,ND LITERATURE literary meaning, Richards shifts the role of psychology in criticism from the author r, Cambridge philosopher to the reader. But for all his allcntion to psychological ideas and vocabulary, the re­ ;;sell, and Wiugenstein in ~ult of his work is to cancel psychology and bring the text to the fore. ~ichards and Ogden illus­ A!>for the rift between literary and ordinary language, Richards churacteri:les lit­ ~le, in which the linguistic erary language as emotive rather than expressive (again shifting the focus from au­ y im1irectly stands for the thor to reader). In 11w Phi/o.\·011/iyof Uhetoric (1936; p. 1281), Richards sets up a d of things or idem,. They ~cale just like Mill's: At the lower end, meaning tends to "stay put," whereas at the signs. But Sausliure side­ upper end meaning shifts about and requires more careful interpretation. In moving ssue that concern!> them. from literary criticism to rhetoric, Richards hopes to expand his theory that meaning urds and Ogden conclude depends on the experienced contexts in which language has been used. Words do 1 which the sign has been not have literal meanings that travel with them wherever they go, he says. A word nselves but in the remem ­ (or any sign) takes its meaning from the context of remembered use in the past and ·cter. Richards carried this of other words in whose company it appears at a given time. All language is subject 1\ly identified it with the to some degree of contextual meaning, but literature is the exemplary case, as his scale shows. Richards use!> metaphor as the model for the " interinanimation of fow Criticism arose in the words'' that determines meaning : The tenor and vehicle mutually limit and expand .tics, developed in eastern each other's range of meanings . Richards thus explains semiotic meaning by a liter­ sly popular historical and ary principle that was there all along. Metaphor links liternture, rhetoric, and seman­ ~ instead on the aesthetic tics; it reveals the need for interpretation in context and allows Richards to limit , meaning, from which the "context" to the immediate verbal selling; and it retains the basic elements or the I quality of literature was distinction between literary and ordinary language . ve, suggestive, um! power­ Dr..iwing on Wordsworth's MEANINGAND DIALOGISM -century philosopher John ;c (in the form or lyric po· Like Richards and most students of language philosophy al the time, Mikhail torn. The most expressive Bakhtin (1895- 1975; p. 1206) was also powerfully influenced by Peirce and :ed genre!>, and finally the Sau,;sure. Bakhtin, too, comes out of a formalist sy!>temof literary criticism that he guage was complex and finds faulty. He accepts the fundamental principle of -~cmiotics: that language is .i implicity . sign system, that the signs themselves arc arbitrary , and that signs re/er to other

INTKODU C l'ION 119l w\..~ if \MA. ~l­ ~l:-~1 ~.,... ,~ f.,...... ~1.i..;""~ ~ Ls..·f:­ signs, not lo extralinguistic entities. But Bakhtin rejects the conclusion, drawn by LITERATURE,LO ~,..(,-s,3.,.,C.'~ both Peirce and Saussure, that the meaning of discourse is to be found in the psy­ chological processing of signs. In Marxi.vmand the Pltilosoplry of Language, he Aristotle's division ~" ~;.~f.,.,t.maintains that language can be understood only as dialogue. Systems such as struc­ purposes, cflccts, (In( tural lingubtics or literary stylistics fail to account for the parts that intention, inter­ Aristotle's time to ou pretation. social context, and historical circumstance play in the creation of mean­ concerned with w:ays ing. Bakhtin takes the view that "the logic of consciousness is the logic of rn:anycritics have arg ideological communication, of the semiotic interaction of a social group.'"9 He ap­ literature and the "act plies this theory of language to literary criticism as well as to discourse in general. argumentation. In tcr, Before Mar:ci.m, and the Philo.wphy of u111g11age,Bakhtin had in fact already poetry, and poetry p, written a book on literary theory. The Formal Method i11Literary Scholarship rhetoric. Narration is ( 1928). Herc, Bakhtin rejects the distinction between literary and ordinary language often been identified \. and attacks the contemporary Russian Formalist school for maintaining that distinc· But for alt these co lion. Rus<.;ianFormalism drew upon Saussure's linguistics as a way to tum attention pcndence of rhetoric a to the close analysis of literary texts. The Formalists, like the New Critics, rejected their interrelatedness. the source criticism, influence hunting, and biographical criticism that seemed to the Aristotelian divid, look everywhere but at the text. Instead, they sought to isolate the text by declaring c~ntury, after a long p literary language a "dialect" of ordinary language, and finally, as Fredric Jameson c1sm) were always i, says, "a total linguistic system in its own right.'' "' Poetic language is "heightened" contemplative-active c...-~ and c..lrawsattention lo itself, the theory goes, whereas practic:al langu:age tries to be rhetoric only aclion (st .\- N."... t-1c~c.hv transparent. Thus poetic language changes the usual, rather automatic process by expressive language is ~.(:...-1,~<.., which ordinary language is understood, thereby shifting the reader's focus from the English formed at the , r message to the medium. tributcd to the desire t rbsh\rllldi.-vo-h' Bakhtin opposes both of the Formalbts" a~sumptions :ibout meaning: first. that reminds us, was thus s Burke takes a rathe } ~ .. S~'W\btV~a"sl meaning in poetry is a function of the structure of poetic language and, second. that meaning is ultimately a matter of psychologic.11effects. Moreover. in isolating the tween rhetoric and lite p\-ido~~~\..,tl\l text from any context (at least in principle) and insulating it from practical speech. ( 1~H9), that literature ctisl L•(,\rs(, the Formalists make dialogue impossible, and dialogue is the real location of mean­ fore governed by rhet ing for Bakhtin. In the literary criticism of his later books, he treats literature as one use in discourse, hinti set of genres among a great many genres of discourse, all of which arc to be studied sistently applies his rt as forms of social interaction. Not unlike Kenneth Burke, Bakhtin secs all forms of examples, from philos discoun,c a,<,stmtegies for producing effects in particular situations. Literature is no in A Grammar of Mor exception. empt from motiv.uion. Bakhtin docs not draw explicitly on the rhetorical trmlition, but he notes. in hb systems of human mo essay 'The Problem of Speech Genres" ( 1953; p. t 227). that genres arc a useful cat­ is the business of rhcll egory in both literature and rhetoric: "Rhetorical genres have been studied since an­ sayi., :.ire "distinctly I tiquity (and not much has been added in subsequent epochs to classical theory)."'' special aUcntion becai He suggests extending rhetorical analysis to every kind of speech, recognii'ing that dcncc from motivatio, genres arc the means of adapting an utterance to a complex situation, a situ:ation that compassing situations' includes a history of previous speech acts as well as an immediate context involving tive-;." socially situated speakers. Unlike Richards's ii approach to criticism ,, wished to maintain the '•Sec p. ll I J in lhis hook. 1 "rn:k . Pres~. '9 7.lI , p. 1.

MOORRN ANO POSTMODERN RHETORIC 1c conclusion, drawn by LITERATURE,LOGIC, RHETORIC,AND ETHICS lo be found in the psy - Aristotle's division betwci:n rhetoric and poclic usefully reveals the different 1.mphy of Lw1g11age, he purposes , cfft:cts, and methods of the two realms of discourse. Nonetheless, from ·. Systems such as struc ­ Aristotle ' s time to our own , rhetoric and poetic have been closely linked. Both are arls that intention , inter · concerned with ways of moving audiences by means of language. And even if, as in the creation of mean ­ many critics have argued, there is a distinction between the "contemplative" goal of ,usness is the logic of literature and the "active" goal of rhetoric, literature frequently uses persuasion and 1 social group."" He ap· argumentation. In terms of theory and critici sm, rhetoric names the tropes used in o discourse in general. poetry, and poetry provides the exemplary forms of the tropes for instruction in hlin had in fact already rhetoric. Narration is essential to both rhetoric and poetic. Rhetoric, in short, has ;11 Literary Sclwlar ,\'hip often been identified with literature. y and ordinary language But for all 1hcsc connections (and more that might be addec.Jto the list), lhe inde­ maintaining that distinc­ pendence of rhetoric and poetic has been asserted and defended just as frequently as s a way lo tum attention their interrelatedness . Liter.try critics have resisted (and many still resist) crossing 1e New Critic s, rejected the Aristotelian divide between rhetoric and poelic. At the end of the nineleenth :riticism that seemed lo century, after a Jong period when rhetoric and belles lcures (including literary criti­ ate the text by declaring cism) were always identified with each other, critics once again asserted the illy, as Fredric Jameson contemplative-active distinction, arguing that poetry concerned only feelings, mguage is "heightened" rhetoric only action (see the introduction to Part Five). Recall Mill's scale, in which ical language tries 10 be expressive language is al the top and exposition al the bollom. When departments of :r automatic process hy English formed at the end of the nineteenth century, these kinds of distinctions con­ reader's focus from the tributed to the desire lo dissociate rhetoric and literary studies. Rhetoric, as Burke ""'d ~ r~·.I bt" l""" reminds us, was thus supplanled by aesthetics and the social sciences. r,f Hu b 1"' cl.,1-tlu. mut meaning: first, that Burke takes a rather different and more rac.Jicalapproach to the relationship be­ t t.S I· -t·kt.. S cf-· 1guagc and, second, that l r ,..,~- tween rhetoric and literature when he declares in his first book, Cm111ter-State11w111 Jreover, in isolating the Sp•Ll~l I lnh.on) ( 1919), that literature is unequivocally a form of persuasive discourse anc.Jis there ­ t from practical speech, fore governed by rhetoric. Though he occasionally distinguishes between arl and c real location of mean­ use in discourse, hinting at the literary -ordinary language distinction, Burke con· c treats literature as one sistcntly applies his rhetorical methods lo an enormous range of wrillen and oral which are to be s1udii:d examples, from philosophy lo advertising to chats with the dentist. As he explains akhtin sees all forms of in A Grammar of Motives and A Rhetoric of Motives, no form of discourse is ex­ uations. Literature is no empt from motivation. Scientific and philosophical discourses attempt to describe systems of human motivation, and social discourses allempt lo motivate. Thus it on, but he notes, in his is the business of rhetoric lo categorize and analyze these discourses. Motives, he genres are a useful cat- says, arc "distinctly linguistic products." Burke gives literature and philosophy ! been studied since an­ special attention because of the long -standing presumption about their indepen ­ to classical theory)."'' dence from motivation. Literature is "the adopting of various strategics for en­ peech, recognizing lhal compassing situations" by naming them - that is, an uuempt lo understand mo­ ituation, a situation that tives.'~ ~dialc context involving Unlike Richards's instantly popular method of close reading, Burke's rhetorical approach lo criticism was not widely adopted. Still, his approach rallied many who wished to maintain the sharp division between rhetoric and poetic and stimulated

!Jniversity Press, 1972), p. 4lJ. 12 Kennc1h Burke, '/1,e l'hilo.w1,hy of li1er<1rvForm, 3rd ed . (Berkeley: University nr California f'rcss, 1973), p I.

INTRODUCTION u93 those who saw the value of treating literature as a form of rhetoric . Wayne C. RHETORIC VERSU yc.d Hu. or Booth (p. 1491) argues in The Rhetoric of Fictio11, for example , that all literature It was in the context c !'" appeared that used the term rhetoric to describe techniques of all C!>tabtishing truth, his C \ wVh..: ,bvi ,r\-1,c; kinds in literature. A few works appeared, too, that explored the theoretical con­ together. His graduate : nection that Burke and Booth had put forward. For example, critic and rhetorician ()(S<,Y,h ...... , ~ spoke to me for twcnt · Walter J. Ong argues in his 1975 essay , "The Writer ' s Audience Is Always a Fic­ "(\0 ba.d \Jr,r,\u) logic to arguments in r; tion," that writers cannot address an actual audience, but rather project the kind of on\!.\ bMI rt.t.t!L~'' science. Though the st~ audience that will be receptive to their work . Reading thus involves a kind of ne­ says, there is nonethelc gotiation between the actual reader and the role that the author projects for the . across fields. An argun ,i. .... 4'4.V'\~ ,A ..... ideal reader. For this reason, the reader has an active role in producing the mean­ certain qualifications ar ing of the work. •-1 A,u..,"'"'~ .wk....:...... , cations is a function of Some of the reader-response critics of the seventies . such as Stanley Fish am! ~-\-\...+ the force of the argumc Wolfgang Iser, took a similar position but emphasi1ed that readers must be "in­ o.-+{ ..... "'1 ~ the argument .~tnicture. formed" or "educated" for their interpretations to be correct. Others, like Norman Apparently , Toulmir ~"'-~+~ Holland . eschewed such judgments and sought to describe the many ways in which phy or even lo '>Wilchal meaning emerges during the act of reading . This approach follows the road not Oxford University. Mor taken by I. A. Richards , for it attempts to describe what happens to the reader psy­ in which his ideas have chologically without making a judgment about the correctne ss of the reader's inter· Cambridge colleague s a pretation. Readcr-respom,e critics generally regard their method as contcxt­ social phenomenon, dcp sensitive. though not as rhetorical. Still, this method and others that oppose strictly mining what it will belie fonnalistic methods (notably Marxi st criticism . which seeks to describe the histori­ right critics of tradition cal and ideological context of literature) operate on the principle that literature is a Foucault. form of rhetorical discour!>c whose interprelation depends on context and response The philosophical p as well as on the structure of the text. Touhnin's. Perelman , a: Beginning from rhetoric rather than philosophy or critici sm. Richard M. Weaver able judgments can be n (1910-1963; p. 1348) develops a theory of meaning similar to those advanced by of reasoning in logic o Richards and Burke . When Weaver argues that language is sermonic (the title of hi~ aj(. 4t"{. ~.N" Tyteca undertook , in Tl. influential 1963 essay), he means that all instances of language use arc persuasive. such judgments . While r Ill.,, l- CU>: rhetorical, and therefore imbued with ethical values. For Weaver, human utterances i h'l:-. made several discoveric reflect a set of values and aim to move others to accept lhe imuge of the world in and classified argumcnt i which those values apply (as in Burke's notion of identification). To ~peak or write wa~ that because argum1 is to perform a pm,itivc ethical action, and the value of rhetoric as a discipline, certain, post-Car1esian p Weaver argues, comes from its goal of revealing the ethical bases of a given dis· reason and rationality w course . Weaver, a conscious Platonist, docs not go so far as other theorists in link· within the realm of ccrl, ing rhetoric with logic or knowledge. He retains in his writing the category of di· the VlL~tfield of human , alectic as discourse that leads to knowledge of nature (though he warns that evidelll proposilions , hm dialectic is not necessarily trustworthy for conveying knowledge in an ethical way). such a basis. Perelman's ,, ...o_~," Nonetheless, Weaver shares the tendency of Burke and Richards to include all and his proposal of ,to forms of discourse within the discipline of rhetoric. notes , "a break with a co

" Wayne Bnolh, Tire Hlrcloric of Fic'tim, (Chicagn : University nf Chicago Pres~. 1961 >· ·~Stephen Toulmin, "Lug1l 14 \Valler J. Ong. SJ . "The Wrilcr' s Audience Is Always a Fiction," /'Ml .A 90 (J.rnunry 1975): I) 2 1. ed. J. Gultlcn. G Berquist. and

1194 MODCRN AND POSTMODERN RHETORI C 1 of rhetoric. Wayne C. RHETORIC VEl~SUS LOGIC .ample, that all literature It was in the context of Bertrand Russell's analytic philosophy, its distrust of lan­ ! examine the techniques guage, m1d its reliance on logic thut Stephen Toulmin (p. 1410) developed his the ­ ;tional world and the au­ ory of argument. When, in The U.,·e.,· of Arg11111e111( 1958), Toulmin asserted that for­ ' s analysis, a great many mal logic: should not be regarded as superior to probabilistic argument in ::scribe techniques of all establishing truth, his Cambridge friends felt that he had abandoned philosophy al­ ~ .~ ...... ,.' , ored the theoretical con­ ,~ together. His graduate advisor, he says, "was deeply pained by the book, and barely s~¾-.- L-a,-~ >le, critic and rhetorician spoke 10 me for twenty years."' ., Toulmin's goal i_.;to extend the rigor or formal o"' l \ "1.o n 'oe.c.-+, lldience Is Always a Fic­ logic to urguments in realm~ of greater uncertainty, like law and morality, and even i:..-~ -l\..--. rnther project the kind of science. Though the standard methods of logic cannot be applied in these areas, he \,,..l"'-t,:i tls involves a kind of ne­ says, there is nonetheless a structure to their arguments that can be shown to apply \>'-'h ~ .... .;....., :: author projects for the across fields. An argument consists of a claim that is based on data, modified by tu..\ 'c..... ~- ! in producing the mean- certain qualifications and conditions. But the nature of the claims, data, and qualifi · cations is a function of the context or field in which the argument is advanced, and mch as Stanley Fish and the force of the argument is a question of its persuasiveness, not the perfection of I.,(_ I V"\.'1 hat readers must be "in­ the argument '>tructure. >~. Cl.11\.,.b~uo~...._. ·ect. Others, like Norman Apparently, Toulmin did not set out to critique the tradition of analytic philoso ­ : the many ways in which phy or even to switch allegiances to the "ordinary language" school associated with aba. .... l--\-<-~"morals. Finding no account of this sort ilar to those advanced by of reasoning in logic or any other urea of philosophy, he and Lucic Olbrechts ­ s scrmonic (the title of hb Tyteca undertook, in The New Rhetoric ( 1958), to examine recorded examples of guage use are persuasive, such judgments. While reviewing innumernbte arguments from different fields, they . ·.: Neaver, human utterances made several discoveries. One was that there already was a discipline that studied the image or the world in and classified arguments - namely, rhetoric and ils counterpart dialectic. Another C• ..-:, , l· 1,: cation) . To speak or write was that because argumentation dealt with the probable, the plausible, and the un­ i\-sell )'4,J-A f rhetoric as a discipline, certain, post wCartcsian philosophy had no interest in it. Where there was no proof, b,6p•k ll~ 1ical bases of a given dis - reason and rationality were presumably absent. Science, Perelman allows, may be ··t,v~-..."~ as other theorists in link­ within the realm of certainty, where arguments must be based on clear proof. But , vriting the category of di­ the vust field of human affairs depends on judgments that arc not reducible to self­ 'i," d.4<.t"'-'t' e (though he warns that evident propositions, however much some systems of politics or religion may claim vv,...\.hV' \l\.tA..~ wledge in an ethical way). such a basis. Perelman's attack on the premise that there may be self-evident truths d Richards to include all and his proposal of an informal logic based on argumentation constitute, as he notes, "a break with a concept of reason and reasoning ... which has set its mark on

icagu Press, 196 I ). "Stephen Tuulmin , "Logi~ and lhe Crilicism of Arguments,'' i11'/'lie Rl,etoric of ll'c.1/crn Tlwu~l,1. l'MI.A 9n (January 1975): 9 - 21. ed. J. Golden, G. Berquist , aud \V. Coleman, 4th ed. (Duhut111c,Iowa : Kendall/Hum, 19!!9), p. 375,

INTRODUCTION 1195 "·~·"'·~ ...,,..~ ~:tt... A S\'\.Mi.<.. .C...,..~Qifs Western philosophy for the last three centuries."''' Finally , he concludes that knowl­ O<..)r\ 4A,I constituted by discrn edge itself is based upon argument, and that there is considerable ethical and ideo­ cause of the elaborat logical danger in the tendency or most arguments lo claim that they rest on im­ stitutions that use a mutable truth. The goal of rhetoric, then, is to reveal that all discourse is rhetorical ~ 11-.-, niques for interpret ~.;....ft.,.:.,. and lhal no claims arc self-evident. Perelman fell that he wus reviving rhetoric, re­ speakers as authoritic covering the notions of urgument. persuasion, audience, and dialectic for the analy­ diaic the needs and d1 (~t-) sis of practical reasoning in human affairs. Indeed, his work stimulated a revival of parent conveyor of k1 the discipline in Europe and contributed 10 its growing respcclabilily in the United pendent of the intcrac Slates. Like Foucault, Ja, prevailing philosophi DISCOURSE,KNOWLEDGE, AND IDEOLOGY and that knowledge o guage. Derrida asi;ert• In philosophy and lhe sciences, both social and natural, questions about knowledge close to Foucault. Bu and meaning have come to be bound inextricably to questions about language . Such project the critique o questions are disturbing and by no means easily contemplated, let alone answered. making language trar Take, for example, the announcement by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn that guage as the basis ol scientific knowledge advances through communal argument rather than by the dis­ minded as Newton G, covery or new facts. Indeed, says Kuhn, the proponents of competing paradigms arc has no interest in com like native speakers of different languages. Moving from one paradigm and one lan­ focuses on writing , as guage 10 anolher is not, as naive histories of science suggest, merely accepting a exemplary because it new bit of data or acknowledging the correctness of a new lheory; it is, rather, a thereby reveals, under strenuous process of cultural conversion. Language is not a clear medium for the lance from its appar, exchange or information, but opaque, resistant, and imbued with cultural bias, even rhetoric is epistemic, f in the enlightened realm of science. Scientists cannot simply present new informa­ language is not a med tion or demonstrate new findings but mui;t argue for new meanings and create a new though for Derrida, tht community that shares them.' ' Far from being among the first to reveal the place of rate sclf~dcception. rhetoric in the construction or knowledge, Kuhn is among the latest. Yet Kuhn's Derrida's deconstru thesis produced, in the words of the philosophers of science. a "crisis of rationality" philosophy and literat1. in the scientific community. metaphoric in operatic Even this crisis of rationality is not so new, according to Michel Foucault losophy is condemned. ll .l ., ,, (p. 1432}, who traces it back to the beginning or the nineteenth century. It was then, ary and, a1;the deposill o~'b1 he says, that words "rediscovered their ancient, enigmatic density," lost since the sophical."• K De Man r: demise of the Sophists. First the "human sciences," as Foucault calls linguistics, S•p~,s~ semiological , and pcrfc economics, and psychology, and later the natural science s, too, have had to deal logical models, a ques1 with the complex relationship between language and knowledge, recognizing that ruptivc power of ligur language docs not simply represent a preexisting reality or even one' s thoughts. terms , de Man 's ques Foucault revives Nict7-~che (sec p. 1 168) in arguing that truth, or what counts as realms of discour se, b, truth, is determined by the discursive practices or a community. language. Foucault, conversant in philosophy, psychology , psychiatry, and the history of In a 1973 cs<;ay, "H science, is, along with Jacques Derrida, the champion of postmodern opposition to Fish (p. 16o5) docume1 philosophy' s quest for universals and absolutes. Foucault argues 1ha1knowledge is cnt from ordinary lang guagc at all, if that me: "'ChaimPerelman a nd Lucic Olbrcd11s-Ty1cca. TI1e Nt 11• R/retoric: ,I Trcati.w• 1111Ar ,:11111,•11111rim1. tr.in~. John Wilkinson and Pun:cll Weaver (Notre Dame. Intl.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969). p. I . '"Paul de Man, "Tiu:-Epi• nTimm,1s Kuhn. TIie Stnic111re of Sciemijic Re1•0/111imu. 2nd ed. (Chkago Univcr~lly of Chk ago Chicago Pres.~. 1979 ). p 211. Pre~. 19?0 ). t<>iJc Mun, p. 211.

MOOl'RN ANO rosTr.10or :RN RHETORIC lly, he concludes thal knowl ­ constituted by discourse. Particular statements are taken as true, he maintains, be­ onsiderable ethical and ideo. cause of the elaborntc relationships of communication and power among social in­ claim that they rest on im­ stitutions that use and control knowledge. Foucault examines disciplinary lech­ hal all discourse is rhetorical niqucs for interpreting or expounding knowledge, the certification of certain he was reviving rhetoric, re. speakers as authorities, and the ways in which certified methods and authorities me­ ~.and dialectic for the analy ­ diate the needs and desires of communities. Discourse, in this view, is not the trans- \ " • .- f,..,,"""' work stimulated a revival of parent conveyor of knowledge, not a free system of expression, and not at all inde 9 '1ons.hh.41-;~,...s i respectability in the United pendent of the interactions embodied in it. Like Foucault, Jacques Derrida (p. 1471) takes up Nietzsche's critique of the prevailing philosophical assumption that external reality is accessible to perception and that knowledge of the external world can be recorded and communicated in Ian· guage. Derrida asserts that there is no extralinguistic knowledge at all. In this, he is , questions about knowledge close to Foucault. But he differs from Foucault in taking as his own philosophical :stion s about language. Such project the critique of philosophy's attempt to accomplish the impossible task of nplated, let alone answered. making language transcend itself and be referential. Although Derrida takes lan­ f science Thomas Kuhn that guage as the basis of his analysis of philosophy, he is not nearly as rhetorically ment rnther than by the dis­ minded as Newton Garver seems to suggest in the remarks quoted earlier. Derrida of competing paradigms are has no interest in communication, persuasion, or even the structure of discourse. He n one paradigm and one lan­ focuses on writing, as opposed to speech, as the exemplary form of language use, mggest, merely accepting a exemplary because it exists apart from the context of utterance or reception and new theory; it is, rather , a thereby reveals, under the form of scrutiny Derrida calls "deconstruction," its dis­ not a clear medium for the tance from its apparent reference. Derrida's analysis supports the theory that •ued with culturnl bias, even rhetoric is epistemic, for it argues that knowledge is not a function of logic and that imply present new informa ­ language is not a medium for knowledge; rather, knowledge is made by language, ' meanings and create a new though for Derrida, the chief characteristic of knowledge may be that il is an elabo­ 1e first lo reveal the place of rate self•deception. 1ong the latest. Yet Kuhn's Derrida's deconstructive method break s down the traditional distinction between nee, a "crisis of rationality" philosophy and literature by dmwing on Nietzsche's observation that all language is metaphoric in operation. As deconstructionist critic Paul de Man puts it, "All phi­ ~4'"tb~ ....__~ ..t xding to Michel Foucault losophy is condemned, to the extent that it is dependent upon figuration, to be liter­ u~L- -It..... i...-c,.-..t ~tecnth century. It was then, ary and, a'i the depository of this very problem, all literature is to some extent philo­ Hie density," lost since the sophical." 111De Man raises "the very difficult question whether the entire semantic, ; Foucault calls lingui stics, semiological, and performative field of language can be said to be covered by tropo­ tees, too, have had to deal logical models, a question which can only be raised after the proliferating and dis­ nowledge, recognizing that ruptive power of figural language has been fully recognized."''' In more general ty or even one's thoughts. terms, de Man's question concerns the boundaries between traditionally distinct al truth, or what count s as realms of discourse, between rhetoric and poetic or between literary and ordinary nunity. language. ·chiatry, and the history of In a 1973 essay, "How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language'!" literary critic Stanley r postmodern opposition to Fish (p. 1605) documents the persistence of the idea that literary language is differ · It argues that knowledge is ent from ordinary language. He argues that there is no such thing as ordinary lan­ t1 brd1..,a"4 '• IS. guage at all, if that means language that is transparent and in no need of contextual hc.1-dl"'l i!,U4Ar (\ Tret11i.re011 A ~1:11111e11w1hm. trim~. •tn:Dame Pn:ss, 196tJ), p. J • •~Paulde Mun, "TI1eEpistemology of Metaphor.'' in On Mcwp/111r, ed. Sheldon Sacks (University nr rr-t.e(~~.~'- -l<-~ (Chicago: University uf Chi1:u_g1~ Chkago Pn:ss, 1979), p. :iK. "'tic Mun, p. 2K.

IN I ROOUCTION 1197 interpretation. m In his later work, Fish comes to rhetoric as the tlisciplinc that hesi cism offered by Sta addresses the issues or meaning anti interprel:ttion. In his essay "Rhetoric '· lhe prescient work c (p. 1609), Fish situates his own untlersl:mtling of epistemic language in relation to The forms ol" rhc the same kintl or history or twentieth-century thought that we have been examining :111forms of commu here. Barbara l·lerrnstein Smith takes a position similar to Fish ' s in her excellent for example, thut Tl discussion - in 011 the Mar,:ins of Discmrrsc ( 1978) - 01' the mostly false distinc ­ system . Clothes syn tion between natural and poetic discourse." Deconstructive criticism, inspired by is subject to intcrpr< the work of Derrida, abo assumes that li1crary language is not different from ordi­ take on ideological nary language, for all language is fundamentally liguralive anti no language is refer­ physiological fact, ti ential. Deconstructivc critics use this insight lo coll.1pse the distinction between phi­ the context of a systt losophy anti literature, and several (most notably Paul de Man, another devotee of critic M.irshall Mel Nietzsche) have identified rhetoric as the discipline respon~ihlc for analy,ing the symbol systems, tho tigurativc nature and hence the epistemological function of language. But Derrida George A. Kennedy , and the critics who follow him focus on the way that texts tmderminc their own aJl· For all ils new ~foi parent meaning. Rhetoric. in the work of these critics, thus tends to refer to tropei. a~ tivc speaking and cl symbols of an epistemological dilemma hut not to the larger <1uestions of discourse foctivc discouri.c; an, and its construction of knowledge. Jurgen Hahcrmao; am In Urcrary 11,cory:A11 lmrm/11ctio11 ( 1983). Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton become dramatically argues that there is no such thing us literature. if hy litemturc we mean :1 text that is practices, corning fro linguistically different from "ordinary" texts. I-le concludes his clear and helpful porary rhetoric. survey of modern critical theories by calling for a new rhetorical criticism, for rhetoric, he says, takes the most comJlrehensivc view of the operations of discourse : It is by definition opposed to critical formalism, for it seeks meaning in human in· RHETORICSOF G tcractions, in history anti culture, and in ideology; it ali.o regards discourse as a form IN THE TWENTIE' or human action, as the construction of history and culture. and as clhical and ideo­ In sharp contrast to W<. logical. Eagleton puts it this way: century women, both Rhetoric, which was the received form of critical analysb all the way from andent society beyond the clcmcn1ar to the eighteenth century, examined the way di\u1ur~e~arc conMmcted in order lo achie\c than ever before. Jn a; certain effects. It wa, not worried about whether its ohjccts of enquiry were ,peaking or pa11icipaled, more am writing, poetry or philo~ophy, fiction or historiography; iii, horizon was nothing le~, than Women arc lawyers, the field of discursive practices in .society as a whole, and ii\ partkular interest lay in more women arc stud grasping such practicei. ns forms of power and performance . .. It saw speaking and writ· past. Women scholars ing 1101 merely as textual objects, to he aesthetically contcmphlled or endle~sly dccon· composition studies ar, structcd hut as fom,s of activity insep:irahlc from the wider social relation,; hctwcen writ­ Women·s thcorizint ers and readers, orators and audience~. and a~ largely unintelligible outside the social communication i.chola purposes and condition~ in which they were embedded." ways h:td to he particu Eagleton speaks of rhetoric in the past tense while Imping that it will he the future the matter of their lex of criticism. but the notes he strikes sound through the theories of rhetorical criti· women could be founc sexes, even if those fo "'Sl:mlcy fish, "How Ordinary Is Ordinary l.;mguage! .. in /.t //1rr,- 11 fr .tr i11 /'111fC/a.u) (Cam example. AspJsia (p. ~ hridgc: l·l.irvard Univcrsily Press. 19Xn). convcrs:ition a1, rhctori, "llarh:trn l·lcm1s1cin S11111h.011 tit,· /lfm·,:i11sof /Jm 0111.r,·: '/11<• lidatum ,,flit, mt11ri· mu/ /,i111i:1111gt (Ballimorc: Johns Hopkin~ Univcr\ily l'rc\s. l

MODERN AND l'OS1 MODERN lUIETORlt ,ric as the discipline thm best cism offered by Stanley Fish and Wayne C. Booth, and by those who look back to n. In his essay "Rhetoric" the prescient work of Kenneth Burke. temic language in relation to The forms of rhetorical analysis we have been examining seem to conclude that that we have been examining all forms of communication arc rhetorical. Burke would certainly agree. He argues, far to Fish's in her excellent for example, that Thomas Carlyle was quite right lo analyze clothing as a symbol - of the mostly false distinc­ system. Clothes symbolize social distinctions. Clothing has meaning, and meaning ·uctivt! criticism, inspired by is subject to interpretation. Mikhail Bakhtin, arguing that even natural phenomena ge is not different from on.li­ take on ideological meaning, uses hunger as an example: Hunger is not simply a tf.-l, ,·5 HUbE tive :md no language is refer­ physiological fact, the same in all cases, but is interpreted by the hungry person in .:¥,. ( "'~ .~ c...... + ! the distinction between phi- the context or a system of social meanings. French critic Roland Barthes, Canadian j ~n~ de Man, another devotee of critic Murshall McLuhan, :md others have pursued the rhetoric of nonlinguistic • !sponsiblc for analyzing the symbol sy!..lcms, though chielly under the rubric of semiotics. Historian of rhetoric l "- ~ a...-~ on of language. But Derrida George A. Kennedy contemplates animal communication as rhetorical. 11 S'~....,._ +'-\ xts undermine their own ap­ For all ill>new-found theoretical reach, rhetoric still means the practice of cffec- c.ot..*"·~~ ms tends to refer to tropes as tive speaking and effective writing; it still means teaching the strategics for ef­ 1.-.lck.-- ,.:., urger questions of discourse fective discourse; and it still resides in the "public sphere," as German sociologist ~ Cl'4te I ,t&..,;,, ..ic.....; Jilrgen Habcrmas :md others put it. In the twentieth century, the public sphere has literary critic Terry Eagleton become drmnatically more open to the rhetoric or women and minorities, whose raturc we mcun a text that is practices, coming from struggles lo get a hearing, have materially marked contem­ ... ,,t., ·ludes his clear and helpful porary rhetoric. I, ,.. . ~/1 cw rhetorical criticism, for

the operations or discourse: ,. I ~·, ... RHETORICS OF GENDER, RACE, AND CULTURE t,:.>. .eeks meaning in human in­ IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ,' ~f'.I~ regards discourse as a form ire, and as ethical and ideo- In sh:1rpcontrast 10 women in other periods of Western culture, many more twentieth· century women, both white and of color, are literate, and many more are educated beyond the elementary level. Women practice rhetoric in a wider variety of forms II the way from ancientsociety than ever before. In addition to the many private genres in which they have always :on\lructedin orderto achieve ~ of eni1uirywere .~peakingor participated, more and more women arc speaking and writing for public forums. horizon w:1s nothingless than Women arc lawyers, ministers, college professors, and politicians. Moreover, far c.lit s particular interest lay in more women arc studying and teaching rhetorical practices than ever have in the ... . It ~aw speakinganc.l writ ­ past. Women scholars in the social sciences, speech communication, literature, and ~mpl:1tcdor endlessly c.lecon­ composition studies arc analyzing written and spoken discourse or many kinds. social relationsbetween wr it­ Women's theorizing about language in use is also laking new forms. As speech intelligibleoutsidc the social communication scholar Karlyn Kohrs Campbell has pointed out, women have alT ways had to be particularly inventive in their u:,;es of rhetoric- inventing not only 1gthut it will be the future the matter of their texts, but appropriate personae to deliver thcm.~1 In the pust, theories of rhetorical criti- women could be found reflecting on forms of rhetoric that might be used by both sexes, even if those forms were con.~idercd especially uppropriate for women. For re " Te.ti ill 111it Clan ? {Ca111- example, Aspasia (p. 56) discussc~ dialogue and Madeleine de Scudery (p. 761) conversation as rhetorical genres. But perhaps the most frequent kind of reflection rtim1 of Ute mtutt · wul U lll/illllJ!e

Univcr.,ily of Minncsot.t Pre~.._ >JScc Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, "Inventing Women: Frum Anmtcrnsu to Virginia Woolf.~ ll'mmm ',1 S1t1clie.,·i n C111111111111ic11t101121.2 (fall 1991!): 111- 26.

INTRODUCTION 1199 on rhetoric that women produced before the modern period comprised arguments As a lesbian and for allowing women lo express themselves al all in speech or writing, or especially preference and cthni to practice rhetoric in public forums. Examples of such claims for a public voice (p. 1582) has bccom, can be found in the work of Margaret Fell (p. 748), Sor Juana Ines de la Crnz rhetoric, gay rhetori (p. 780), Maria W. Stewart (p. to31 ), and Sarah Grimkc (p. 1045), among others. In Lunsford has called general. these arguments claimed for women the u.-;e of the same rhetorical prac­ Anzaldua's writing m tices as were available to men. By the nineteenth century, however, a new kind of but also her varied lit theorizing about women and rhetoric began to emerge. This was work that at­ with English even wJ­ tempted to identify something uniquely female in language use, a sort of "women's of color have always rhetoric" that was clearly distinct from the mainstream rhetoric for men. Early at­ in their attempts to <. tempts at such theorizing can be found, for example, in the defense of women's carly -ninetcenth -cenh public Christian ministry mounted by Phoebe Palmer (p. 1085) and Frances Willard increasing educationa (p. I I 14). allowed more varied Work on women's rhetoric broadened and deepened in the twentieth century, so challenge the Wesler that it might now be possible to speak for the first time of a women's tradition in among speakers or wr rhetoric. Discussing texts in which women argue for their right to ~peak. feminist place when such horn, ' " historian Gerda Lerner has wryly noted the tendency of successive authors lo con­ success of twcntieth -c struct arguments very similar to one another-for example, in criticizing pronounce­ The increasing nur ments on women's public speaking by the Apostle Paul.' 4 This has happened, cine, politics, and the Lerner says, because the women':; texts did not stay in print; transmission was fur­ fluential political Icade ther attenuated because of women's uneven and uncertain access to education. But Martin Luther King J1 in the twentieth century. these conditions changed for the better. One of the first of important nineteen, important theorists of women's rhetoric in the twentieth century, Virginia Woolf Frederick Douglass (r, (p. 1246), emphasizei; the importance for women to connect with the work of earlier by the dominant cultUt women writers. Moreover, Woolf mounts a critique of the social conditions, oppres­ the same time, they ha sive to women. that have resulted in previous suppressions of women's writing. Ap­ cal resources of the A propriately enough, Woolf herself has come to be regarded as an important fore­ address the general pu mother of work on women's rhetoric later in the century . Subsequent writers have shown, Black English cited her and have also emulated her feminist stance against the social. political, and dition, and African An economic forces that discouraged women's writing. eating with peopl~ wh, Woolfs own writing style has also been taken as paradigmatic of women's ways fore the twentieth ccn of using language. For example. her essays do nol proceed linearly to drive home transmission problerm points supporting a thesis, but rather accumulate support for her position gradually women· s rhetoric. It h: and indirectly. Her evidence may be taken from published authorities hut is more centuries and now enri likely to come from her own experience and reflections. Later women writers, includ­ Black Englbh has ing Adrienne Rich, who openly acknowledges her debt to Woolf. and Helene Cixous grammatically coheren (p. 1520), whose affinities with Woolfs work have been noted by a number of schol­ rendered incorrectly (ti ars, have worked to develop theories of women's language use that follow along these lhe battles over tcachin lines and clearly differentiate it from men's. Cixous calls her concept of women's the African languages 1 writing, rooted in the ways women experience their bodies sexually, "ccriiure femi­ cal, syntactic, and Iexi nine." Rich has devoted her long career as a poet and essayist en1irely to working oul looked at the rhetorical ~"' "Genia Lerner. "lntmtluctinn.'' in TIie Femi11i.r1Tlrm,i;/rt of S11mhGrimh!, ctl. Gerda Lerner (New •~Andrea Lunsfnnl. "Tn" York: Oxford University Press. 1998). pp. 21 - 22. ity ." .loumal a{ A,fr,mn •,i Co

120:D MODl~RN AND l'OS'I MODERN RHETORIC criod comprised arguments As a lesbian and a Jew, Rich has also been alert to the implications of sexual :sch or writing, or especially preference and ethnicity for language use. As Rich has noted, Gloria Anzaldua h claims for a public voice (p. 1582) Im" become an important theorist of the intersections between women's Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz rheloric, gay rhetoric, and rhetorics of color.~, Composition scholar Andrea (p. I 045), among others. In Lunsford has called this conjunction in Anzaldua's work "mcstiza rhetoric."''' if the same rhetorical prac­ An7aldua's writing mixes not only her experiences as woman, lesbian, and Chicana, ry, however, a new kind of but also her varied linguistic resources; she boldly uses Spanish and Nahuatl along :e. This was work that at­ with English even when writing for primarily English-speaking audiences. Women

Jgc use, a sort of "women's of color have always labored under a double burden of racial and sexual oppression !,,.J &..a\· ur<- lt.-..v rhetoric for men. Early :it · in their aucmpts to claim a public voice, as can be seen from the experience of e, .. .,.d ,h.:"'·s {b.- in the defense of women's carly-nine1ccnllM:enlltryAfrican American orator Maria W. Stewart. But women's w85) and Frances Willard increasing educational and professional opporlunities in the twentieth century have u....,,~~'- .. .\~b ..__ allowed more varied voices to emerge. Their work raises powerful questions that in the twentieth century, so challenge the Western rhetorical tradition's assumptions of cultural homogeneity ~ of a women's tradition in among speakers or writers and audiences. Can communication and persuasion take cir right to speak, feminist place when such homogeneity docs not exist? The theoretical work and the popular ...... successive authors to con- success of twenticlh-century women rhetoricians suggest lhat it can. ,,..,,. . " ic, in criticizing pronounce­ The increasing numbers of men of color enlering the professions of law, medi­ ,,: •• ,, • A•"°" 'aul.:tot This has happened, cine, politics, and the academy provide further confirmation. Some of the most in­ ,rint; transmission was fur­ nuenlial political leaders of the twentieth century have been African American men: "'· •• ,. J in access to education. But Martin Lulher King Jr., Malcolm X, and Jesse Jackson. Following in the footsteps . ": .. ' ...... the better. One of the first of important nineteenth-century African American intellectual and political leader ,·.:.~.,.,r·, ' ' •, • , .• . h century, Virginia Woolf Frederick Douglass (p. I 06 I), these men have adapted forms of rhetoric preferred ect with the work of earlier by the dominant culture to pursue successful political activism for social justice. At e )C.r~t-t~i'.:\-..,_\-:...:. t"\ e social conditions, oppres- the same time, they have felt more free than Douglass did to bring the great rhetori­ 1s of women's writing. Ap­ cal resources of the African American community to bear in rhetorical forums that rded as an important fore­ :iddress the general public:.As literary scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. (p. 1543) has ,;. Subsequent writers have shown, Black English and African American rhetoric have their own powerful tra­ nst the social, political, and dition, and African American leaders have used it effectively even when communi­ cating with peoplr who arc unfamiliar with it. Largely an oral tradition, at least be­ digmatic of women's ways fore the twentieth century, African American rhetoric has not suffered from the eed linearly to drive home transmission problems, noted above, that have hampered the development of . for her position gradually women's rhetoric. It has been a vital force in the African American community for 1ed authorities but is more centuries and now enriches the broader American rhetorical scene. lier women writers, includ­ Black English has long been recognized, at least by linguists, as a dialect, a Woolf, and Helene Cixous grammatically coherent language that is a form of English and not simply English 1oted by a number of schol- rendered incorrectly (though the persistence of that prejudicial view was evident in use that follow along these the battles over teaching Ebonics). The linguistic description of Black English cites s her concept of women's the African languages that combined with English to produce distinctive grammati­ :s sexually, "ecriture femi~ cal, syntactic, and lexical features. In addition, sociolinguists and folklorists have yist entirely 10 working out looked at the rhetorical character of black discourse to discover how it functions in ·s experience. ·~Sec Adrienne Rkh, l\'/1111h Fo1111J/here : Ne11,•lu11Jh011 /'oell )' aml l'oli1hs (New York: W. W. Ntorlnn. 1993), p, 140 cl passim . Grimk11, ed. Gerda Lerner (New "' Andrea Lunsford , ..Toward a Mes1i1a RhelOric: Gloria A111..1lduaon Compusilion and Pos1coloniol· rry,'" Jormw{ ,,J,\,lmn, ·,~dCompmi1io11 1!! . 1 ( 199!!) ; i.

INl RODUCTION 1201 behavior , social organi1.ation, and ideological relations with the dominant white cul• lain~ good hihliographi ture. Rhetoric, in most such studies, has not been called upon as a comprehensive ful uml well-organized theory of discourse . Where rhetoric appears al all, it refers to tropes, which in tum philosophers of lhe "Iii refer to a number of distinctive black speech patterns and genres, such as "playing C11lt11re,mu/ Pedaxox_r 1 the dozens" and "signifying." Henry Louis Gates Jr., in The Si~11ifyi11gMonkey 998), which includes 1 (p. 1551), analyles the tropes of black discourse in terms of the epistemic notion of numher of other essay~ tropes developed by deconslructionisl critics. Gates thus brings the analysis of a of this type is Comendi, part of black discourse into line with a significant clement of the language theory P,llricia Markin uncl Joh r A di~cussion of the shared by literary criticism and rhetoric. 1 entccl toward modem i mu/ Plii/o.l'Opl1yin Conj, Kimhall's Orators and p THE REACHOF RHETORIC dispute as lhc central issL Twentieth ~century theories of rhetoric, in formulating the relationships between Ian. James Kinneavy's ch. guage and knowledge and in reexamining the powers of discourse, have extended ship i11Hfatorict1! am/ Cr the concerns of rhetoric to include each and every instance of language use. Al­ hia, Mo., 1990) lakes a hr ography in the area~ of t though some earlier rhetoricians, such as lsocrates, Vico, and Nietzsche, believed political :md religious ora that rhetoric mui;t be comprehensive and address all language acts, for centuries the An excellent selection IM-.-h'""o";t­ scope of rhetoric was limited to overtly persuasive and deliberately stylized forms the Chicago revival of rh1 ol,~rt.c,..~,·.. "'-S of discourse and to the speech and writing of lhose in power. Twentieth-cenlury ed. Mark Backman (Wnoc I theories of rhetoric, in contra~,. take the concerns of rhetoric lo be nolhing less than -~.""' ,:.i.,.. ,~ philo sophical analysis, a 11 the foundation s of knowledge and ideology in discourse . lention hy students of rhch +"-~~~$.-\-""- b-''\, The movement of philo.~ophy toward the problems of language and epislemol ­ l:dwin Black's Rhetori '"""'- ,=t~ ogy, of literary analysis toward a concern for the nature of textual and conlextual in­ lion 1o lhe limits of the Ar terpretation, of the social sciences and even the natural sciences toward the realiza ­ described rhetoric as u crit. tion lhat knowledge is a linguistically constructed tmd consensual arrangement - all making rhetoric more co point lo lhe need for a comprehensive theory of language and knowledge, a theory Fogarty, S.J., discus~es lhc 1 ( 1959, rpt. New York, 196: of practical reasoning, of speech acts, of discursive formations , of persuasion and collected in Comemporarv; d\sc.iplihaM..f identification - in short, u theory that encompasses all the rich clements of rhetoric. P-,,,tAhti .. ~} ON. q The modem hi~tory <;f Rhetoric al the beginning of the twenty-first century is not only u field of historical RC"a/iry: \Vririnx bmriwtit>i -\\..rc.ac.( h...r<- investigation, systematic analysis, pedagogical practice, political change, and theo­ John Michael Wozniak' s c 1}~"'(.. t\<..Gus~hi"l retical speculation, bul an intellectual project that extends beyond disciplinary 19,10 (Washington, D,C ., 1c boundaries. \Vriti11xf11.rtru ctim1 at Amii; be.S._ I"\\-~ f """-ut-c.. inlluenlial program in consi lion and lhc rhetorical lrad . Selected Bibliography Robert Connors, Lisa Ede, t cm Dl.rco11rsc,eel . Connors Some of lhe key lwenliclh-ccntury developments in rhe1orical lheory arc discussed in number of cs~ays on related • Michael Lcfrs "In Search of Ariadne's Thread: A Review of Recent Lilerature on Rhelorica l Connors treats the period fro Theory" (Ccnrral States Speech Jmmwl 29 [summer 1~1711):73-91), which focuses on the wu/ PcdagoJ.:1· (Pi1tshurgh, I rhetoric-as-epislemic approach, and C. H. Knohlauch's "Modern Rhetorical Theory and lls tio11mu/ Modem Writing, ed. Fulurc Directions," in l'erspectives ,111Research mu/ Sdrolar.l'hipi11 Co111po.1·itio11. ed. Ben W. for Teachers of \Vritinx, Slh McClelland and Timo1hy R. Donovan (New York, 19!15). Cm1te111110mryl'erspectil'es 0 11 (BoSlon. :woo), summarizes Rhetoric, 2nd ed .• by S. Foss, K. Foss, and R. Trapp (Prospccl Heights, Ill .• 1991), is a sum­ sition . mary of lhe work of Richards, Weaver, Burke, Toulmin, Perelrnan, :md Foucault, as well as The modem history of lh, I1alian philosopher Emeslo Grnssi and German sociologist Jiirgen 1-Iahermas.This hook con- tail in sevcr,11essay s in Spei

1202 MODERN AND POSTMODERN IHIETOltlC ons with the dominant white cu[. rains good hihliographics of both primary and secondary works on these ligurcs. A very use­ called upon as a comprehensive ful and well-organized source addressing the connections between rhetorical theory and it refers to tropes, which in turn philosophers of the "linguistic tum" is Rhetoric ill cm A111ifm111dt11ionalWorld: Language, 11s and genres, such as "playing Culture,and Pedagogy, ed. Michael Bernard-Donals and Richard R. Glejzer (New Haven, Jr., in The Signifying Monkey 1 1998), which includes Fish's "Rhetoric," Eagleton's "A Short History of Rhetoric," and a terms of the epistemic notion of numhcr of other essays, including one by Richard Rorty. Yet another excellent collection or this type is Co11temli11i:with Wrmi.v:Co111positim1 a11d Rhetoric ill a Postmotlem Age, ed, :s thus brings the analysis of a Patricia Harkin and John Schilb (New York, 1991). element of the language theory A discussion of the relationship between rhetoric and philosophy through the ages, ori· ented toward modern issues of epistemology, is found in Samuel IJsseling's Rhetoric am/ Philo.wpl,_v ill Co11Jlic1( 1975; tr.ms. Paul Dunphy, The Hague, I 976). See also Bruce Kimball's Ormors mu/ Phi/mophers (New York, 1986), which treats the rhetoric-philosophy dispute as the central issue in the history of education. g the relationships between lan­ James Kinneavy's chapter on "Contemporary Rhetoric" in The Prese11tStme of Sclwlur· shipin Historical mu/ Ccmtempomry Rhewric, :md ed., ed. Winifred Bryan Homer (Colum­ :rs of discourse, have extended , bia, Mo., 1990) takes a hroad view of the province of rhetoric, including discussion and bibli· instance of language use. Al· ogrnphy in the areas of theory, reference works, infonnal logic, epistemology, advertising , Vico, and Nietzsche, believed political and religious oratory, criticism, feminism, and writing instruction. language acts, for centuries the An excellent sch:ction of the work of Richard McKeon, responsible (with R. S. Cr.me) for ,md deliberately stylized fonns the Chicago revival of rhetoric, is available in Rhetoric: Essays i11fove111i<111 and DiscrJl'ery, ;: in power. Twentieth-century ed. Murk Backman (Woodbridge, Conn ., 1987). McKean treats rhetoric as a method of active rhetoric lo be nothing less than plulo~nphical :mulysis, a means of histori cal and social analysis ; his work deserves serious at­ rse. tention hy students of rhetoric . ns of language and epistemol­ Edwin Black' s Rhewrical Critidsm: A S111clyi11 Method (New York, 1965) called atten­ re of textual and contextual in­ tion to 1he limits of 1hc Aristnlclian model and the need to develop new theories. Black also ·al sciences toward the realiza. described rhetoric as a critical appro:1ch that did not have to rely on classical references, thus making rhetoric more competilive with other contemporary critical approaches. Daniel I consensual arrangement - all Fogarty, S.J ., discusse s the rhetorical tradition and modem theories in Rootsfor ti New Rhetoric uagc and knowledge, a theory (1959, rpt. New York, 1968). A number of other excellent essays from the sixties revival are formations, of persuasion and collected in Colllempomry Theories of Rhetoric, ed. Richard Johannesen (New York, 1971). I the rich elements of rhetoric. The modern hislory of writing instruction can be found in James Berlin's Rhetoric w1d s not only a field of historical ReaUty: Writing /rmrm:tirm in American Colleges, 19cx>-1985(Carbondale, 1987) and in ;e, political change, and theo­ John Michael Wozniak's comprehensive Engli.fh Compo.vitio11in Ea.Hem Colleges, 1850- extends beyond disciplinary 19-10(Wa~hington, D.C .. 1978). See also Rohin Varnum's Fencing with Words: A History of 1Vriti11g/11struc1ir111 at Amherst College, 1938- 1966 (Urhana, Ill., 1996), which describes an innuential program in considerable detail. The renewed connection between writing instruc­ tion and the rhetorical tradition is taken up in "The Revival of Rhetoric in America," by Robert Connors, Lisa Ede, and Andrea Lunsford, in E.1·.mys011 Clc1.uiml Rhetoric mrtl Mod­ em Dhco11rse,ed , Connors, Ede, and Lunsford (Carbondale, 1984). This volume contains a torical theory arc discussed in number of essays on related topics, as well as a bibliography of the works of E. P. J. Corbell . f Recent Literature on Rhetorical Connors treats the period from 176010 1960 in Compo.vitirm•Rhetoric: 8ackgm1111ds,Theory , I: 73-91 ), which focuses on the 111111Pt 'clagogy(Pittshurgh, 1997). An excellent collection of essays is The Rhetorical Tnuli­ :Klem Rhetorical Theory and Its tilmmu/ Modem \Vritillg,ed. James J. Murphy (New York, 1982). The Bedford Bibliograph~· ship ill Compositio11,ed. Ben w. for Tem:lwrs of Writing, 5th ed., hy Palricia Biu.cll, Bruce Hcrlherg, and Nedrn Reynolds Comemporary Perspectives rm (Boston, 2000), summarizes many works on the history and theory of rhetoric and compo · cl Heights, Ill., 1991), is a sum­ s1tinn. ·etman, and Foucault, as well as The modern history of the discipline of speech communication is explored in great dcA irgcn Habcnnas. This book con- t,1il in several essays in Speech Co1111111111ict11ioni11the 20th Ce11t11ry,ed. Thomas Benson

tNTROOUCTION 1203