Com 640 Spring 2015 Communication 640 George N. Dionisopoulos Seminar in Critical-Rhetorical Methods Office: Com 241 Spring 2015 24903 [email protected] Monday 7:00-9:40 Com 209 Office hours MW 12:30-1:50 "Words are not merely 'signs'; they are names whose 'attachment' to events, objects, persons, institutions, status groups, classes, and indeed any great or small collectivity, soon tends to determine what we do in regard to the bearer of the name." -- Hugh D. Duncan The overall goal of this seminar is to give you a foundation in basic critical-rhetorical scholarship and methodology. To accomplish this we will examine the role that rhetoric plays in the construction and shaping of symbolic reality. This class is focused on deepening your understanding of the nomenclature of critical inquiry. Toward that end we will examine the scholarly practices which fall under the heading of rhetorical criticism: the “analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of persuasive uses of [symbols]” (Campbell & Burkholder, 1997, p. 2). Rhetorical criticism is not intended to tell us what an artifact means, but rather to illustrate some aspect of how it means: how might an engaged audience make sense of this communication. Thus we begin with what is present and obvious in a rhetorical artifact and the deconstruct it to make an argument about what is hidden and/or obscure – but meaningful and important – within a message. Part of this class will introduce you to the “history” of rhetorical criticism, including how it came into being, how it matured and changed over the decades, and the various ways it is practiced today. Toward that end we will examine various methodological approaches that have been employed in the past, spanning a range of ideological assumptions about communication and the nature of “humanness”. We cannot cover the entire field, but we will read examples of rhetorical criticism that can help you to develop your own critical skills by illustrating how others have worked through many aspects of the process. It is also important to keep in mind that a method is a tool, and that different tools are designed to do different things. We want to understand how these tools work so that we can develop a refined ability to select from among them. We will also pay particular attention to a variety of analytical skills that are important in critical inquiry; most specifically, the adoption of a “critical attitude” toward a rhetorical artifact. A great deal of this class will focus on introducing you to a range of basic terms and concepts that constitute a kind of vocabulary for criticism. Understanding and employing this vocabulary is an important step in learning to do rhetorical criticism. TEXTBOOKS: Hart, R. P. & Daughton, S, (2005). Modern rhetorical criticism Third Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Readings posted on Blackboard. Readings concern 1) theoretic grounding for critical 1 Com 640 Spring 2015 perspectives, 2) rhetorical criticisms, and 3) “Landmark” essays in rhetorical criticism. These categories will often overlap within particular essays and should not be considered to be mutually exclusive. LEARNING OUTCOMES AND GOALS: - To gain a sense of and be able to discuss various critical methods employed by scholars in our field - To gain a sense of and be able to discuss various trends in contemporary rhetorical criticism. - To develop and be able to articulate coherent definitions of “rhetoric,” “rhetor,” “rhetorical situation,” “rhetorical problem,” “rhetorical criticism,” as well as other terms useful to the field. - To be able to identify and explain the basic logic of critical inquiry - To read, evaluate and discuss a wide range of critical rhetorical projects - To be able to define and illustrate the main concepts of rhetorical criticism - To understand the manner in which rhetorical criticism is conducted and why it is a worthwhile endeavor. - To demonstrate an understanding of the process of critical investigation by completing a research paper. - To engage in a process of reviewing the work of your peers and offering meaningful feedback for revision. - To comprehend and discuss the role of rhetorical criticism as a communication research method. - To examine and be able to articulate concerns which face the academic writer GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER: Please make a Blog post about yourself under the Student Profile Tab on Blackboard. This profile should include: (a) a photo of you, (b) and some information you wish to share in order for us to get to know you better. Please post a photo in which your face is clearly visible – as opposed to a crowd-shot of the audience at an all-day rock festival with the explanation that you are in section 53, seat 12. This will help me to learn names. Follow the example that I posted under 'Professor' Profile' (tab on left side of Blackboard). I am excited to learn about you but remember that this is a PUBLIC profile and that the whole class will be reading it. Deadline Date: March 4, 2015 (by 11:59 p.m., PST). There is a file is the course documents section of BlackBoard entitled and concerning “Tips for Submitting Profiles.” It has a link to an instructional video that can help walk you through the process. GRADING AND ASSIGNMENTS 2 Com 640 Spring 2015 Your grade in this class will be based upon the total number of points accumulated during the semester. I will use the following criteria for assigning final grades: A 90% B 80% A- 88.5 % C 70% B+ 87% Discussion Leader = 50 points Descriptive analysis = 25 points Seminar participation = 25 points Proposal = 25 points Meta-Critical Analysis = 25 points Paper = 100 points Final examination = 100 Discussion Leader = 50 points During one week of the semester you will do a formal “reaction paper” to the week’s reading. A reaction paper is your effort to “connect the dots” concerning what we have read. These papers should highlight what you think are the main points, and can and should bring in supplementary material, including rhetorical artifacts which can be used to illustrate some of the important critical principles discussed. Reaction papers should be two – three pages long (this limit is finite) and contain two or three provocative discussion questions that you can use to lead seminar discussion concerning the week’s reading. Focus these discussion questions toward what we learned from the essays, and how the argument of the essay was structured. Your reaction paper and the discussion questions are to be distributed via email to all members of the seminar by 5:00 p.m. on the day of your presentation. (This will give seminar members the opportunity to preview the reaction paper prior to the class). Late papers will deleteriously affect your grade for this assignment. Keep a copy of your essay to use as a “working paper” during the seminar. You will be required to lead at least an hour of the discussion and will be well within your rights to solicit from others their responses to the above-listed concerns. There are 50 points available for this effort and my evaluation will be based on your reaction paper, the quality of your discussion questions and your effort at leading the seminar. Participation = 25 points This class will employ a rhetorical perspective with heavy emphasis upon interaction. You are required to do all the reading and come to class prepared to discuss the material. Participation will be evaluated according to your contributions to class discussion, as well as your effort and attitude in any in-class exercises. Silent attentiveness is not participation. We need to hear your contributions to the dialogue in class. Part of this grade will be a consideration of the feedback you give fellow students concerning their own work. The key to meaningful participation is to keep in mind the above criteria (from the Weekly Blog Posting section) as you read. Another consideration part will be the Student Profile you post on BlackBoard. Meta-Critical Analysis = 25 points 3 Com 640 Spring 2015 Part of the “critical attitude” is to learn to read criticism like a rhetorical scholar. Rhetorical criticism is a research method, the goal of which is to teach us something about communication. Six times during the semester – not including the week you function as discussion leader – you need to pick one article from the weekly reading and write and post to Turnitin a one- two page (hard limit – penalty incurred for going over page limits) analysis focusing on it. Possible readings for this assignment are designated in this syllabus by an asterisk (*) at the beginning of the listing. You cannot submit more than one of these each week. Meta-critical postings for the week’s readings are due at6 :00 p.m. the night of the seminar and will not be accepted late. This analysis should focus on what the article can teach us about communication. Be ready to talk about the “conclusion” or “claim” of the article as well as the argumentative/reasoning structure which supports it. What did you learn about “how discourse works in the world” – what did the author[s] say concerning the implications of this work in contributing to our understanding of the process[es] of human symbolic behavior? What is the “scholarly dialogue” the article claims to advance. (In point of fact, any study that explains only the artifact under examination is a pretty limited endeavor.) What is the most interesting or important point being made about human symbolic behavior? What do you believe was the key argument of the author[s]: To put it more bluntly – what is the “so what” of the article; how are you smarter about communication after reading the article than you were before you read it? You need to distill the substance of the article into a brief critical profile.