Hope in America: Lyotard and Rorty, Dobson and Obama, and the Struggle to Maintain Hope in Postmodern Times A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Daniel E. Rossi Keen August 2008 This dissertation titled Hope in America: Lyotard and Rorty, Dobson and Obama, and the Struggle to Maintain Hope in Postmodern Times by DANIEL E. ROSSI KEEN has been approved for the School of Communication Studies and the Scripps College of Communication by Gregory J. Shepherd Professor of Communication Studies William K. Rawlins Stocker Professor of Communication Studies Gregory J. Shepherd Dean, Scripps College of Communication ii ABSTRACT KEEN, DANIEL E. ROSSI, Ph.D., August 2008, Communication Studies Hope in America: Lyotard and Rorty, Dobson and Obama, and the Struggle to Maintain Hope in Postmodern Times (305 pp.) Directors of Dissertation: Gregory J. Shepherd and William K. Rawlins This dissertation is a reflection on the status of hope in postmodern America. Emerging from the assumption that postmodern critiques of objective knowledge have significantly challenged the vitality of many American’s hopes, and seeking, in part, to address this problem, I here make two broad arguments. First, I argue that postmodern challenges to objective truth need not signal the demise of hope. Second, I argue that the very same conditions which give rise to postmodern critiques of objective knowledge likewise provide exciting possibilities for reinvigorating hope in our current climate. In Chapter 1, I offer an extended reflection upon the changing status of hope as demonstrated by my own historic pilgrimage. In chapter 2, I consider in detail Jean François Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition as well as various works by Richard Rorty. Relying heavily upon insight from these two theorists, I identify what I refer to as paralogic communication, a type of communication that depends upon narrative legitimation and that relies heavily upon the possibility of perpetually redescribing the world. As I explain, paralogic communication, both for Lyotard and Rorty, offers a way of sustaining hope while simultaneously rejecting objective truth. In Chapters 3 and 4, I examine various communicative artifacts by two different individuals: James Dobson and Barack Obama. Simply put, the goal here is to show that iii Dobson, particularly through his treatment of homosexuality and his vision for the American family, fails to enact paralogic communication as a way of describing a future, hopeful America. Even so, Dobson continues to engender hope within those who are convinced by his appeals. Obama, on the other hand, represents an exemplar of the employment of paralogy within our current, postmodern context. As I argue, such a vision of paralogy emerges from Obama’s reliance upon America’s self-description as codified in the Declaration of Independence and simultaneously illuminates the theme of hope at the center of his presidential campaign. Moreover, I argue that such paralogic communication helps to make sense of the considerable support that Obama has garnered in recent months. Taken together, I argue, the combined testimony of Lyotard, Rorty, Dobson, and Obama (a) bring into focus some of the greatest philosophical, communicative, and social challenges facing America today and yet nevertheless (b) point toward numerous possible articulations of hope in postmodern America. Approved: _____________________________________________________________ Gregory J. Shepherd Professor of Communication Studies Approved: _____________________________________________________________ William K. Rawlins Stocker Professor of Communication Studies iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the preface to his Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1958) wrote: “I should have liked to produce a good book. This has not come about, but the time has passed in which I could improve it” (vi). The closer I have drawn to the completion of this project, the more I have felt the weight of those sentiments expressed by Wittgenstein over half a century ago. In some ways, I must admit how frustrated I am that this process is drawing to a close, leaving me wishing I had more time, wishing I had done more research, and wishing I possessed more energy. Though I suspect (and hope!) that such a frustration will forever characterize my scholarship, I think it is quite fitting that I should end this particular project with such a sense of incompleteness. For from top to bottom, the reflections that occupy the following pages speak about gleaning hope from that which is as of yet incomplete. Indeed, it is the sense of incompletion that moves us forward, that brings us back, and that “gets us up in the morning.” As I reflect upon the end of my formal education, I am reminded that I will continue to learn from the insight and lessons gained while studying with such fine people here at Ohio University. If a decade ago I had could somehow have known then that this would be the dissertation I would end up writing now, I could not have known how to make sense of who I would become. Such time spent at Ohio University has slowly but surely draw me into a conversation that had been going on within me for years, yet without having a voice and without having anyone to speak to. My teachers, colleagues, and friends at Ohio University have provided me with a vocabulary by which v I can now give voice to that conversation as well as a collection of people with whom to speak. And so I should like to thank at least a couple of these individuals here. Many thanks to Dr. Arthur Zucker, for being such an integral part of my introduction to analytic philosophy and, even more important, for introducing me to Wittgenstein, thereby helping me to discover the importance of “letting the fly out of the bottle.” To Zach Moyer and to Luke Potter, thank you for being friends and confidants at an otherwise very lonely time. Let me, at this point, register what could be my only claim to fame, so far as the history of ideas is concerned: I was Luke Potter’s teacher for introductory logic! And to Al Lent, the only human being to have served on every one of my graduate committees: thank you for your persistent willingness to be a part of my education. I only wish that I had taken the opportunity to spend even more time learning from and with you. So too should I thank Stefanie Norander and Mellissa Broeckelman- Post, two fabulous office mates, and even better friends. Thank you for your kind and loving spirits and those innumerable ways that you infused humanity into an oftentimes inhumane process. To my faculty in Communication Studies, I am deeply grateful, both for your remarkable insight and for your unflappable patience. Four years ago, during our first ever conversation, Greg Shepherd remarked, “I had you pegged as a pragmatist from the very beginning.” Well Greg, I suppose that description now holds! Thank you, Greg, for your able advice and generous friendship. Though you are one of the busiest people I know, you never failed to give both of your time and your attention. And for that I am so very appreciative. vi Bill, thank you for teaching me to view life as a narrative, yet without turning life into a mere story. You have show me the nimbleness that is required of a true communication scholar. Your passion for life is infectious, and your enthusiasm about my work has spurred me on from day one. Thank you for helping me learn how to thrive! Raymie, I suppose that you are the one who is responsible for getting me into this whole “rhetoric thing” in the first place. And so through a crazy process that I never envisioned myself being a part of, you have taught me to see the world as a rhetorical invention and to see the history of ideas as a rhetorical enterprise. So too has your kindness and generosity been humbling and quite undeserved. Thank you, Raymie, for taking me under your wing and giving me opportunities that I had no business having! My family will be forever grateful for all that you have done to see Pamela and me though graduate school. To Liz Ruchti and Lisa Huebner, where to begin? The two of you have utterly changed the direction of my family’s life and have had a lasting impact upon the way we will forever see the world. Though I cannot honestly say the process has always been a smooth one, it has indeed always been a virtuous one. Your friendship sparked within me the process described within these pages. Thank you for your continued kindness to my family, for your persistent performance of our friendship, and for the prospect of a continued relationship with your growing family! Speaking of families: I cannot begin to imagine the ways in which my family has sacrificed as a result of my education. And, in fact, I am not sure that I would wish for an answer to that question. My hope is that through this process we will have laid a vii foundation for a hopeful future emerging from the seeds of the past. To my mother and father: thank you for your kind and loving support and for enduring your grandbabies living some three hundred miles away so that I could chase down an idea, which, by the way, I know I “can’t eat.” Your continued hope is evidence of whatever truth is contained within this project! To Cathy and Clarence: Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! The completion of this dissertation is as much a testament to your tenacity as it is to mine.