If our field had a Catechism, it would probably include something like the following: “All claims to truth or knowledge are cultural constructs; objective truth does not exist; we cannot escape the bounds of individual or communal subjectivity. This is most certainly true.” Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of truth to this denial of … Continue reading
A central theme in rhetorical theory is the notion of oppositions and binaries, as well as the perennial tension between identification and division. And so I’ve always wondered why we haven’t mined the work by and on William Blake, whose entire project seemed to be a poetic marriage between Heaven and Hell, a transcending of … Continue reading
Today I had a wonderful tete-a-tete in my morning seminar. We were discussing what it means to import terminology from a specific discipline (rhetorical theory) into an area where the discipline’s terminology may not apply. How much “casuistic stretching” should we allow ourselves when analyzing, as rhetorical, practices not traditionally understood as rhetorical? When we … Continue reading
I have been critiquing the postmodern mode of argumentation, but I have said nothing about the content or purposes of the arguments themselves. Lest I seem ungenerous in my reading of an entire field of work, I hasten to add that the postmodern styles of argumentation can and do serve an important purpose. At their … Continue reading
In many cases, tracing the genealogy of an argument (the social, historical, and material forces that attended its formulation) doesn’t tell you whether the argument itself is right or wrong. What’s more, tracing genealogies only through the lens of ideological critique—Marxist, race, queer, feminist—will illuminate only one aspect of the complexity of an idea’s material, … Continue reading
Two posts ago, I opposed “critical thinking” to “civic engagement” insofar as their rhetorical trajectories are aimed in different directions: the former suggests thought, the latter suggests action. I came down reluctantly on the side of “critical thinking” as the god-term upon which arguments for humanistic education should be made. However, my description of the … Continue reading
Criticizing Emig’s study would be easier than putting socks on the right feet; after all, her sample is miniscule, the time spent with her subjects is inadequate, and the design of the study itself is highly artificial. What’s more, there seems to be a certain hubris to Emig’s Introduction and Conclusion. Despite a problematic research … Continue reading
Ever since I decided to join this crazy world of academia, I’ve noticed that professors, deans, and administrators alike proclaim the value of education using one of two terms: “critical thinking” or “civic engagement.” These terms are emblematic of what Richard Weaver calls “ultimate terms” and what Kenneth Burke calls “god terms.” They are terms … Continue reading
The field in which I work is known as “rhetoric and composition” or “composition and rhetoric”, depending on whom you ask. However, if you ask me, rhetoric is the more important of the two. Traditionally, rhetoric was concerned with spoken discourse, but even in the Hellenistic era, its application to written discourse was obvious. (Plato’s … Continue reading
I jumped at the bit to enroll in a course called Rhetoric, Composition, and the Digital Humanities. I’ve heard about ”digital humanities” in the past, but I’d never bothered to look up what it is or who is involved. Turns out, I’ve been missing some good shit. What is digital humanities? It is an amorphous field among … Continue reading
