1
Comm 740 Rhetorical Theory
Spring 2016
Chuck Goehring, Ph.D.
Office: Communication 222
Contact: cgoehring@mail.sdsu.edu
Office hours: M 12:30-2; Th 9-11, and by appointment
School of Communication Website: http://communication.sdsu.edu/
Rhetoric is often falsely accused of being empty, bombastic speech designed to sway an
audience to see what is false as true. Such a perception of rhetoric fails to understand the
intricate nature of language and symbol use. In order to provide a more complex, robust,
and optimistic definition of rhetoric, this course traces three important elements regarding
rhetorical theory: An historical overview of rhetoric, from its early origins in democratic
Greek life, through contemporary theorizations of the role and use of rhetoric within civic
culture; the many theories that guide our understanding of rhetoric; and the practical
ways in which rhetoric is utilized and touches our cultural, political, and social lives.
Through this history, and by mapping out important theoretical concepts and key terms,
students will appreciate the centrality of rhetoric in their lives, as well as be able to
identify the unethical uses of rhetorical manipulation through propaganda and
demonization.
Learning outcome goals:
- To comprehend the role and purpose of rhetorical theory as a theoretical and practical
conversation within the field of rhetoric and communication.
- To trace the important scholarly conversation in the field of rhetorical theory.
- To recognize the function and scope of rhetoric within civic and political life.
- Describe and explain the concepts, tenets, and theories that span the breadth of
rhetorical studies.
- Critically analyze rhetorical messages to determine whether they are ethical or
manipulative.
Books and materials:
Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lucaites, J. L., C. M. Condit, & S. Caudill, eds. (1999). Contemporary rhetorical theory:
A reader. Guilford Press.
Other readings available on Blackboard, denoted by the (BB) symbol, and through library
databases such as Communication and Mass Media Complete.
2
Noteworthy Policies and Procedures
Attendance:
This is a graduate seminar so its success depends almost entirely on the students. You
must come to class prepared to engage one another on the material, which means that you
need to have read the material for each week, thought about it critically, and formulated
some opinions and questions. Since participation is so important it is imperative that
everyone attend class. One absence per semester is understandable, but any absences
beyond that will result in loss of participation points. Furthermore, it is not enough to
simply show up to class. You earn credit for discussion both by actively participating and
by turning in weekly discussion questions. Weekly discussion questions will not be
accepted late for any reason.
Assignments and grading:
Seminars are not lectures. Seminars are all about reading, writing, and discussing. Since
this class only meets once a week, there is a whole week of reading for each class. Do not
let it overwhelm you. Spread it out over the course of the week and make sure to
leave yourself time to reflect on things that you have read. It is difficult to form an
opinion if you have only just finished reading and even more difficult to participate in an
interesting discussion.
Assignment
Class Participation and Discussion Questions
Theoretical Engagements
Paper Proposal and Annotated Bibliography
Lead class discussion/activity
Final paper
Points
50 pts.
50 pts
50 pts
50 pts.
100 pts
Participation/Weekly Discussion Questions
Participation in seminar each week is essential to graduate work, and reflects a) your
knowledge of the reading and willingness to engage in further understanding, and b) your
commitment to the academic process. Passively sitting in class is not an option. I do
understand there might be some evenings when you do not feel like fully engaging, but in
general the expectation is that you are prepared for class and ready to discuss.
Each week, I ask that after doing the reading, you post discussion questions about one or
more of the articles on the week’s Discussion Forum on Blackboard. I expect a set of at
least 3 typed questions. Your weekly grade will be based on the quality of these
questions. These postings are due the night before seminar (Wednesday night), by
midnight.
3
Theoretical Engagements (you choose 5)
For five weeks of the semester, you will be responsible for turning in a two-page
discussion of the week’s reading. They should include a brief overview of the scholarly
conversation, short descriptions of each essay, as well as the basic arguments presented in
each piece. The purpose of these engagements is to prepare you for a final paper.
Class Leader
You, or you and a colleague, will also responsible for leading class discussion for most of
one of the seminars. This will entail creating a presentation that helps explain the
readings and theoretical concepts. You might also include clips and examples to help
understand the concepts, create class activities, etc. You are also obligated to create a
substantial bibliography (in APA format, of course) of additional readings centered on
the week’s theme for the rest of the class. We will sign up for dates during seminar in
week 3.
Paper Proposal/Rationale
At some point within the first few weeks of the semester, each of you will have a one-onone meeting with me where we will discuss your interests and ideas on possible topics for
the final paper. On March 17 (at the beginning of class) you will turn in a two-page
description of (and rationale for) a key rhetorical concept you will engage over the course
of the semester. The description should briefly trace the concept or scholarly
conversation, and provide a rationale for why it is important for the discipline to pursue
this line of inquiry. It will also include an introductory annotated bibliography. Details to
follow.
Final Paper
The bulk of your grade will be based on your final paper. The paper must demonstrate
your engagement with a concept or scholarly conversation we are addressing over the
course of the semester. The paper should consist of a “state of the art” literature review of
the rhetorical concept or theory chosen, then suggest strengths of existing works and
identify gaps in our understanding. A brief illustration will likely be necessary as well.
The essay will be approximately 17-20 pages in length. This paper should be suitable for
submission to a conference. The deadline for submissions to the Western States
Communication Association annual conference occurs after our semester ends and I will
be glad to help demystify the conference submission process. Details to follow.
Final Presentation
On the day of the final (May 12) we will meet and each of you will present your final
project. While you will not be graded for the final presentation of your paper, this
presentation is mandatory.
Assignment details:
All papers are to be typed in 12 point font with 1 inch margins, double spaced, using
APA citation style.
4
CITATION STYLE
As of the Fall of 2007, the School of Communication requires student papers to be
formatted according to the American Psychological Association (6th ed.) Publication
Manual (hereafter, APA). Therefore, a substantive amount of the grade for written
assignments in this class is based on compliance and accuracy with which the APA style
is used. Resources are widely available for providing guidance in the APA style,
including: the library (http://infodome.sdsu.edu/refworks/index.shtml), bookstore, Word
2007, and the School of Communication website. A brief style guide (APA Generic
Guide) is also attached to the Blackboard site for this course, under course materials.
STUDENT ACCOMMODATION STATEMENT
If you are a student with a disability and believe you will need accommodations for this class, it is
your responsibility to contact Student Disability Services at (619) 594-6473. To avoid any
delay in the receipt of your accommodations, you should contact Student Disability Services as
soon as possible. Please note that accommodations are not retroactive, and that accommodations
based upon disability cannot be provided until you have presented your instructor with an
accommodation letter from Student Disability Services. Your cooperation is appreciated.
THE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY POLICY OF THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
Plagiarism is theft of intellectual property. It is one of the highest forms of academic offense
because in academe, it is a scholar’s words, ideas, and creative products that are the primary
measures of identity and achievement. Whether by ignorance, accident, or intent, theft is still
theft, and misrepresentation is still misrepresentation. Therefore, the offense is still serious, and is
treated as such.
Overview:
In any case in which a Professor or Instructor identifies evidence for charging a student with
violation of academic conduct standards or plagiarism, the presumption will be with that
instructor’s determination. However, the faculty/instructor(s) will confer with the director to
substantiate the evidence. Once confirmed, the evidence will be reviewed with the student. If,
following the review with the student, the faculty member and director determine that academic
dishonesty has occurred, the evidence will be submitted to the Office of Student Rights and
Responsibilities. The report “identifies the student who was found responsible, the general nature
of the offense, the action taken, and a recommendation as to whether or not additional action
should be considered by the campus judicial affairs office .” (CSSR Website[1]).
[1] http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/srr/academics1.html
Intellectual Property:
The syllabus, lectures and lecture outlines are personal copyrighted intellectual property of the
instructor, which means that any organized recording for anything other than personal use,
duplication, distribution, or profit is a violation of copyright and fair use laws.
Proper source attribution
Proper attribution occurs by specifying the source of content or ideas. This is done by (a)
providing quotation marks around text, when directly quoted, and (b) clearly designating the
source of the text or information relied upon in an assignment.
5
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences:
a. Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed materials (whether
represented by: (i) multiple sentences, images, or portions of images; or (ii) by percentage
of assignment length) without proper attribution, will result in assignment of an “F” in the
course, and a report to Student Rights and Responsibilities.
b. Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks but source citation, or
subsets of visual images without source attribution, will minimally result in an “F” on the
assignment.
Self-plagiarism
Students often practice some form of ‘double-dipping,’ in which they write on a given topic
across more than one course assignment. In general, there is nothing wrong with double-dipping
topics or sources, but there is a problem with double-dipping exact and redundant text. It is
common for scholars to write on the same topic across many publication outlets; this is part of
developing expertise and the reputation of being a scholar on a topic. Scholars, however, are not
permitted to repeat exact text across papers or publications except when noted and attributed, as
this wastes precious intellectual space with repetition and does a disservice to the particular
source of original presentation by ‘diluting’ the value of the original presentation. Any time that a
writer simply ‘cuts-and-pastes’ exact text from former papers into a new paper without proper
attribution, it is a form of self-plagiarism. Consequently, a given paper should never be turned in
to multiple classes. Entire paragraphs, or even sentences, should not be repeated word-for-word
across course assignments. Each new writing assignment is precisely that, a new writing
assignment, requiring new composition on the student’s part.
Secondary citations
Secondary citation is not strictly a form of plagiarism, but in blatant forms, it can present similar
ethical challenges. A secondary citation is citing source A, which in turn cites source B, but it is
source B’s ideas or content that provide the basis for the claims the student intends to make in the
assignment. For example, assume that there is an article by Jones (2006) in the student’s hands, in
which there is a discussion or quotation of an article by Smith (1998). Assume further that what
Smith seems to be saying is very important to the student’s analysis. In such a situation, the
student should always try to locate the original Smith source. In general, if an idea is important
enough to discuss in an assignment, it is important enough to locate and cite the original source
for that idea. There are several reasons for these policies: (a) Authors sometimes commit citation
errors, which might be replicated without knowing it; (b) Authors sometimes make interpretation
errors, which might be ignorantly reinforced (c) Therefore, reliability of scholarly activity is
made more difficult to assure and enforce; (d) By relying on only a few sources of review, the
learning process is short-circuited, and the student’s own research competencies are diminished,
which are integral to any liberal education; (e) By masking the actual sources of ideas, readers
must second guess which sources come from which citations, making the readers’ own research
more difficult; (f) By masking the origin of the information, the actual source of ideas is
misrepresented. Some suggestions that assist with this principle:
• When the ideas Jones discusses are clearly attributed to, or unique to, Smith, then find the
Smith source and citation.
• When the ideas Jones is discussing are historically associated more with Smith than with Jones,
then find the Smith source and citation.
• In contrast, Jones is sometimes merely using Smith to back up what Jones is saying and
believes, and is independently qualified to claim, whether or not Smith would have also
said it; in such a case, citing Jones is sufficient.
6
• Never simply copy a series of citations at the end of a statement by Jones, and reproduce the
reference list without actually going to look up what those references report—the only
guarantee that claims are valid is for a student to read the original sources of those
claims.
Solicitation for ghost writing:
Any student who solicits any third party to write any portion of an assignment for this class
(whether for pay or not) violates the standards of academic honesty in this course. The penalty
for solicitation (regardless of whether it can be demonstrated the individual solicited wrote any
sections of the assignment) is F in the course.
TurnItIn.com
The papers in this course will be submitted electronically in Word (preferably 2007, .docx) on the
due dates assigned, and will require verification of submission to Turnitin.com.
“ Students agree that by taking this course all required papers may be subject to submission for
textual similarity review to TurnItIn.com for the detection of plagiarism. All submitted papers
will be included as source documents in the TurnItIn.com reference database solely for the
purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers. You may submit your papers in such a way that
no identifying information about you is included. Another option is that you may request, in
writing, that your papers not be submitted to TurnItIn.com. However, if you choose this option
you will be required to provide documentation to substantiate that the papers are your original
work and do not include any plagiarized material” (source: language suggested by the CSU
General Counsel and approved by the Center for Student’s Rights and Responsibilities at SDSU)
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences
• Course failure: Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed
materials without proper attribution, whether represented by: (a) multiple sentences,
images, or portions of images; or (b) by percentage of assignment length, will result in
assignment of an “F” in the course in which the infraction occurred, and a report to the
Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities (CSRR2).
• Assignment failure: Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks,
but with source citation, or subsets of visual images without source attribution, will
minimally result in an “F” on the assignment, and may result in greater penalty, including
a report to the CSRR, depending factors noted below. In this instance, an “F” may mean
anything between a zero (0) and 50%, depending on the extent of infraction.
• Exacerbating conditions--Amount: Evidence of infraction, even if fragmentary, is increased
with a greater: (a) number of infractions; (b) distribution of infractions across an
assignment; or (c) proportion of the assignment consisting of infractions.
• Exacerbating conditions--Intent: Evidence of foreknowledge and intent to deceive magnifies
the seriousness of the offense and the grounds for official response. Plagiarism, whether
‘by accident’ or ‘by ignorance,’ still qualifies as plagiarism—it is all students’
responsibility to make sure their assignments are not committing the offense.
• Exceptions: Any exceptions to these policies will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and
only under exceptional circumstances.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO EXCUSES ALLOWED BASED ON IGNORANCE OF
WHAT CONSTITUTES PLAGIARISM, OR OF WHAT THIS POLICY IS
7
Course time-line
Please be aware that this schedule may change. If that happens, I will make absolutely sure
that you are made aware and that updated versions of the schedule are posted to Blackboard.
Week 1 (1/21)
Introductions, course expectations, class policies, assignments, what is rhetorical theory?
Aristotle. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse: Books 1 and 2 (available as PDF)
Week 2 (1/28)
Introduction & History
Lucaite, J. L., & Condit, C. M. Introduction. In CRT: A reader (pp. 1-14).
Burke, K. Introduction (xiii – xv); The range of rhetoric (3-46). In A rhetoric of motives.
Herrick, J. A. (2013). Chapter 1 in The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction
(5th ed.). Boston: Pearson. (BB)
Crowley, S., & Hawhee, D. (1999). A history of ancient rhetorics. In Ancient rhetorics
for contemporary students (pp. 20-29). (BB)
Biesecker, B. A. (2013). The obligation to theorize, today. Western Journal Of
Communication, 77(5), 518-522.
Week 3 (2/4)
Some Foundational Theory Work
Hariman, R. Status, marginality, and rhetorical theory. In CRT: A reader (pp. 35-51).
Bitzer, L. F. The rhetorical situation. In CRT: A reader (pp. 217-225).
Vatz, R. E. The myth of the rhetorical situation. In CRT: A reader (pp. 226-231)
Scott, R. On viewing rhetoric as epistemic. In CRT: A reader (pp. 131-139).
Week 4 (2/11)
Burke and Dramatism
Burke, K. Definition of man. Language as symbolic action: Essays on life,
literature, and method. Berkeley: University of California Press. (BB)
Burke, K. (1966). Terministic screens. Language as symbolic action: Essays on life,
literature, and method. Berkeley: University of California Press. (BB)
Burke, K. Traditional principles of rhetoric (pp. 49-114). In A rhetoric of motives.
Goehring, C., & Dionisopoulos, G. N. (2013). Identification by Antithesis: The Turner
Diaries as Constitutive Rhetoric. Southern Communication Journal, 78(5), 369386.
Week 5 (2/18)
Further Explorations in Foundational Theories
Fisher, W. Narrative as human communication paradigm. In CRT: A reader (pp. 265287).
McKerrow, R. Critical rhetoric: Theory & praxis. In CRT: A reader (pp. 441-463).
Charland, M. (1987). Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the people Quebecois. Quarterly
Journal Of Speech, 73(2), 133-150.
McGee, M. C. The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. In
CRT: A Reader (pp. 425-440).
8
Optional:
Cloud, D. L. (2004). To veil the threat of terror: Afghan women and the <clash
of civilizations> in the imagery of the U.S. war on terrorism. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 90(3), 285-306.
Week 6 (2/25) - Description/Rationale Due
The Question of Rhetorical Agency
Geisler, C. (2004). How ought we to understand the concept of rhetorical agency? Report
from the ARS. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 34(3), 9.
Biesecker, B. (2003). Position statement on “How ought we to understand the concept of
rhetorical agency?” (BB)
Lundberg, C. & Gunn, J. (2005). "Ouija board, are there any communications?" agency,
ontotheology, and the death of the humanist subject, or, continuing the ARS
conversation. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35(4), 83-105.
Rand, E. (2008). An inflammatory fag and a queer form: Larry kramer, polemics, and
rhetorical agency. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 94(3), 297-319.
Optional:
Gunn, J. , & Cloud, D. (2010). Agentic orientation as magical voluntarism.
Communication Theory, 20(1), 50-78.
Week 7 (3/3)
Burke week II
Burke, K. (1968). The psychology of form. In Counterstatement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. (BB)
Burke, K. (1968). Lexicon rhetoricae (pp. 123-183). In Counterstatement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. (BB) - Skim
Burke, K. (1969). The four master tropes. A grammar of motives. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press. (BB)
Renegar, V., & Goehring, C. (2013). A/In (further) defense of irony. JAC: Rhetoric,
Culture, and Politics, 33(1-2), 315-324. (BB)
Week 8 (3/10)
The Aesthetic Turn
Poulakos, J. (2007). From the depths of rhetoric: The emergence of aesthetics as a
discipline. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 40(4), 335-352.
Whitson, S., & Poulakos, J. (1993). Nietzsche and the aesthetics of rhetoric.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79(2), 131-145.
Greene, R. (1998). The aesthetic turn and the rhetorical perspective on argumentation.
Argumentation and Advocacy, 35(1), 19.
Stoneman, E. (2011). Appropriate indecorum rhetoric and aesthetics in the political
theory of Jacques Rancière. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 44(2), 129-149.
Optional:
Hariman, R. (1992). Decorum, power, and the courtly style. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
78(2), 149-172.
9
Week 9 (3/17)
Foucault
Foss, Foss, & Trapp chapter (pp. 339-378). (BB)
Biesecker, B. (1992). Michel Foucault and the question of rhetoric. Philosophy &
Rhetoric, 25(4), 351-364.
McKerrow, R. E. (2011). Foucault’s relationship to rhetoric. Review Of Communication,
11(4), 253-271.
Bean, H. (2009). Foucault’s rhetorical theory and U.S. intelligence affairs. POROI, 6(2),
15-32.
Optional:
Foss, S. K., & Gill, A. (1987). Michel Foucault's theory of rhetoric as epistemic. Western
Journal Of Speech Communication: WJSC, 51(4), 384-401.
Week 10 (3/24)
Psychoanalysis and Rhetoric
Biesecker, B. A. (1998). Rhetorical studies and the 'New Psychoanalysis’: What's the real
problem? or Framing the problem of the Real. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
84(2), 222-.
Sillar, M. O., & Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Psychoanalytic criticism: The interaction of the
conscious and the unconscious. In Communication criticism: Rhetoric, social
codes, cultural studies (237-260). (BB)
Lundberg, C. (2012). Lacan in public: Psychoanalysis and the science of rhetoric (pp. 143). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. (BB)
Gunn, J. (2004). Refitting fantasy: psychoanalysis, subjectivity, and talking to the dead.
Quarterly Journal Of Speech, 90(1), 1-23.
Optional:
Davis, W. (2006). “Bible says: the psychology of Christian fundamentalism.” In Death's
dream kingdom: The American psyche since 9-11. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto. (BB)
Week 11 (3/31) – Spring Break!
Week 12 (4/7)
Feminist Rhetorical Theory
Foss, K. A., Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. L. (1999). Feminist perspectives in rhetorical
studies: A history. In Feminist Rhetorical Theories (K. A. Foss, S. K. Foss, and C.
L. Griffin, Eds.), 14-32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (BB)
Campbell, K. K. The rhetoric of women’s liberation: An oxymoron. In CRT: A reader
(pp. 397-410)
Dow, B. J. (1995). Feminism, difference(s), and rhetorical studies. Communication
Studies, 46, 106-117.
Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. L. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational
rhetoric. Communication Monographs, 62, 2-18.
Optional:
Poster, C. (1998). (Re)positioning pedagogy: A feminist historiography of Aristotle’s
Rhetorica. In C. A. Freeland (ed.) Feminist interpretation of Aristotle (pp. 327349). University Park, PA: Penn State Press. (BB)
10
Week 13 (4/14)
The Audience
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts Tyteca, L. (1969). The framework of argumentation (pp. 1340). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University
of Notre Dame Press.
Biesecker, B. Rethinking the rhetorical situation from the thematic of differance. In
CRT: A reader (pp. 232-246)
Black, E. The second persona. In CRT: A reader (pp. 331-340)
McGee, M. C. In search of “the people”: A rhetorical alternative. In CRT: A reader (pp.
341-356).
Week 14 (4/21)
The Affective Turn
Massumi, B. (1995). The autonomy of affect. Cultural Critique, 3, 83-109.
Rice, J. E. (2008). The new “new”: Making a case for critical affect studies. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 94(2), 200-212.
Rand, E. J. (2015). Bad feelings in public: Rhetoric, affect, and emotion. Rhetoric &
Public Affairs, 18(1), 161-175.
Leys, R. (2011). The turn to affect: A critique. Critical Inquiry, 37(1), 434-472.
Week 15 (4/28)
Visual Rhetorical Theory – An Introduction
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). The pictorial turn. Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual
representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (BB)
Barthes, R. (1977). The photographic message. Image, music, text. New York: Hill
and Wang.
Barthes, R. (1977). Rhetoric of the Image. Image, music, text. New York: Hill
and Wang.
Hawhee, Debra, and Paul Messaris. “Review Essay: What's Visual about “Visual
Rhetoric”?” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95.2 (2009): 210-223.
Tagg, J. (1993). Introduction. The burden of representation: Essays on photographies
and histories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Week 16 (5/5) – Final Paper Due
Final Thoughts and New Directions
Blair, C. C., Jeppeson, M., & Pucci, E. R. (1991). Public memorializing in
postmodernity: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial as prototype. Quarterly Journal
Of Speech, 77(3), 263-288.
Asante, M. K. An Afrocentric theory of communication. In CRT: A reader (pp. 552-562).
Shome, R. Postcolonial interventions in the rhetorical canon: An ‘other’ view. In CRT: A
reader (pp. 591-608).
Lucaites, J. L., & Condit, C. M. Epilogue: Contributions from rhetorical theory. In CRT:
A reader (pp. 609-613).
Finals Week 5/12
Final paper due - Conference style presentation of paper.