ENG 651 Week 1: Rhetoric

Today’s Plan:

• Syllabus
• Reading Responses (?)
• Some Kind of Lecture Thing
• Talking About Corder
• For Next Class

Syllabus

Let’s take a quick peek.

Reading Responses

Due to my messaging snafu, I’m unsure how many folks will have read the Herrick and the Lanham–as of 4:40, only one person has posted to the Canvas Discussion forum (thanks Erika–those were great responses). So I’m hoping at least a few other people will be ready to discuss those two readings.

Topology of the Herrick reading:

1. 1. Rhetoric and Persuasion (pg. 3-5). How does Herrick attempt to nudge our understanding of persuasion?
   2. Rhetoric is Adapted to an Audience (pg. 8-10)
   3. Rhetoric Reveals Human Motives and Rhetoric is Responsive (pg. 10-12)
   4. Rhetoric Addresses Contingent Issues (pg. 15-16)
   5. Rhetoric Tests Ideas (pg. 16-17)
   6. Rhetoric Assists Advocacy (pg. 17-19)
   7. Rhetoric Distributes Power (pg. 19-21)
   8. Rhetoric Discovers Facts and Rhetoric Shapes Knowledge (pg. 21-22)
   9. Rhetoric Builds Community (pg. 22-23)

Some Kind of Lecture Thing

I want to think a bit differently about the two rhetorics Lanham outlines, the Rationalist Platonic/Ramist tradition and the “architectonic” McKeon-ist tradition.

In doing so, I want to work towards a definition of rhetoric.

I consider rhetoric as the study and practice of how we can develop experiences, spaces, collaborations, encounters, through which we help ourselves and others negotiate the disequilibrium produced by difference in order to potentially foster more productive collaboration, negotiation, and change.

Rhetoric seeks a way to inhabit the world that recognizes the dangers like lie in our selfish, powerful, and often unconscious desire for security, comfort, and mastery.

Corder Discussion

My standard array of questions:

• What challenge does Corder issue that problematizes all rhetoric, but especially positivistic rhetoric?
• Explicate what Corder means by “narrative.” What are some other words we might use in its place? (Hint: I think Corder is rhetorically avoiding one charged term)
• Why is Corder opposed to framing Rogers as a model for *all* argument? (His critique of Maxine Hairston, which involves one of the greatest “shade” sentences in the history of academia)
• What dimension(s) does Corder add to argument that is/are often ignored?
• What is the meaning(s) of the anecdote Corder uses later in the essay? Why include it? What claim/idea does it support?
• Why does Corder use the word “love”? In what way is Corder’s approach to rhetoric like “love”? [That’s a really interesting terministic choice. I have a few ideas that I’ll share with you in class, but I am interested in how you interpret his decision. Note that I think this is *by far* the hardest question]

Homework

1. 1. • Miller, C. R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 610–617.
      • Clark, Dave. (2004). Is professional writing relevant?
      • Fadde and Sullivan. (2013). Designing communication for collaboration across engineering cultures.

The Miller and the Clark move us from thinking about rhetorical theory to professional/technical writing–from its humble beginning seeking legitimacy from literature faculty, while simultaneously attempting to identify and explicate its intellectual foundations, to wrestling with the theory/practice divide and how to make application and service-learning something more than “charity work” (for those who have taken 301–the Clark piece haunts me a bit–I know it will be something I think about as we work with non-profits this semester).

While the Fadde and Sullivan speak to cross-cultural situations, their methods of audience awareness, attendance to local power configurations, and action deliberation are relevant to virtually any rhetorical situation. Let me suggest you read carefully the narrative piece in the beginning, because I’m going to ask you to compose a few emails in next week’s class.