Rhetoric CFPs & TOCs

Rhetoric CFPs & TOCs
Photo: Kristoffer Trolle (creative commons)

Monday, February 25, 2019

Blogora Classic: The Dead, February 15, 2005 [on James McDaniel]

February 15, 2005

The Dead

The following was posted on CRTnetnews earlier today. I offer it as an example of a controversy of a sort that breaks out occasionally in academe. And to add: I do not believe that everything is political (a majority of child abusers are women, but I'm not sure that makes child abuse a "feminist" issue.) Sometimes it's better to leave the dead to bury their own dead, as the scriptures say. We remember the dead for a number of purposes; making ourselves feel better about our own moral superiority is not an attractive purpose.
Julie Thompson jthompson08@gw.hamline.edu
The death of a beloved friend is a heartbreaking, life-altering experience and we extend our sympathy to Barbara Biesiecker and those who loved James McDaniel. However, we are writing to clarify points made in Biesecker's recent post regarding a memorial fund being established in memory of James McDaniel, who took his own life while awaiting trial for the attempted murder of his wife, Kimberly McDaniel. Professor Biesecker refers to this euphemistically as an "incident," but we insist on calling domestic violence by name, especially in a field that professes an attention to language; a field -- we would add -- that still harbors much misogyny of its own.
In addition, very, very few people who suffer from mental illness ever attack their intimates. Mental illness is not an excuse for domestic violence, nor is it a cause. Like Professor Biesecker, we believe that it is important to combat the ignorance that surrounds mental illness, and we must also combat the ignorance and disavowal that surrounds domestic violence.
Sincerely,
Julie M. Thompson, Trudy Bayer, Kelly Happe, Allen Larson, Carrie Rentschler, Jennifer Wood, Carole Stabile, and Jonathan Sterne
Posted by jim at February 15, 2005 03:22 PM

Comments

Wow. I'm with you, jim. ick.
Posted by: ddd at February 15, 2005 05:42 PM
The debate continues on CRTNET today:

Date: Wed 2/16/05
From: Ted Remington theodore-remington@uiowa.edu
I appreciate the points made by Thompson et. al. in their response to Barbara
Biesiecker's announcement of the memorial fund in the name of James McDaniel.
However, the implications of the wording they use is unfortunate.
While we all agree that we are a field that "professes an attention to
language," I would respectfully and gently note that we are also a field that
professes an attention to context, purpose, audience, and the rhetorical
situation. In this case, the context of Dr. Biesiecker's note was an obituary
page, a forum in which we traditionally show respect to those who have died,
despite whatever disrespectful things they may have done in their lives.
Moreover, Dr. Biesiecker's comments are likely to be forwarded to colleagues,
friends, and family members of James McDaniel who aren't members of Crtnet, all
in the context of soliciting donations to a worthy cause. Given this, I don't
think it's inappropriate for Dr. Biesecker to use abstract language in
referring to criminal charges facing Jim at the time of his death.
In short, the use of abstract language in this highly specific context can only
be read as insensitivity to issues of domestic violence if all issues of
context, purpose, audience, and rhetorical situation are deemed unimportant
generally, or somehow only unimportant if the message involves issues of
domestic violence (and/or mental illness) in some way. I hope and trust that
few readers of this list would agree with this mode of communication criticism.
By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with Thompson's et al. that we should not
suggest most people struggling with mental illness commit acts of violence.
But nothing in Dr. Biesecker's post suggests this. As for the claim that
mental illness is never a cause of domestic violence, I appreciate the
sentiment that I assume lies beneath the words, but disagree with the statement
itself. To suggest that someone who suffers from acute mental illness is to be
held as responsible for their actions as someone who is not similarly afflicted
blames the sufferer for her or his condition. To be sure, there are degrees to
which we as a society are willing to consider mental illness as a mitigating
factor when judging the actions of others (as well there should be), but the
blanket statement that mental illness is not a contributing cause of a
particular behavior seems far too universal to be tenable, even if the
particular behavior in question is something as horrific as domestic abuse!
. I say this not to defend Jim McDaniel, since I do not know the specifics of
his condition, but to defend those sufferers who have been treated shabbily and
shamefully by a justice system that often equates the medical condition of
mental illness with personal moral failing.
Sincerely,
Ted Remington
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Rhetoric
The University of Iowa
***************************************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/16/05
From: Kristina Drumheller drumhelk@mcmurryadm.mcm.edu
Regarding Julie Thompson et al.'s posting to correct information surrounding the
recent death of James McDaniel, I believe the posting was out of order and
insensitive. First, the fact that the memorial fund was set up to bring
attention to bipolar disorder is a great thing and should remain the focus of
the heartfelt words expressed by Barbara Biesiecker. Did everyone really need
the details of the "incident" which I am sure was a word used out of respect
for the family who must live with McDaniel's unfortunate actions? Second, while
I agree mental illness is not an "excuse," bipolar disorder does often lead
those afflicted to actions of aggression, especially in the manic phase. What
is inexcusable is that we have a society that stigmatizes mental illness, so
those who need help often do not get it. While the issue of domestic violence
is also important, Thompson's posting is a red herring to the real issue and
point of Biesiecker's note - mental illness left undiagnosed a!
nd untreated is harmful not only to the one afflicted but also to his/her loved
ones.
Kris Drumheller, Ph.D.
McMurry University
McM Station Box 68
Abilene, Texas 79697
325-793-3856
Posted by: Karen at February 16, 2005 09:28 AM
The whole controversy illustrates the classical rhetorical principles of "to prepon" or "decorum." How does our sense of political and aesthetic judgment enable us to craft a "fitting" response to an event?
Posted by: jim at February 16, 2005 10:37 AM
After some off-blogora prodding from others--including rhhhosa--i realize that i should perhaps elaborate my "ick" response above. First of all, as others have suggested, it would have been entirely inappropriate in the context of Biesecker's note to unpack what was coming through under the term "incident." That word was no doubt trembling on the page even as she wrote it, poised to blow, and i personally admire the way she handled it--the way she handled it *in that situation.*
But second and more specifically, what I found distasteful about the Thompson et al post was that they claimed to know something, to have understood, closing the "case" before we've really even figured out how to pry it open. The shocking brutality of the attack that left mcdaniel's wife in the hospital ought not be whited out, of course; it must be remembered....but remembered as one anguishing piece of a tragedy that we don't yet know how to read. To claim to understand, to have discovered an access key in this situation, seems to me inappropriate. This is the part I'm talking about: "In addition, very, very few people who suffer from mental illness ever attack their intimates. Mental illness is not an excuse for domestic violence, nor is it a cause."
Really? Ever? Are we sure? Does that settle it? I'm a Nietzschean to the extent that I consider my reaction to this "debate" a matter of taste rather than of truth or whatever: I find this claim to (damning) knowledge *distasteful*, especially in these circumstances. 
Posted by: ddd at February 16, 2005 12:52 PM
As a former colleague of James McDaniel and someone who watched a community wrestle with very complex and painful issues surrounding mental illness and violence, I want to thank Ted, Kris, and Jim for pointing out what many who were closer to the situation than Thompson et al. were not yet able to say.
Posted by: Lisa Keranen at February 17, 2005 02:16 AM

Blogora Classic: Aune's Dream Curriculum, February 09, 2005

February 09, 2005

My Dream Curriculum

Perhaps someday there will be levels of higher education funding like we had in the 1960's, and educational reform--especially of undergraduate education--will be on the national agenda again. Departments will be secure enough not to worry about turf wars, and the supply and demand of Ph.D's will be closer to a market-clearing equilibrium.
In this new world, dear Blogora readers, how would you construct your ideal rhetoric curriculum? We would still have Communication and English departments, I imagine, but how would you construct a program in or between these departments?
My idea: construct a free-standing program (sort of like Iowa) in which faculty have homes in other departments. There would be no "major," but rather a unified core curriculum consisting of the following:
1. A full-year freshman course integrating public speaking, debate, writing, computer graphic design, and logic.
2. A set of sophomore-level courses involving in-depth practice of the skills described in 1 (one might concentrate on debate, for example, or webpage design).
3. A Plato-to-Nato history of rhetoric course, designed to fulfill the function of "Western Civilization" courses, either at junior or senior levels, but integrating both rhetorical theory and rhetorical practice (one would read de Oratore AND Cicero's speeches, Augustine's de doctrina Christiana AND his Confessions or sermons).
4. An American Public Address course, including major orations, campaigns, and Supreme Court decisions.
5. A "capstone" course in the major--for example, a policy rhetoric course for social science majors, a rhetoric of science course for engineers or natural scientists, and so on. The emphasis would be on the public implications of the chosen major, and on writing and speaking for both professional and lay audiences.
Any thoughts?
Categories: Teaching Rhetoric 
Posted by jim at 10:45 PM | Comments (0)

Monday, February 18, 2019

Bogora Classic: Jim Aune's Top Five Books

Top Five Books

Adria Battaglia, who received her B.A. and M.A. here at TAMU, is off to t.u. (as we called the University of Texas-Austin here in Aggieland). She just completed a really excellent M.A. thesis on rhetoric and heresthetic at the 1964 Democratic National Convention (the Fannie Lou Hamer and Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party controversy). She was inquiring around the office today if she could get a list of everyone's top 5 favorite books--not necessarily academic. So, here's my entry, in the hopes of stimulating some other lists. These are simply books I love and that have been influential somehow in my life.
1. Arthur Conan Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles
2. Plato, The Republic
3. Ezra Pound, The Cantos
4. Plutarch's Lives
5. Karl Marx, Capital I
Hard to get it down to five, but I think that's my list.
Categories: Queries 
Posted by jim at 05:44 PM | Comments (11)

Monday, February 11, 2019

Blogora Classic: Teachable Moments, February 04, 2005

February 04, 2005

Teachable Moments

I am teaching the history of rhetoric class this spring (250 students) at Texas A&M.; Last Friday I lectured about Socrates. I remain amazed that philosophers and political theorists (the two groups of people besides rhetoricians who talk about Socrates today) continue to teach Plato's dialogues without discussing the historical context of Athenian democracy and Socrates' connections with the oligarchs who overthrew it. In the course of attempting to take the "high priest of the Church of Reason" (in Pirsig's happy phrase) down a peg or two, I described the prevalence of pederasty in the aristocratic circle in Athens. I showed them Jacques David's famous death of Socrates painting and pointed out that Socrates, though famously ugly, was "apparently irresistable to young men." At that point about 1/3 of the class erupted in a loud hiss (a conventional Aggie response, usually reserved for mentions of "t.u." (the University of Texas-Austin).
I simply smiled and shook my head, and went on. I don't feel good about myself for having let that "teachable moment" pass. It seems like the functional equivalent of listening to an ugly ethnic joke without saying anything to the teller. But what could I say? "Grow the f*** up!?" I work myself into a state of tension every class in straining not to come off as a "lib'ral," and being "fair and balanced," so if I "out" myself as a gay-lover do I ruin my credibility for the rest of the semester--credibility necessary if I wish to lead them (Leo Strauss-style) to higher truths? I don't know. Any thoughts? I should add that virtually all the hissers in questions were wearing military uniforms at the time (the Corps of Cadets).
Posted by jim at February 4, 2005 12:02 AM

Comments

Jim,
Your contextualizing statement, that you were teaching the history of rhetoric to an auditorium of 250 Texans, arrested my attention. I've found that it takes charisma and passion and peer pressure to get undergraduates to care about Socrates. I applaud you for the very effort.
My history class doesn't get past Augustine, so I have the luxury of setting up Socrates with the Mary Renault novel "The Last of the Wine." After we've read that and understood that pederasty was part of the education of athletes and soldiers, they got over it. But I had a class of 15 students from a (barely) blue state.
K
Posted by: kate at February 4, 2005 09:39 AM
Having grown up in a thoroughly Bible-belted (and I do mean belted) arena without having adopted all the popularized mantras I would suggest, from my own experience, that the "hissers'" ignorance is blissful for them. It seems much easier to fear/hate the unknown (especially when you've been told how bad that unknown is your whole life) than it is to understand it for what it is. It also seems to involve risking your status/safety with your circle to interact in any way with an outside circle (who may be just as fearful/ignorant of you).
I think it is admirable that you didn't just react as you felt like doing, though I understand why you felt like you missed a chance to talk about something important. What is harder than interacting with people where they are rather than where we think they ought to be?
Posted by: Joshua at February 6, 2005 01:12 AM
Hi Jim,
My thoughts, for what they're worth.
I just finished up Plato in my Rhetorical Theory/Tradition class. When discussing the Phaedrus, I very matter-of-factly explained that Plato and his contemporaries didn't distinguish between "homosexual" and "heterosexual"--that the categories themselves just didn't exist. We discussed the role that sexuality often played in the relationship between mentor and student, and that it was seen as an important part of the pedagogical experience. The Phaedrus, of course, provides a good discussion itself about whom these relationships serve. Anyway, we didn't discuss it at great length, but enough for me to kind of set a tone (one meant to render their 21st century American moralism irrelevant in the face of a time and culture so unlike their own). I mostly received bemused, but curious looks. Then again, there are only 40 of them, so they didn't have the safety of numbers from which to hiss. And Georgia is SO much more tolerant than Texas! ;0) Anyway, point is that by approaching it in a non-judgemental "historically-situated" way, it allowed me and my opinions to stay out of it. Though, truth be told, I don't so much mind if they hear my opinions about homosexuality. Good for 'em, I say.
Christine Harold
Posted by: Christine Harold at February 8, 2005 08:41 AM

Monday, February 4, 2019

Blogora Classic: Institutionalizing Rhetoric, January 19, 2005

January 19, 2005

Institutionalizing Rhetoric

Assuming we aren't all replaced by holographic images on some future form of WebCT, or sent to some kind of re-education camp when David Horowitz is named Education Czar under the Jeb Bush administration, it seems safe to say that English departments and Communication departments will continue to exist as separate entities for some time--with rhetorical studies occupying an unstable locus between the two departments. And RSA will continue to flourish as a meeting point for rhetoricians, whether at conferences or in RSQ.
What does the future hold? We are at a genuine crisis point in higher education in the US, driven partially by the collapse of public support (financial and otherwise). I believe it would interesting to propose some alternative models for rhetorical education, in the hope of stimulating debate about strategic planning for the profession.
Here's one, to start discussion [I'm not endorsing any particular model, just constructing some ideal types]:
The English Envy model. Rhetoricians in Communication departments don't get along well with social scientists in Communication. Undergraduate communication majors often are driven by the assumption that the degree will help them become Jane Pauley or that it's a "business lite" (i.e., no math) major. English undergrads at least like to read and analyze texts. Although English departments have their own problems, they are more likely to survive than Communication departments. Rhet/Comp programs are now doing "public address" well, as they have done history of rhetoric well for a long time, so the justification for separate programs no longer exists. English departments don't really "get" oral performance (and especially not debate) but then neither do rhetoricians in Communication, for the most part. Therefore, as Steven Mailloux appeared to imply at the Association of Rhetoric Societies conference in Evanston last year, it may be time to revisit the Exodus of "speech" from English that formed what we now call NCA and traverse back to Egypt-land.
The stand-alone department model. Rather than moving from Comm. to English, we need instead a dual exodus--rhet/comp away from the litcrit hegemons in English and rhet/public address away from the quantoids in Comm. The new department gets custody of first-year writing and public speaking, at least, but gets to develop a new major with its own (inter)disciplinary integrity.
Exodus from English model. This one is highly unlikely, but would involve English rhet/comp folks joining Communication departments.

It ain't broke model. Creativity often occurs at the margins and across fields. The current model of separating rhetoric between English and Communication promotes conversation without conformity (with RSA being the ideal national meeting-point). Mergers may occur locally (as at Virginia or Iowa State), but no one-size-fits-all model can be developed for rhetoric programs.
Other models?

Posted by jim at January 19, 2005 11:20 PM