This study explores how different kinds of arguments are situated in academic contexts and provides an analysis of undergraduate writing assignments. Assignments were collected from the schools of business, education, engineering, fine arts, and interdisciplinary studies as well as the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences in the College of Arts and Science. A total of 265 undergraduate writing assignments from 71 courses were analyzed. Assignments were reliably categorized into these major categories of argumentative writing: explicitly thesis-driven assignments, text analysis, empirical arguments, decision-based arguments, proposals, short answer arguments, and compound arguments. A majority of writing assignments (59%) required argumentation. All engineering writing assignments required argumentation, as did 90% in fine arts, 80% of interdisciplinary assignments, 72% of social science assignments, 60% of education assignments, 53% in natural science, 47% in the humanities, and 46% in business. Argumentation is valued across the curriculum, yet different academic contexts require different forms of argumentation.

Using archival admissions records and case histories of patients at a British asylum from the 1860s to the 1870s, the authors examine the medical certification process leading to the asylum confinement of individuals judged to be “of unsound mind.” These institutional texts are, the authors suggest, “occult genres” that function as complex acts of argumentation, whose illocutionary force depends on the success of their felicity conditions. Through the lens of Austin’s concept of “uptake,” the authors analyze the role of medical certification in the admissions history of two patients at Ticehurst House Asylum in the 1860s-1870s. The authors contend that historical genre analysis plays an important role in the rhetoric of medicine and health, shedding light on the performative power of medical certification, an act essential to the practice of psychiatry.

Kenneth Burke’s sociological criticism of literature as “equipment for living” situates the work of art as a response to a situation that is essentially social; literature serves a therapeutic role insofar as it diagnoses and dissolves maladaptive social categories and orientations. Burke’s complementary notion of “perspective by incongruity” describes the way in which artists push a system of belief or interpretive scheme to its limits by deliberating creating effects which escape its means of formalization. In the work of Gilles Deleuze, we encounter similarly the artist of literature and discourse who assumes the role of a physician of culture and seeks to produce new possibilities for life by multiplying available perspectives for action. In judging whether the rhetorical appeals and interpretive schemes they offer are medicine or poison, our criteria shall be whether they constrain, narrow, or otherwise limit life (gridlock), or whether they provide new possibilities, experiences, and configurations of knowledge for living (counter-gridlock). Through the incongruous imbrications of Burke and Deleuze, we discover a resonant pragmatism in which art, literature, and ethics become something more than tools for refining the ways in which we currently experience the world. Rather, they offer means for a way out of the orientations which configure and constrain our capacity to actualize potentials for a better tomorrow.

This article uses Foucault's enunciative analysis and stasis theory to explore the rhetorical work of the Midwest Pain Group (MPG) as its members struggle to collaborate across disciplinary difference to transform the discourse and practice of pain science. Foucault's enunciative analysis explains how discourse formations regulate statements, but not how formations can be transformed. We argue that stases can be thought of as nodes in the networks of statements Foucault describes and that stasis theory explains the rhetorical means through which members of the MPG work to transform the discourse of pain science. As the members of the MPG confront the epistemological incommensurability that exists between their individual disciplines, they establish a meta-discourse in which the definitional and jurisdictional stases help them invent a new definitional topos. We describe the way this rhetorical work occurs “off- label” in violation of the discursive restrictions of scientific disciplines, regulatory agencies, and insurance institutions.

Abstract Rhetorical analysis of John Locke's monetary arguments reveals that Locke relied on a core enthymeme that deployed several rhetorical devices (including a narrative diegesis, a dissociation and hierarchization of terms, and several metaphors) to synthesize two contradictory and common beliefs about money's value—money's value is determined by supply and demand; money's value is determined by substance. Moreover, this analysis revitalizes the conversation between economists and rhetoricians by presenting rhetorical analysis as a way to discover causal mechanisms. Finally, locating causal mechanisms allows an historical understanding of how debates have been shaped by the available means of persuasion. Acknowledgments Special thanks to James Aune, Martin Medhurst, and the editor and anonymous RSQ reviewers for their feedback at various stages in this article's production. Notes 1The stalled nature of the conversation is nowhere better captured than in Fabienne Peter's “Rhetoric Vs. Realism in Economic Methodology.” 2For another social-scientific discussion of causal mechanisms, see Sayer 105–117. 3My description of a “deep-seated” mechanism depends on the assumption that a social formation can be productively imagined as a stratification of numerous causal powers, some deeper and more pervasively effective. What we immediately witness at the top of a formation is thus “overdetermined” by the causal mechanisms layered beneath. For a fuller exploration of this concept, see Andrew Collier's “Stratified Explanation and Marx's Conception of History.” 4For a fuller explanation of how England's various parties formed into a “military-financial state,” see Dickson (chs. 1–3) and Carruthers (chs. 2–3). 5Aristotle asserts that “an ability to aim at commonly held opinions [endoxa] is a characteristic of one who also has a similar ability to regard the truth” (33). Pierre Bourdieu differentiates between orthodoxy and heterodoxy (Outline 164–171). According to Bourdieu, crises can disrupt all the rhetorical resources available to a population, both the heterodox and the orthodox, creating a space for an allodoxia, a new, potentially revolutionary, set of assumptions (Language 132–133). 6For more on the term “crisis of representation” and its relation to seventeenth-century England, see Poovey 6. 7Although they disagreed about recoinage, Locke and Nicholas Barbon believed that commodities' values are set by the intersection of supply and demand (Barbon Trade 15–19; Locke Some Considerations 66). 8James Thompson contends that Locke made an “ontological” appeal to the “ineluctable being of silver,” thus strictly emphasizing its substance value (63). Thompson, on the other hand, also notices that Locke accredited the socially constructed forces of supply and demand with value creation (61). He therefore concludes that Locke contradicted himself. 9Vaughn dubs Locke's model a “proportionality theory of money,” but given the overwhelming use of the term “quantity” in post-Lockean monetary theory, I choose this term to emphasize the model's persistence in subsequent arguments. 10James Thompson rightly notices the central importance of security in Locke's monetary theory. Locke wanted a stable monetary system that guaranteed transmission of value: “The return is always the same, for the ideal is an exchange system, or a system of debit and credit, in which one receives what he gave” (58). Karen Vaughn notes that Locke was an unusual metalist because he did not believe in money's ontological value, while he did believe that the substance (silver) was necessary to guarantee stability (35). 11For further treatment of Locke's economic writings and his theory of natural law, see Appleby; Finkelstein 165–170; and Vaughn 131. For a dissenting perspective, an argument that money had no place in Locke's imagined state of nature or in his theory of natural law, see Tully 149. 12In this paragraph, I rely on Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's explanation of dissociation, hierarchy, and the topic of order (80–83, 93–94, 411–415). 13For a fuller review of the Bill, its enactment, and its effects, see Horsefield (61–70) and Feavearyear (135–149). 14Marx contended that Locke emphasized one side of money's contradictory composition, its substance (Contribution 159). Eli Heckscher similarly contended that Locke accepted the mercantilist equation of metal and value, saying that Locke confused Juno for the cloud, money for what money represented (209). Additional informationNotes on contributorsMark Garrett Longaker Mark Garrett Longaker is an Associate Professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Writing at the University of Texas at Austin, PAR 3, Mailcode B5500, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.

Abstract RateMyProfessors.com has received critical reception in the academy: While some college teachers and administrators express support for the site, others complain that it invades their privacy and impinges on their academic freedom. This essay looks closely at one response to Rate My Professors, a weblog titled Rate Your Students that was founded in 2005. The site offers a compelling example of how Rate My Professors—and the movement to commodify higher education that it represents—affects public discourse between students and teachers. Notes 1I thank RR reviewers Duane Roen and Edward White as well as Dana Anderson, Theresa Enos, Christine Farris, Joan Pong Linton, and John Schilb, for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this essay. 2With a masthead that reads "Plagiarism, misery, colleagues, absinthe, snowflakes, ennui," Rateyourstudents.blogspot.com has hosted academic complaints about students multiple times a week since 2005. As of June 2010, the site closed down after five years, citing insufficient staffing as the primary cause. The original website still maintains a limited archive of its first five years. A spin-off site called CollegeMisery.com opened its doors at the same time. Both sites regularly accept and post reader comments about the drudgeries of academia, peppering them with bits of news and commentary related to higher education. Although the site's content is now somewhat more diverse than it was in the earlier years (not all posters are now attacking students, and some even defend them) the blog's initial inflammatory rhetoric has attracted attention and even inspired debate. However, the site itself is still strongly framed as a space for virulent and personalized critiques of students. 3In this essay I organize my thinking about publics according to Michael Warner's three definitions: the public as social totality (what Elizabeth Ervin terms in Public Literacy as the national public), the public as concrete audience, and the "public that comes into being only in relation to texts and their circulation" (Warner 50). Warner focuses on the third type of public, as will I in this essay. A textual public is self-organized through discourse and operates independently of structuring institutions such as the state or church. Such a public is maintained through the circulation of discourse, and one can become, even temporarily, a part of that public simply by accepting its address (61). There is then not just one public but many that overlap and intersect at local, national, and global levels. Publics represent a heterogeneous range of context and group-specific interests and values, and they are maintained through the circulation of discourse that is both personal and impersonal—that addresses us (if we accept the address) and some group of imagined strangers beyond us. 4While I want to adopt this textual understanding of public formation for the purposes of this essay, I also do not want to lose sight of what David Kaufer and Amal Mohammed Al-Malki recently refer to in their analysis of the Arab-American press as the material embodiment of counterpublics (50). Drawing on work by Nancy Fraser, Rita Felski, and others, Kaufer and Al-Malki remind us that oppressed groups generate resistant and/or self-protective rhetoric in counterpublic spaces, offering insight into how power differentials between groups structure the terms of their participation in publics. Based on this understanding, I also define publics in this essay as not purely textual but also importantly connected to embodied experience and unequally positioned in relationship to cultural power, often in ways that place them in a contested relation to one another. However, as my analysis of the interaction of RMP and RYS indicates, public power differentials do not always manifest directly in the embodied presence of the actors involved; rather, power dynamics are written into the structures that mediate a public's textual circulation. 5The exaggeratedly caustic and insulting rhetorical postures of participants in RYS are certainly legible as a kind of Menippean satire, one that indirectly buffoons student rhetoric on Rate My Professors and the attitudes it implies. By returning the volley of character assassination begun by RMP, posters reveal some measure of the childish irresponsibility inherent in the rhetoric itself. Yet, while I do think there is certainly a relationship of subtle satire at work in the interaction between these two sites, I do not choose to concentrate on this relationship in my analysis but rather to look beneath it at the more lasting and meaningful public investment that posters on RYS seem to be expressing in their work. 6Nancy Fraser provides a crucial foundation for this point in her critique of Jürgen Habermas's understanding of the public sphere. Fraser contends that Habermas's concept of the universal public actually emerged in conflict with a variety of counterpublics, which themselves represented the interests of oppressed groups who could not meet the minimal expectations of property ownership and disembodiment, which were requirements for participation in the so-called liberal bourgeoisie public sphere. In imposing dominant interests as universal and seeking to delimit the terms of what could be civilly debated (and in what language), the bourgeois liberal public sphere in fact represented a larger shift from more openly autocratic to hegemonic forms of social control (Fraser 62). While Fraser is most often credited for rendering Habermas's concept of the public as a plural one, her critical intervention more pointedly challenges the vaguely positive connotations usually associated with public dialogue. Far from being an open forum for meaningful civic discussion, Fraser finds that the so-called public sphere is a veil of rationality that kept more divisive forms of social conflict out of view. 7In her article Welch persuasively argues that we err as teachers when we present public writing and rhetoric as an individual activity. According to Welch, seeing public action as individual dangerously isolates students and makes them less able to effectively confront the complexities of privatized public space. 8My analysis of the site layout was written in the spring of 2007, and the homepage of RateMyProfessors has since changed. 9The method of purposeful sampling is, I maintain, appropriate to the site and my inquiry alike. Obtaining a random sample from a site like RMP would be not just impossible but unnecessary, since I do not aim to make generalizable claims about the broader student population as a result of my analysis. I do want to make claims about how the site structures a kind of public discourse through consumerism, and a purposeful sample is more than adequate to that task.

This article reports my classroom-based qualitative research, conducted at a midwestern university, on the role of World Englishes in the ethos transformation of U.S. native English-speaking students. The 30 participants completed assignments that enhanced their understanding of how the English language affects discursive tasks in international audience adaptation. Efforts at internationalizing technical communication can benefit immensely from the inclusion of the World Englishes paradigm in training programs to account for students' language attitudes.

Through an argumentation analysis can one show how it is feasible to view a narrative religious text such as the Gospel of Matthew as a literary argument. The Gospel is not just “good news” but an elaborate argument for the standpoint that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. It is shown why an argumentation analysis needs to be supplemented with a pragmatic literary analysis in order to describe how the evangelist presents his story so as to reach his argumentative objective. The analysis also shows why in the case of historical religious literary texts, certain demands are put on the analyst that are not normally present.

218 RHETORICA Nancy S. Struever, Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. 158 pp. ISBN 9780226777481 This book is not easy to characterize. In Rhetoric, Modality, Moder­ nity Nancy Struever shapes over a decade of methodological reflection on Hobbes, Vico, Peirce, and Heidegger into a bold historical argument about the limits of philosophy and our most basic modes of being. Methodologi­ cally Struever is closest to C. S. Peirce on beliefs that generate habits of action and Bernard Williams on the limits of philosophy, but ultimately her project exceeds both because it mobilizes rhetoric first, and thus it narrates from the margins with utterly novel results for our understanding of rhetorical topics, inquiry modes, politics, and history. Within the field of rhetorical studies per se Struever's work is polemic in so far as it argues the contempo­ rary historiography of rhetoric is "the location of speculative vigor" rather than the practice (p. 98). In terms of rhetoric and philosophy the work of Michel Meyer is probably closest, though Struever's historical erudition dis­ tinguishes her work along with uncommon familiarity in Anglo-American, French, German, and Italian scholarship. Though she wastes no time rehears­ ing the standard intellectual biographies or reviewing the marginal literature, Struever builds crucial elements of her argument from the ground up, defin­ ing her terms carefully and summarizing periodically'. When Struever tells us "any study of modality must attempt to deal with rhetorical operations; any rhetorician must refine his definitions of modalitv" (p. 73) we must take her seriously indeed. Struever gives us a fresh Hobbes and Vico, now central to the modern project understood in terms of new styles of inquiry, while at the same time explaining why Hobbes and Vico have been marginalized in a tradition of political philosophy that starts from the presuppositions of moral rectitude. On Struever's polemic reading, Hobbes and Vico "could challenge, from within the Anglophone, or Western, discussion, the begged questions of the hegemonous terms and propositions: an exasperating hegemony that seems planetary" (p. 66). Discreet references to "tolerance, complexity" (p. 67) distinguish her treatment of these "pessimistic" figures—especially Hobbes—from the Straussian trajectory most recently articulated in Brian Garsten's Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgnieiit, but more could be said. Along the way Struever takes a stab at theoretical debates around agency, showing cleverly with Hobbes how "will" is procedural and how the "impersonal" does not mean without personality (pp. 42, 54). Starting with Hobbes' crucial bridge concept "natural logic" (p. 33) Struever articulates the relationship between life science, rhetoric (as social science broadly understood), and modality (typically associated with ab­ stract domains of logic, mathematics, grammar theory). But how is Struever's life science (p. 15) distinguished from the Lebensphilosophie ridiculed by Heidegger in his rhetoric lectures that provide Struever a critical touch­ stone (Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Philosophic: Marburger Vorlesun^ Som­ mer Semester 1924)7 Struever offers a nice explanation when she shows how Reviews 219 the animal account for Hobbes "reveals another, possible world of great explanatory value; its force trumps, its plots encompass narratives of Hu­ manistic capacity" (p. 18). In other words the human/non-human is topical (among other things), not just a matter of some extra-physical vitalis. We get another intriguing formulation when Struever writes "the web of political life is an emotional, but also a problematic, uncertain texture" (p. 19) sug­ gesting how a vibrant life science would make room for political possibility undeterred by the human/nonhuman divide. Thus Struever clearly moves beyond statistics and philosophical modality insofar as the field is subject to evaluation: "Possibility as realized in time, fills time: gives it significance and pathos in the accounts of the direction and force of civil movements" (p. 71). Fields of possibility are subject to "the essential rhetorical task of praise and blame" (p. 73) which is to say epideictic. And with this turn to epideictic rhetoric we are reminded of a traditional claim critiqued by Jeffrey Walker in Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity: prag­ matic discourse or what can be seen as civic oratory is the primary form of rhetoric in its preconceptual state, before it emerges into history...

Reviews 211 caught on principally because a privileged class of moderate gentlemen enjoying the spoils of the Scotch commercial economy desired entrance into and the ability to participate in British high society" (p. 106). Really? When did early capitalists get so dense? Was there no other advantage to belletrism, perhaps something related to the concrete economic situation of the Scots or the Americans? Apparently not. Needless to say, if there is a moment when Longaker s history gets reductive, it is in his handling of this movement which other scholars, such as Lois Agnew and Arthur Walzer, have shown to be far more dynamic While it is true that much of this work was published subsequent to Longaker's book, I, for one, found myself frustrated with the often dismissive tone Longaker took with Scottish thinkers, especially Blair and Karnes who were often described as "genteel" as if that were some affront. It is worth pointing out that the term "genteel" did not acquire its present day negative connotations in the United States until late in the nineteenth century. Then again, perhaps that label was part of a deliberate rhetorical strategy by Longaker to chastize scholars invested in the present day republican revival and Longaker certainly has a point there. These questions aside, Longaker's work suggests a number of important ways research in the field can and should be pursued. The republican theory Longaker examines was a cosmopolitan phenomenon that not only manifested itself in multiple forms within the United States but throughout much of Europe. 1, for one, hunger to see comparative work on republican pedagogy within the United States and other countries, like France, who were swept up in eighteenth-century republican thought. Paul Dahlgren Georgia Southwestern State University Bryan Garsten, Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2006. 276 pp. ISBN 0-674-02168-1 Selected by the National Endowment for the Humanities to give the 1992 Jefferson Lecture, Bernard Knox was interviewed by NEH's Chairman, Lynne Cheney. Cheney expressed dismay at Knox's praise of the sophists: the sophists were the bad guys; they made the weaker case appear the stronger; they were relativists and skeptics. Only someone who believes in absolute truth, like Plato, can make the world safe for democracy (Humanities 13 (1992): 4-9, 31-36). Bryan Garsten's Saving Persuasion could have helped Cheney tell a more defensible, and indeed interesting and important story, but without the moral she wanted to draw. Garsten makes the case for a politics of persuasion by examining the intellectual roots of the modern suspicion of persuasive rhetoric and then challenging them, pointing the way toward an understanding of deliberation in which rhetoric plays a central role (p. 4). 212 RHETORICA In the first half of the book, Garsten examines three anti-rhetorical thinkers who contributed to the social contract tradition and thus to modern liberalism. Hobbes, Rousseau, and Kant all saw rhetoric as the enemy of both personal autonomy and political freedom. While their attacks on the rhetoric of religious enthusiasm, the rhetoric of factions, and the rhetoric of egotistic subversion make possible modern republicanism and democracy, their success had a price. Therefore the second half of the book turns to Aristotle and Cicero for understandings of rhetoric that do not reduce to the sophistic that so exercised Cheney. This is not a defense of the ancients against the moderns. Garsten instead aims at formulating a distinctively modern idea of rhetoric and deliberation that responds to the challenges of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Kant. In the Rhetoric Aristotle rejected the idea that the sophist had a unique and powerful faculty. In modern considerations of persuasion, the worry is that conscience or revelation gives a unique and powerful source and content of judgment. As Garsten notes, Cicero argues that rhetoric brought people out of the state of nature into a civil state, while Hobbes sees powerful orators doing the opposite, making people more unsociable (p. 35). Why were these early modern thinkers so opposed to rhetoric? First, they saw the damage caused by rhetorically powerful religious enthusiasts, but their aversion goes deeper. "Liberalism's aversion to persuasion is...

Reviews 201 style demonstrated a facility with his language that went beyond what someone untrained in rhetoric would have been able to produce" (p. 169). He advances this claim in order to prove that a rhetorical analysis of the structure goes a long way toward establishing the authenticity and integrity of the Aducrsits Indneos. I find Dunn s arguments regarding authorship persuasive because of his rhetorical analysis, despite the fact that his critical modus operandi is formalistically tedious and to some extent mechanistic. This approach serves Dunn s purpose of reflecting on authorship, but the rhetorical insights are wooden and not especiallv perceptive. Thomas H. Olbricht Pepperdine University Frédérique Woerther, ed., Literary and Philosophical Rhetoric in the Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Arabic Worlds (Europea Memoria Series 2, Vol. 66). Hildesheini, Zurich, and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 2009. 327 pp. ISBN 978-3-487-13990-6 Historians of rhetoric are well aware that in pre-modern eras, there was extensive contact between Europe and the Arabic world. Some of this contact (e.g., Arabic commentaries on Aristotle's Rhetoric) has been extensively discussed for a long time, but some of those discussions are now out of date and other relevant areas have remained largely unexplored. The collection of essays reviewed here, in English and French, is designed to take one topic that has proved important in both European and Arabic rhetoric and in the contact between them and to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic in light of what is now known about it. The collection begins from one of the key commonplaces in rhetorical history, that rhetoric oscillates between two key poles: one philosophical, in which the emphasis is on the relationship between rhetoric and knowledge, and one literary, in which the emphasis is on style. Or, to say it a bit differently, the rhetorician can focus on the truth value of what is said and on the validity of propositions or on the verbal embellishment of rhetorical statements. This book was born at a conference on "Literary and Philosophical Rhetoric in the Greek, Syriac, and Arabic Worlds" which was organized by Frédérique Woerther in Beirut on 3-4 July 2006, where ten of the essays were originally presented. Woerther is to be commended, however, for not taking the easy way out and simply publishing those ten essays. She has added four more papers that fill in some obvious gaps in what the conference covered. The result, unlike many volumes of conference proceedings, is a book that offers reasonable coverage of its subject. The first seven of the fourteen essays cover Greek and Roman rhetoric. This section begins with a short but incisive piece on Plato by Harvey Yunis 202 RHETORICA which offers some interesting comments on how Plato uses various literary devices to convert readers to philosophical values and to inculcate philo­ sophically defensible method. Pierre Chiron drew what is perhaps the key assignment in this section, the treatment of Aristotle's Rhetoric, since this is the text which would prove so influential for the second half of the vol­ ume. Focusing on epideictic and on diction, Chiron shows how Aristotle diminishes the distance which separates rhetoric and literature. Next Niall R. Livingstone presents a nicely nuanced paper which recognizes the sub­ tleties and complexities of Isocrates' ideas in this area. As Livingstone puts it, "[intellectually and stylistically, Isocratean philosophia achieves validation by representing itself as the artistic crystalisation of the public sphere: the mid-point both between self-seeking sophistry and elite philosophical ob­ scurantism, and between the vulgar point-scoring of the lawcourts and the meretricious entertainment-value of poetry" (p. 54). Frédérique Woerther glances forward toward the second section of the volume in her essay, which focuses on how Hermagoras of Temnos and al-Fârâbï preserved and inter­ preted the traditional connections among rhetoric, logic, and politics, show­ ing that in the end, rhetoric and poetics allow a general public that is not able to understand rigorous argumentation to grasp the results of scientific discoveries. David Blank in turn discusses Philodemus, whose work is in the process of being reconstructed on the basis of papyri found...

206 RHETORICA côté du marchand, du ménestrel, ou du pèlerin reste toujours l'impécunieux poète. Ainsi, de la vantardise des troubadours belligérants aux monologues des valets à louer, MJ tisse un réseau de significations, où la liste n est plus tant un trope qu'un outil conceptuel qui permet de renouveler la connais­ sance de ces poètes. Le lecteur peut regretter la place un peu trop grande que prend la figure du poète devant la question plus proprement rhétorique ou poétique du fonctionnement de la liste; il peut regretter la composition mo­ nographique des derniers chapitres et les choix qu'elle conditionne (corpus des fabliaux très rapidement évoqué). Mais, il ne peut, en dernière analyse, que reconnaître la finesse, la pertinence et l'utilité des analyses autant pour le médiéviste que pour celui qui travaille sur d'autres époques. Catherine Nicolas Université Paul-Valéry (Montpellier III) Srividya Swaminathan, Debating the Slave Trade: Rhetoric of British National Identity, 1759-1815. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. xiii + 245pp. ISBN 9780754667674 The proliferation of scholarship on the multi-national and multi-era debate over slavery, on the part of scholars from multiple disciplines, has created an embarrassment of riches; because there is so much scholarship, work tends to specialize by country, era, genre, method, and topos. That is, with the exception of David Brion Davis' extraordinary work, scholars gener­ ally write about the debate over the slave trade or the abolition of slavery, and almost always within a single nation. And they generally further specialize by focusing on the proslavery or antislavery position, most commonly the latter. Finally, although the slavery debate itself violated generic categories— with poems, plays, sermons, political speeches, paintings, and songs either attacking or defending slavery—scholarship has most commonly accepted a visual versus verbal split, as well as a split within written discourse between literary and political discourse. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, students of the slavery debates are currently well-served in terms of specific studies, but have fewer broad brush treatments. While Srividya Swaminathan's Debating the Slave Trade: Rhetoric ofBritish National Identity, 1759—1815 can hardly be called broad brush—one of its many virtues is the grounding of her arguments in close textual analysis— it does transcend many of the boundaries that unhappily limit the area. A study of the debate within Britain, the book places that debate within the larger context of the debate within and from the colonies, as well as the burgeoning anti-slavery movement in the United States. As well as polemical pamphlets, slave narratives, speeches, and sermons, Swaminathan considers Reviews 207 literary texts such as Mary Birkett's A Poem oil the African Slave Trade, James Boswell's No Abolition of Slavery, and the collection Poems on the abolition of the slave trade. Briefly, Swaminathan s book has two significant points for scholars of the history of rhetoric. First, her work nicelv complicates the pro- and antislavery dichotomy. She is very persuasive that there was, after a certain point, very little true "proslavery" rhetoric in the British debate, and that, therefore, the term "regulationist" is a much more accurate one. That is, defenders of the slave trade initially tried to denv the brutality of the conditions in which slaves were transported, but quickly abandoned that approach. They moved to the argument that there were flaws in current practices, but that they could be ameliorated, that better regulation would sufficiently improve conditions. In effect, they tried to coopt the language of reform—the very discourse on which abolitionists relied so heavily—by arguing for reforming rather than abolishing the slave trade. Second, she argues that, while the abolitionists were politically success­ ful in achieving the abolition of the slave trade and then the abolition of slavery within Britain, to describe the end result of the debate in purely po­ litical terms, or to attribute causality solely to the abolitionists, is to miss the larger cultural consequences of the arguments made by both sides. Instead, Swaminathan argues, the slavery debate was framed as an issue about the identity of the British and the nature of their empire: "The dialogue...

220 RHETORICA as Christian-Heathen, for example, Koselleck suggests we then can begin talking about the particular modes of experience and "expectational possi­ bilities" that help define a particular way of being. Finally for this reader the Benjamin material is intriguing but less convincing as specifically rhetorical. Many of the rhetorical strategies identified by Struever (timefulness, orig­ inal/reproduction, similarity, audience) can be generic and not particular to Benjamin, though the material comes into focus whenever Vico appears in the background. Unrealized possibilities, however, are outweighed by the virtues of intellectual courage. It appears Struever is unafraid to engage the very best in any field relevant to her inquiry whether in classics, history, philosophy, or rhetoric, while she leaves lesser material for the pedants and hacks. Those of us who are sometimes pedants and hacks will find this annoying and will focus on what is missing. But Struever's is not a project in cultural studies. Nor is it intellectual history in the tradition of Walter Ong who considered Ramus good subject matter precisely because he was a second-rate intellect who characterized his time instead of exceeding it. On the contrary Struever thinks exclusively with untimely figures. The result of this deeply theoretical project, surprisingly, is substantial advance in our thinking about the world of everyday being-with-one-another, made new with key commonplaces and clichés bracketed. Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity is introductory but not in the usual sense of the term. It does not repackage tired narratives; it does rework the history and theory of rhetoric from our most basic sensibilities and nonhuman conditions to our most demanding conceptual challenges at the abstract limits of rhetoric and philosophy. Though unforgiving in its stylistic and intellectual demands, Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity is a crucial challenge to any rhetorician interested in the entanglements of history and theory. Daniel M. Gross University of California, Irvine Luisa Puig, ed., El discurso y sus espejos. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2009. 390 pp. ISBN 6070205545 Le titre du livre Le discours et ses miroirs s'avère particulièrement jus­ tifié au fil des pages qui reflètent patiemment des réflexions où sujet et objet coïncident, l'objet d'étude—le discours—étant inhérent au sujet qui l'approche. Luisa Puig a recueilli dans ce livre différents réflexes du discours à la lumière de diverses disciplines arrivant à des problématiques ponc­ tuelles. Loin de l'intention chimérique d'embrasser tout ce qui concerne 1 incommensurable discours, ce livre se présente comme 1 entrecroisement de disciplines et de pensées à propos de l'énorme sujet, il ne s'agit pas de Reviews 221«dire tout» sur le discours (ce serait une tâche de Sisyphe) mais d'entendre les échos de questions spécifiques posées de différents points de vue, toutes atteignant à la vie dans le discours. L étude initiale dont l'éditrice est l'auteur—est consacrée au miroir de la mémoire. Luisa Puig y présente un éventail de penseurs et d'approches du discours aidant le lecteur qui n'est pas spécialiste à se situer du point de vue historique dans la conceptualisation du sujet selon les principaux courants contemporains, au nombre desquels on trouve le structuralisme, la théorie de l'énonciation, la théorie dialogique et communicationnelle du Cercle de Bakhtine, les différentes versions et orientations de l'Analyse du Discours, la Linguistique Textuelle, la Théorie de l'Argumentation dans la langue. Dans le chapitre 2, Ruth Amossy présente une réflexion spéculaire: c'est le miroir de l'argumentation qui se reflète dans le miroir de l'analyse du discours et vice-versa. Partageant ce même double miroir, dans le chapitre 3, Patrick Charaudeau propose l'interdisciplinarité plutôt que la pluridisciplinarité afin d'approfondir l'analyse de la communication dans le champ des sciences humaines et sociales. Ainsi, en tant que champ disciplinaire «en construction permanente» , le discours est réfléchi, parmi d'autres, par la rhétorique, la sociologie, la psychologie sociale et l'anthropologie sociale. Le miroir sémantique brille dans le chapitre...

198 RHETORICA discussion in these essays, Stowers' A Rereading of Romans, Justice, Jews, and Gentiles provides outstanding examinations of Paul's uses of prosopopoieia, among other oral speech genres familiar to the auditors of the time. Similarly, Antoinette Wire's The Corinthian Women Prophets, a Reconstruction Through Paul's Rhetoric, among its other merits, suggests contextual sources for puns and humor in Paul's references to the veiling of women and to their prophetic speech. Philip Kern's Rhetoric and Galatians, Assessing an Approach to Paul's Epistles provides a good companion to the essays by Black and Watson in this volume in reviewing the numerous approaches to Paul's letters that are increasingly being combined with one another to both reconstruct the contexts and auditors of the New Testament gospels and epistles, and assess the innovations introduced into classical genres and understandings of the meanings they conveyed. Like Richard Burridge's What Are the Gospels?, studies of New Testament innovations and improvisations based upon clas­ sical models are provided in Jo-Ann Brandt's Dialogue and Drama, Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel and Dennis E. Smith's Prom Symposium to Eucharist, the Banquet in the Early Christian World. These readings continue the examination of literary and rhetorical readings of the New Testament in conversation and sometimes in conflict with one another. Black and Watson have provided an examination of these current critical issues within and alongside reappraisals of Kennedy's work in a manner that does credit to their title: words well spoken. C. Jan Swearingen Texas A&M University Geoffrey D. Dunn, Tertullian's Aduersus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis. Patristics Monograph Series 19, Washington, DC: The Catholic Uni­ versity of America Press, 2008. xiv + 210 pp. ISBN 978-0-8132-1526-6 The Tertullian authorship of Aduersus Iudaeos has been disputed over the past two centuries. In this book Dunn argues that a rhetorical analysis of Ter­ tullian s Aduersus Iudaeos can resolve the uncertainties respecting its origins. He sets forth in an excellent manner the status of authorship assumptions, provides a detailed rhetorical analysis, and constructs a substantial case for all the parts of the manuscript being authored by Tertullian. He contends that the disputed last part was written before Tertullian's Aduersus Marcionem rather than being copied from it. Furthermore he declares that the Aduersus Iudaeos has been neglected because of doubts regarding its authen­ ticity. He points out that Robert Sider in his Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (1971) did not include the Aduersus Iudaeos nor did he list it in his catalog of Tertullian's writings. Dunn first addresses the differences of opinion regarding the text. He next explores the intended readership, and contends that "pamphlet" is Reviews 199 the best appellation because Tertullian's intent is advocacy (p. 28). Dunn's lhetoiical analysis consists of three aspects located in as many chapters, structure, argumentation, and style. The final chapter is in essence a summary of the arguments in the book. There is an extended bibliography, a general index, and a Scripture citations index. in the first chapter Dunn sets out a history of scholarly reflections on authorship and in the process supplies an important breakdown of those who doubt the integrity and authenticity of the Aduersus Iudaeos and those who support it. Those opposed were Krovmann, Dekkers, Aulisa, Semler, Burkitt, Quispel, Quasten, Neander, Akerman, Labriolle, Efroymson, Crosson, and Ev ans. Those accepting were Noeldechen, Grotemeyer, Harnack, Williams, Saflund, Trankle, Fredouille, Monceaux, Simon, Gager,Aziza, Moreschini, Schreckenberg, Barnes, and Otranto. Dunn along the way sets out the diverse nuances prov ided bv these authorities. Dunn ascertains that the authorship controversy is related to the recent concern ov er the degree of contact between Jews and Christians in early third century Carthage. Contemporary scholars are offering new clues that the contacts between Jews and Christians were considerable. Scholars who so argue include J uster, Simon, Krauss, Williams, Parkes, Blumenkranz, Wilken, Blanchetiere, Hornbury, de Lange, Wilson, and MacLennan. Other scholars, however, have claimed that anti-Jewish polemics were chiefly designed to assist the Christians in establishing "self identity," since Jews and Chris­ tians were going their own separate ways. These include Eiarnack, Barnes...

222 RHETORICA discours en tant que délibération. Joan Vergés Gifra se demande qui il fau­ drait entendre dans des situations où les interlocuteurs ne sont pas dans des positions comparables, quand il n'y a pas d'égalité, un problème qui n'a pas été résolu ni par la pensée de Rawls ni par celle de Habermas. Il s'agit donc d'un miroir qui reflète les ombres de la démocratie formelle réfléchissant dans le sens de M. Waltzer sur des possibilités non délibératives, c'est-à-dire, démocratiques, voire entre des personnes en conditions d'inégalité. Dans le chapitre 11 «Réflexions sur le rôle de la cognition dans l'émer­ gence de la raison rhétorique» Emmanuelle Danblon offre à la «raison rhétorique» un miroir néodarwiniste qui approche certains faits discursifs sous la double lumière de la synchronie et de la diachronie. L'auteur ana­ lyse les projections de l'écriture sur la fonction rhétorique et sur la cogni­ tion d'un point de vue historico-évolutionniste préférant l'accumulation à l'élimination. Dans le dernier chapitre, Juan Nadal Palazôn nous surprend avec un miroir qui rappelle celui de la belle-mère de Blanche Neige. En analysant les formes hybrides du «discours de l'autre» dans les titres des journaux de la presse écrite mexicaine et espagnole, l'auteur montre les reflets éthiques et politiques du discours et de la lecture. La responsabilité du sujet affleure dans ce texte qui conclut le livre sur une pointe d'humour. Ce bouquet de miroirs du discours constitue un instrument important de réflexion pour différentes disciplines. Excédant les intérêts spécifiques des sciences du langage, ce livre aide les chercheurs de champs divers— philosophie, rhétorique, communication sociale, théorie politique, esthé­ tique, entre autres—à approcher un objet d'étude dont le chercheur—comme nous l'avons déjà dit—se découvre à la fois sujet et objet. Il est difficile (voire dangereux) d'affronter en même temps les différentes facettes de cet incontournable objet d'étude, même si l'on usera volontiers, à la façon de Persée, de l'un de ses nombreux miroirs. Silvana Rabinovich Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Michael Hoppmarm, Argumentative Verteidigung: Grundlegungzii einer modernen Statuslehre. Neue Rhetorik 5, Berlin: Weidler, 2OO8.C223 pp., ill. ISBN 9783896935274. Hoppmann's book aims to develop a modern system of defense strate­ gies based on status thinking, but applicable to everyday moral accusations. For this purpose, he examines a range of theories to compile a complete inventory of Streitpunkte (potential points of disagreement) between accuser and defendant. Three modern theories with functions comparable to that of status theory are discussed first: the "judicial syllogism," Toulmin's ar­ gument model, and the doctrine of Deliktsaufbau (crime ascertainment) in Reviews 223 German jurisprudence. Then follow the stiisis/statns theories of Hermagoras, the Ad Herennium, and Hermogenes. Each is evaluated for completeness, un­ ambiguousness, simplicity, and communicability. Similarities and differences, substantial and structural, are instructively laid out. This generates thirtyone potential points of disagreement. These are then discussed, merged, subdivided, and organized, resulting in Hoppmann's proposal for a modern status doctrine with three basic elements: Act, Norm, Person. The existence and nature, respectively, of each of these generate six points of disagreement. Between Act and Norm there are two: the subsumption of Act under Norm, and "fairness" (Billigkeit), a potential separate norm that may suspend an anterior subsumption. A further Streitpunkt is the applicability of Norm to Person, and between Person and Act the issues of the corporeal and mental connection between the two. Two "peripheral" issues are the accuser's com­ petence to accuse, and the expediency (Opportunitat) of passing judgment. Thus, thirtv-one points are reduced to thirteen. Undoubtedly Hoppmann's system can be a clarifying and useful tool for anyone involved in defensive argument, forensic or moral. It does seem to fulfill his four criteria (unfortunately he does not explain why precisely these have privileged status, nor what their relative order of priority might be). Still, this...

Reviews 225 interpretations of a norm, he seems to assume that this defense cancels out the initial charge, rather than just speaking against it; is it really the case that in Hoppmann s perspective, an action can only be correctly subsumed under one norm? From a wider perspective, I cannot help wondering why Hoppmann went to the trouble of scrutinizing ancient status theories as well as later jurisprudential theories so elaborately, one by one. After all, he finds each one seriously deficient for his purpose. So why did he not present his model (which appears for the first time on p. 160) directly, using more of his space to motivate it and exemplify it, using only those concepts from various sources that he found useful? His relatively few examples are all apt, illustrative, readable, and a nice change from his rather stiff, scholastic, passive-laden academic prose. Hoppmann knows ancient status theory inside out, but if his main purpose is to give us a modern status theory, why not do so from the start instead of debunking and completely reorganizing earlier theories, many of which will be unknown to most readers anyway? Some of his reorganizations hav e a cost: They oversimplify. Most notably, he dissolves the four traditional status legates under the heading Normbeschaffenheit (nature of the norm). Again, the underlying thinking may be that an action can only be correctlv subsumed under one norm, which then cancels out any other norms that mav have been invoked. Here, simplicity trumps insight; the relation of facts to norms is more complex. For example, as explained above, relevant but contradictory norms often coexist, as well reflected by the status legalis of contrariae leges. Hoppmann's status model is interesting, and doubtless its simplicity and communicability will make it useful in practice and pedagogy. He might have given us a fuller, more "modern" exposition of it. Was it necessary to build it on meticulous examinations of older theories, considering that he found them all wanting and let some of their best insights fall through his net? Christian Kock University of Copenhagen Emmanuelle Damblon, Emmanuel de Jonge, Ekaterina Kissina et Loïc Nicolas, eds., Argumentation et narration. Bruxelles: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 2008. 210 pp. ISBN 2800414189 L'ouvrage collectif Argumentation et narration, édité par Emmanuelle Damblon, Emmanuel de Jonge, Ekaterina Kissina et Loïc Nicolas, constitue la publication inaugurale du Groupe de recherches en rhétorique et en ar­ gumentation linguistique (GRAL), qui se donne pour projet de penser les expressions discursives de la «raison rhétorique» sous toutes ses formes. L'objectif assigné à ce projet consiste à amener à reconsidérer les conditions de la persuasion dans les démocraties modernes, en prenant pour fonde­ 226 RHETORICA ment les cadres de l'argumentation comme lieu privilégié de l'expression de la rationalité, suivant une approche pluridisciplinaire. Les contributions de ce recueil sont issues de travaux coordonnés par E. Damblon au cours de l'année 2005-2006: un séminaire de recherches interdisciplinaires et inter­ universitaires, ainsi qu'un colloque «Argumentation et narration» , qui s est tenu à l'Université Libre de Bruxelles les 6 et 7 mars 2006. Ces communica­ tions appartiennent à des domaines aussi variés que le droit, la philosophie, la bioéthique ou encore l'analyse de discours politique et littéraire. Ces champs d'études se trouvent intégrés à un questionnement rhétorique, puisqu'ils in­ terrogent la question de la rationalité à travers les liens entre argumentation et narration. Afin de souligner les rapprochements et les interactions entre ces deux registres discursifs bien distincts, les communications sont regroupées en quatre parties. La réflexion progresse ainsi de la politique au droit, puis à la littérature, pour finir par une approche philosophique. Au début de la première partie, qui traite des approches politiques du rapport entre argu­ mentation et narration, ainsi que des interactions entre ces registres discur­ sifs dans le processus de persuasion, Jean-Marie Adam étudie l'usage d'un exemple narratif par Jacques Chirac dans son débat télévisé contre Laurent Labius le 27 octobre 1985. L'efficacité rhétorique de la stratégie narrative de Jacques...

Reviews C. Clifton Black and Duane F, Watson, eds., Words well spoken: George Kennedy s Rhetoric of the New Testament (Studies in Rhetoric and Re­ ligion 8). Texas: Baylor University Press, 2008. xiii +253 pp. ISBN 1602580642 George Kennedy's importance to New Testament rhetorical criticism is that of groundbreaker, particularly for rhetorical scholars who are not Biblical scholars. Within the community of Biblical scholars, Kennedy's work introduced methods based upon classical rhetorical models that have been adapted, criticized, and sometimes replaced with alternatives. Duane Watson and Clifton Black's introductory essay provides a lucid guide to the range of rhetorica or the essays and are addressed in different ways by individual authors. An overarching recent debate has been the question of whether New Testament authors, particularly Paul, "knew" or "studied" rhetoric. A related issue has been the problem of identifying rhetorical and literary genres that make an appearance in the Christian scriptures, and related proposals that these categories be dispensed with entirely. To its credit, this collection presents the annoying alongside the enriching episodes in the debates. Following excellent essays on the history of Biblical rhetorical studies by Margaret Zulick and Thomas Olbricht, Duane Watson's "The Influence of George Kennedy on Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament" explains past and present debates about New Testament epistolary rhetoric and narrative genres. Kennedy was among the first, he notes, to define and explore the difference between "the rhetoric of the historical Jesus and the rhetoric of Jesus as preserved in the Jesus tradition and the gospels." Watson characterizes a more recent formulation of this distinction developed by Gregory Bloomquist: "While historical Jesus research may give us greater critical certainty regarding the words and deeds of the historical Jesus, these words and deeds have to be understood as the picture that the historical Jesus wanted to present. They are a picture of the rhetorical Jesus but not of the historical Jesus" (p. 48). Watson also surveys the debates concerning Paul's rhetorical education that were provoked by Kennedy's New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. To accept that there is no hard evidence that Paul or other authors of the Christian scriptures were educated in rhetorical schools introduces three Rhetorica, Vol. XXIX, Issue 2, pp. 195-231, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.195. 196 RHETORICA questions at the very least that bear not only upon Biblical studies but on classical and later rhetorical studies as well. First, what counts as evidence? Second, and related to the question of evidence, what is an author? Third, what does "educated" mean? Apart from Plato's representations, we have no evidence of Socrates' words; we must judge them through the lens of Plato's art. And what kind of evidence is the evidence of an artisan? Among New Testament authors, the question of rhetorical education comes up most often regarding Paul because his authorship is least questioned among the Christian scriptures. There seems to have been a person Paul and all the evidence we have suggests that he wrote his own letters. Or rather, according to the customs of the time, he dictated them, as the letters themselves state. Just as an authenticating narrative often appears at the beginning of Plato's dialogues, the scribe who wrote the letter is named in many of Paul's epistles. Words Well Spoken illuminates both the good news and the bad news among the answers to these questions of evidence, authorship, and rhetorical education. Clifton Black's essay on Kennedy's readings of the gospels provides a lucid survey of the major objections to Kennedy's work, particularly those of literary theorists and literary historians. According to these critics, Kennedy seems to want to reduce narrative gospels and speeches alike to, "logos, or logical argument, whereas the gospels tend more obviously towards ethos, the power of Jesus' authority" (p. 71). Essays by Blake Shipp, on...

A brief review of composition theory shows metaphor is often underused and misrepresented in the composition classroom; in response, I suggest metaphor is foundationalto argumentation and provide a method to teach it as such.

Abstract The Stoic is often seen as the forerunner of Adam Smith's market man of morals, but others have suggested that the sophist played a role in the formation of market morality and political economy. This article traces Smith's treatment of ancient sophists and his use of the term sophistry in the Wealth of Nations. Smith praised ancient sophists for their effective didactic oratory and their ability to make money through teaching. Smith criticized arguments as sophistic when they promoted monetary advantage for a few over and above the principle of competition. This varied reception of sophists and sophistry suggests a keen understanding of the rhetorical tradition and its capacity to influence the development of the discourse of political economy. Smith's use of sophistry and reference to the sophists invites a deeper awareness of the essential vitality of effective argumentation for Smith's “system of natural liberty.”

Book Review| February 01 2011 Review: Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice, by Ruth Webb Ruth WebbEkphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2009. 238 pp. ISBN 9780754661252. Rhetorica (2011) 29 (1): 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.113 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Review: Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice, by Ruth Webb. Rhetorica 1 February 2011; 29 (1): 113–115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.113 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Rhetorical patterns used by Westerners may differ from those of other cultures. Still, little is known about Nyāya, India's rhetorical methodology. This essay relates rhetorical patterns in Aristotle's enthymeme and paradeigma to Nyāya's pratijñāa (claim/promise), hetu (reason), and dṛṣṭānta (example). Though superficially similar, the Greek/Western rhetorical patterns invoke interlocking statements based in a general statement, while the Indian approach uses a dominant analogical image to connect claim and reason. Focusing on a historical interaction where a Westerner missed key elements of Indian persuasion because of his Aristotelian presuppositions about argument, the essay illustrates the crucial need to understand differing rhetorical patterns for successful cultural dialogue.

Rhetoric enters into economics frequently at the junctures of alternative government policies and debates grounding competing theories of unexpected events and prudent solutions.When economies turn in widely unanticipated directions, critical discussions arise to spark questions about the legitimacy, power, and correctness of policy response.In October 1932, there appeared in The Times of London a series of brief letter exchanges signed by John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich August von Hayek (along with some of their associates) in which alternative explanations were defended about the causes of economic activity.Those explanations were grounded in macro-and microeconomics, which in the terms of the 1930s were contested as trade cycle or monetary theories (Rizzo, 2009).Also at issue, however, was a choice between alternative strategies of political economy.Nineteen thirty-two appeared to be a time of nascent recovery from the effects of falling equity values, but also could be seen as the beginning of a new era of trade protectionism and monetary contraction.One policy choice was for governments to distribute tax or printed money to citizens in the form of unemployment insurance or guaranteed employment programs to supplement private spending.Another was for governments to exercise restraint in borrowing and spending and let private capital adjust economies to new productive levels by securing good investments over time.While the subsequent decisions of the British government conformed to neither choice unequivocally, the events of the Great Depression that followed have at various times been appropriated by Hayek and Keynes' successors as evidence that the theoretical arguments of one or other have been vindicated by collective experience.The present day is another time in which theoretical controversy and alternative practices are conjoined.Named by some as "the Great Recession," the period that began in 2008 has seen accelerating rates of defaults on loan repayments, job layoffs, financial institutional distress, and speculative shortselling of sovereign debt.But this moment has also

Individual agency is necessary for the possibility of rhetoric, and especially for deliberative rhetoric, which enables the composition of what Latour calls a good common world. Drawing on neurophenomenology, this essay defines individual agency as the process through which organisms create meanings through acting into the world and changing their structure in response to the perceived consequences of their actions. Conceiving of agency in this way enables writers to recognize their rhetorical acts, whether conscious or nonconscious, as acts that make them who they are, that affect others, and that can contribute to the common good. Responsible rhetorical agency entails being open to and responsive to the meanings of concrete others, and thus seeing persuasion as an invitation to listeners as also always agents in persuasion.

When Kairos, the god of opportunity, passes by, Metanoia is left in his wake. At first glance, Metanoia is the embodiment of regret, a sorrowful woman cowering under the weight of remorse. However, there is more to the concept of metanoia than feelings of regret. This article looks to the long-standing partnership between kairos and metanoia as a way to better understand the affective and transformative dimension of kairos. The kairos and metanoia partnership can take shape as a personal learning process, a pedagogical tool, and a rhetorical device. Kairos and metanoia stimulate transformations of belief, large and small, that can advance personal understanding and lead to more empathetic responses. As such, this article argues for further exploration of the kairos and metanoia partnership in rhetorical theory and practice.

Christopher Tindale has for some time been a not-particularly-dark champion of the proposition that the rhetorical dimension of argumentation cannot be ignored. Books such as Acts of Arguing (1999)...

Scholars in rhetoric are increasingly attentive to the power of places and spaces to shape rhetorical performance. This article takes up the connection between ethos and location identified by several recent scholars, arguing that affiliation with and representation of material environments plays a crucial role in ethos. Ethos strategies are further shaped by genres, which are theorized as locations and environments in order to capture a fundamental dynamic between strategy and social norm. To demonstrate the strengths of understanding ethos in relation to both geographical and genre location, I analyze the ethos-maneuvers of Mary Austin, prominent early twentieth-century feminist, activist, and nature writer whose thirty-year public career merits attention from rhetorical scholars. In articulating how genre shapes Austin's efforts to develop her location in the deserts of the American West into a persuasive public ethos, I argue that ethos emerges in genre-specific formations.

“It is through gut feelings that we begin to think critically, collect and analyze information, and decide. Gut feelings do not stand in opposition to critical thinking; they stand beneath, support, and shape it.”

Rhetorical patterns used by Westerners may differ from those of other cultures. Still, little is known about Nyāya, India’s rhetorical methodology. This essay relates rhetorical patterns in Aristotle’s enthymeme and paradeigma to Nyāya’s pratijñā (claim/promise), hetu (reason), and dṛṣṭāntn (example). Though superficially similar, the Greek/Western rhetorical patterns invoke interlocking statements based in a general statement, while the Indian approach uses a dominant analogical image to connect claim and reason. Focusing on a historical interaction where a Westerner missed key elements of Indian persuasion because of his Aristotelian presuppositions about argument, the essay illustrates the crucial need to understand differing rhetorical patterns for successful cultural dialogue.

One segment of the American debate over internal improvements occurred between 1808 and 1817 and was marked by three rhetorical texts in which arguments moved from technical considerations to more transcendent appeals. These texts illustrate the interplay of geography and rhetoric and highlight the early use of god-terms like “fact,” “progress,” and “communication.”

Reviews 113 Ruth Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2009. 238 pp. ISBN 9780754661252 The topic of ekphrasis has garnered much attention of late among classi­ cists, literary critics, and visual theorists—so much so that the bibliography on the subject has become unwieldy. Is ekphrasis a humble elementary exer­ cise in description? A w idely encompassing topos for the agon between word and image? An ancient nexus of speculation on the complexities of represen­ tation and the psychology of reception? Bringing together these perspectives and more, Ruth Webb's comprehensive treatment of ekphrasis from a rhetor­ ical point of view will be of interest to historians of ancient Greek and Roman rhetoric but may prove to be less than completely satisfying to those readers who have been following the critical explorations of the term of late. Webb begins with a strong argument: a proper understanding of ekphra­ sis should be grounded in the definition of the term offered in the rhetorical manuals of the imperial period, the 1st to the 5th centuries of the Common Era. Working closely with the Progynmasnmta of Theon, Ps.-Hermogenes, Aphthonios, and Nikolaos, as well as with rich material on the subject in the more advanced treatises by Quintilian, Ps.-Longinus, and Menander Rhetor, Webb insists that ekphrasis be considered in terms of effect rather than sub­ ject matter: it is "a speech that brings the subject matter vividly before the eyes" (Introduction and Chapter 1, "The Contexts of Ekphrasis"). She argues vigorously against a tendency she finds in modern criticism to see ekphraseis as descriptions of art works or as opportunities to explore ideas about the act of viewing in antiquity. Tier careful treatment of the handbook material— usefully presented in Greek and English in two appendices—focuses the reader's attention on enargeia. A vivid impression could be achieved through the detailed description, or narration, of many subjects, including activities such as battles, storms, plagues, earthquakes, and festivals, not only through descriptions of objects such as paintings, sculptures, and architectural won­ ders. Chapter 1 proceeds with historical evidence for a drift in scholarly treatments of ekphrasis away from the ancient rhetorical definition in the writings of nineteenth-century French art historians. A key moment of rupture in the mid-twentieth century for Webb is Leo Spitzer's appropriation of "ekphrasis" to designate a poetic genre. From here, writes Webb, "the rest is history," as ekphrasis is "catapulted" out of "the specialized domain of classical [sic] and archaeology into the world of English and Comparative Literature" (p. 35). The lapsarian tone of the narra­ tive at this point may startle readers who value interdisciplinary approaches to rhetoric and visual theorists who have left new critical poetics behind. The implication that all subsequent treatments of ekphrasis by literary scholars follow Spitzer's new critical lead is inaccurate and unhelpful (see p. 35 n. 63). In the penultimate chapter, Webb acknowledges recent writing on ekphra­ sis from classical scholars working on the ancient Greek novel (by Shadi Bartsch, Jas Eisner, Elelen Morales, Tim Whitmarsh, and others: see p. 178 114 RHETORICA and nn. 27 and 28). Influenced by literary theories such as semiotics, fem­ inism, and post-structuralism, these works, like those of scholars (notably W. J. T. Mitchell) from other humanities disciplines intersect in many ways with the perspectives developed later in Webb's book, but Webb does not pause to consider how they complicate the ancient vs. modern definitional agon driving her argument early on. As she aptly observes, "The connec­ tion between ekphrasis and the idea of visual representation ... runs deep" (p. 53), thus her lack of engagement with scholars exploring that very idea is puzzling. Webb is on firmer ground as she returns to a detailed examination of the treatment of ekphrasis in the handbooks (Chapter 2, "Learning Ekphra­ sis: The Progymnasmata). Emphasizing rhetorical production, she focuses on ekphrasis as "the exercise which taught students how to use vivid evocation and imagery in their speeches" (p. 53) rather than the static reproduction of set passages. Webb here makes an illuminating connection between ekphra­ sis and narrative, citing passages in which the speaker becomes...

Alexander, Powell and Green explore ways in which traditional, nontraditional, and basic writing students view the affordances (potentials and limitations) of multimodal composition. These potentials include layering, implicit persuasion, audience awareness, creativity, and affective appeals, and the limitation of a lack of a clear thesis. In conclusion, the authors offer pedagogical considerations for instructors who assign multimodal composition in their classrooms.

I see a parallel between the illiteracy I witnessed while working in the court system and the challenges facing first-year writers at the university. In both cases, problems arise due to unfamiliarity with the discourse community into which one enters. In response, because much of the language governing composition and rhetoric is rife with place and journey metaphors (note the metaphor I just used of entering into a community, suggesting it is a place), I posit that ecocomposition theory may provide a fresh lens through which to view classical rhetoric. After providing a read of Aristotle’s Rhetoric focusing on issues of place and ecology, I offer how such theory, which I playfully term “EcoStotle,” might be applicable to a first-year composition course. The benefit to this approach to classical rhetoric and ecocomposition is that it is grounded in argumentation, thereby promoting literacy for our students, whatever discourse community they enter.

Composition scholars have contributed many theoretical analyses that WPAs and teachers might apply to first-year composition textbooks in order to make informed decisions about book adoption and implementation. As they offer critiques of the ideological effects of FYC books, many of these studies call composition textbooks “tools” without exploring the implications of textbook qua tool. The following essay addresses this unexamined area by developing a theory of valuation , a linguistic and rhetorical process of assigning worth to students and textbook instructional apparatuses as student-readers might engage with the texts. An analysis of valuation by WPAs and teachers has the potential to foster the empowerment of students, the instruction of critical thinking and writing, the autonomy of new teachers, and the coherence of local writing programs.

This essay considers how Virginia Woolf's personal and social anti-Semitism disrupts creation of a stable ethos in her political tract, Three Guineas. The article uses De Man's concept of blindness and insight to interrogate Woolf's own ideological blindness and forwards liminality as a frame within which to understand ethos in this work.

Neuroscience research findings yield fascinating new insights into human cognition and communication. Rhetoricians may be attracted to neuroscience research that uses imaging tools (such as fMRI) to draw inferences about rhetorical concepts, such as emotion, reason, or empathy. Yet this interdisciplinary effort poses challenges to rhetorical scholars. Accordingly, research in neurorhetorics should be two-sided: not only should researchers question the neuroscience of rhetoric (the brain functions related to persuasion and argument), but they should also inquire into the rhetoric of neuroscience (how neuroscience research findings are framed rhetorically). This two-sided approach can help rhetoric scholars to use neuroscience insights in a responsible manner, minimizing analytical pitfalls. These two approaches can be combined to examine neuroscience discussions about methodology, research, and emotion, and studies of autism and empathy, with a rhetorical as well as scientific lens. Such an approach yields productive insights into rhetoric while minimizing potential pitfalls of interdisciplinary work.

Recent rhetorical accounts of mental illness tend to suggest that psychiatric disability limits rhetorical participation. This article extends that research by examining how one group of the psychiatrically disabled—those diagnosed with mood disorders—is using a particular narrative genre to engender participation, what I call the mood memoir. I argue here that mood memoirs can be read as narrative-based responses to the rhetorical exclusion suffered by the psychiatrically disabled. This study employs narrative and genre theory to reveal mood memoirists’ tactics for generating ethos in the face of the stigma of mental illness.

In ''Argumentative Verteidgung'' Hoppmann develops a modern stasis theory.His starting point is to find a method to defend against moral allegations under reasonable conditions (p. 15).The idea is to have a rhetorical tool for a person who is accused of having violated a moral norm.The term of moral norm is left explicitly wide by Hoppmann in order to cope with cases also outside the legal field (p.15).The scope, therefore, includes successful defensive strategies in talk exchanges about moral misbehavior.An important assumption Hoppmann makes is that he sees the burden of proof on the accuser.This is in accordance with scholars in legal argumentation and their view of the specific burden of proof in norm regulated discussions.Hoppmann extends this idea to all situations of allegations concerning moral misbehavior (pp.21-25).In order to achieve such a modern model Hoppmann looks into two types of theoretical contributions to this topic.In chapter II, he works on classical theories in the finding of justice [klassische Theorien der Rechtsfindung].More specifically, he investigates the Toulmin model, legal syllogisms [Justizsyllogismus], and a specific model in criminal law theory [Deliktsaufbau im Strafrecht].In chapter III, he investigates classical stasis theories [klassische Stasismodelle].More closely, he focuses on the works of Hermagoras of Temnos, Auctor ad Herennium, and Hermogenes of Tarsos.Hoppmann uses these six theoretical models to induce vital and non-vital stasis points [Streitpunkte], which are key to the defense of a moral allegation.He sees them as vital because of the specific burden of proof placed on the accuser of moral misbehavior.By showing that one of the vital stasis points does not apply, the defender is successful.On the other hand, the attacker of the moral misbehavior has to show that all the vital points are applicable.The non-vital points come into play

held at the University of Coimbra in Portugal (October 2-4, 2008).The colloquium had two goals.One of the goals was to reflect on the impact to this day of two books that revolutionised the state of the art in argumentation in the XXth century: Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's Traitede l'argumentation: La nouvelle rhetorique and Toumin's The Uses of Argument, both published in 1958.The other goal of the colloquium was ''to take stock of the current state of rhetoric and argumentation theory.''The present volume attests that especially the latter goal has been realized: it includes a survey of a variety of topics, and sometimes approaches, to the study of argumentation, written by some of the most prominent argumentation scholars.The editor of the volume has chosen to divide the articles into five topical parts, each centred upon a different issue.I shall briefly discuss these articles in the order in which they are published, limiting myself to those in English and French.Unfortunately, the articles published in Portuguese can only be mentioned by the present reviewer without further comment.Under the ambitious title Historical and philosophical studies on the influences of Perelman and Toulmin, two articles have been included in Part I.In the first article, J. Anthony Blair discusses The pertinence of Toulmin and Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca for informal logic.Blair's article traces back the history of informal logic and attempts, often with caution, to show how Toulmin's and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's ideas have influenced the particular theoretical interests of informal logicians.Although informal logic came into being independently of the ideas of Toulmin and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Blair claims a significant influence of the 1958 books on informal logic lately.In Blair's view, three of

La lettre invective a joui d'une grande fortune à la Renaissance, comme en témoignent Les Epistres familieres et invectives (1539) d'Hélisenne de Crenne. Une relecture de ce recueil à la lumière de la théorie épistolaire permet de nuancer nos a priori défavorables à cette pratique épistolaire que l'on aurait tort de réduire à une «bordée d'injures» aussi gratuites que disgracieuses. Ces épîtres invectives donnent à voir que le recours à l'insulte n'est jamais une fin en soi, mais un moyen de persuasion au service de la déconstruction de l'ethos de l'adversaire et du renforcement de la crédibilité de l'épistolier.

This essay explores how the “heat of composition” is inexorably linked to ethos and also how writers, student or otherwise, might seek to create and intensify pleasure through a sustained textual becoming. I consider how this ethics of affect is an unfolding, an exteriorization of the intensities and forces of becoming writers, student or otherwise, who engage with the movements of desire.

This case study investigates how a group of novice technical communicators used appeals to support their design decisions during group meetings. The results of this ethnographic study suggest that although these technical communicators were well acquainted with user-centered design (UCD) concepts and claimed to actively practice UCD, their appeals often did not reference data collected within user-centered research and instead referenced designer-centric appeals to support their claims. This group’s overall use of appeals to support their design decisions suggests that more empirical study into UCD theory and practice as well as students’ argumentation skills is warranted.

At a search marketing company, each search engine optimization (SEO) specialist writes up to 10 to 12 complex 20-page monthly reports in the first ten business days of each month. These SEO specialists do not consider themselves to be writers, yet they generate these structurally and rhetorically complex reports as a matter of course, while negotiating a constantly changing landscape of a contingent, rapidly changing business sector. Under these conditions, how did the SEO specialists manage to write these reports so quickly and so well? What is the standing set of transformations that they enact in order to develop and produce these reports? And given the multiple contingencies, rapid changes, and high individual discretion at this organization—seemingly a recipe for discohesive practices—how did they maintain and develop this standing set of transformations in order to turn out consistent reports? In this article, I draw on writing, activity, and genre research (WAGR) to examine how Semoptco’s SEO specialists produced monthly reports, specifically in terms of their constant networking, audience analysis, and ethos building. Finally, I draw implications for applying WAGR to knowledge work organizations.