Preview this article: Why Are There So Many English PhDs, Anyway?, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/86/2/collegeenglish32758-1.gif

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes1 As I detail in the book I’m writing, Hitler received intensive, rhetorical training in public speaking and propaganda in the German military’s demobilization force after the First World War.2 He actually says there are six elements of eloquence, but the fifth entry in his enumeration is just a list of analogies he thinks are incontrovertible.

Fake news feels exceptional in the post-Trump era, but it’s not. We are in an era of fake news, but not the first one. By situating our current moment on a longer timeline, we can recognize tools writing teachers have at our disposal in a new era of fake news.

Demagoguery is a subject of much discussion around the world in light of recent international political affairs. But since demagoguery remains a contested term, the definition invites continued deliberation as rhetoricians grapple with its usefulness, persistence, and presence in world affairs, and as they consider what, if anything, to do about it. Building from Aristotle’s famously imprecise definition of demagoguery and from contemporary definitions that locate demagoguery in culture not in a specific speaker, this essay argues that demagogic rhetoric necessarily incorporates arguments, topoi, and evidence that attack and attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions. Specifically, demagogic rhetoric hyperextends or supercharges direct democracy by amplifying “the will of the people” to undermine the constraining functions of democratic institutions.

Despite varying understandings of who or what a demagogue is or what a demagogue does, it is little surprise that demagoguery has long occupied rhetoricians, who are of course also interested in persuasion, argument, politics, public speech, affect, emotion, ethics, deliberative discourse, and essentially all the other realms of rhetorical action touched by the demagogue. Still, after more than two and a half millennia of deliberation on the matter, rhetoricians are still grappling with demagoguery—how to define it, how to identify who engages in it, how to explain its rhetorical character and effects, how to resist it, and how to reverse it, or if it’s even possible to do so. The essays in this issue advance that effort in a time when demagoguery is once again on the rise.

Book review of In the Archives of Composition: Writing and Rhetoric in High Schools and Normal Schools, by Lori Ostergaard and Henrietta Rix Wood. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press, 2015. 235 pages. $27.95 paperback

Most historical research in rhetorical studies is underwritten by an imperative to “broaden” the field’s historical horizons—to seek out overlooked, underrepresented, or excluded subjects. This “broadening imperative” is commonly aligned with revisionary historiography, which became a tool for historians to critique disciplinary values during the canon wars of the 1980s and 1990s. However, due to political and intellectual shifts in recent decades, “broadening” has become a preservative act to strengthen the field’s ideological values rather than a critical one to examine them. Ultimately, if historians value the radical perspective of “revisioning,” it is necessary to reinvest in critical historiography.

First-year composition emerged at Harvard largely because of administrative attempts to address institutional, as opposed to pedagogical, issues. In particular, Harvard administrators sought to improve articulation with public high schools in order to increase enrollments, attract new populations of students, and retain matriculants. First-year composition provided a mechanism for doing so. Because of first-year composition’s value for articulation, it was endorsed by accreditation associations and consequently spread across the country as accreditation did. Articulation and accreditation were not expressly concerned with writing instruction, but they ultimately had profound effects on the development of writing instruction in American higher education.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton is widely regarded as one of the most important women's rights orators of the nineteenth century. She is credited with opening new rhetorical spaces for women through brilliant rhetorical appeals. In her 1854 speech to the Legislature of New York, however, her brilliant rhetorical appeals were also appeals to the racist, classist, and paternalistic biases of her white male audience. A paradox of social reform is the need to simultaneously assert difference and sameness with the dominant classes, and Cady Stanton's efforts to negotiate this paradox ultimately reinforced the social hierarchy she hoped to undermine.

Paul Butler's Out of Style: Reanimating Stylistic Studies in Composition and Rhetoric enters into several contentious conversations taking place in and around composition studies today. Ostensibly,...