Opening with an overview of the renewal of interest in rhetoric for inquiries of all kinds, this volume addresses rhetoric in individual disciplines - mathematics, anthropology, psychology, economics, sociology, political science and history. Drawing from recent literary theory, it suggests the contribution of the humanities to the rhetoric of inquiry and explores communications beyond the academy, particulary in women's issues, religion and law. The final essays speak from the field of communication studies, where the study of rhetoric usually makes its home.
Scholars of every sort inevitably make stylistic choices, name and frame issues, appeal to communal values, adapt arguments to ends, audiences and circumstances. Yet the myth persists that `good' scholarship consists of hard fact and cold logic, devoid of all rhetoric; that the assent given to scholarly claims is somehow independent of the language used to communicate and defend them. Rhetoric in the Human Sciences demonstrates that the rhetorical dimensions of scholarly discourse can no longer be ignored. The authors illustrate the usefulness of rhetorical theory, bringing its tools and perspectives to bear on such diverse subjects as language acquisition, television viewing, ethnographic writing, psychotherapy, jur
Rhetoric has traditionally studied acts of persuasion in the affairs of government and men, but this work investigates the language of other, non-traditional rhetors, including immigrants, women, urban children and others who have long been on the margins of civic life and political forums.
The author (speech communication, Indiana U.) divides the subject into six chapters on the rhetorical ecology of science; philosophical perspectives--of propositions, procedures and politics; historical and social studies of science; demarcating science rhetorically; science and creation science; and cold fusion. In his discussion of cold fusion, he describes it not as a case study in how "nonscientific behavior sullied the public ethos of real science," but rather as a case that serves to "alert us to the inescapably human dimensions of real science so that we might appreciate its strengths without wishing away its imperfections." The bibliography is extensive. For scholars in the field. Paper edition (unseen), $22.95. Annotation copyright by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR
Scholars of every sort inevitably make stylistic choices, name and frame issues, appeal to communal values, adapt arguments to ends, audiences and circumstances. Yet the myth persists that `good' scholarship consists of hard fact and cold logic, devoid of all rhetoric; that the assent given to scholarly claims is somehow independent of the language used to communicate and defend them. Rhetoric in the Human Sciences demonstrates that the rhetorical dimensions of scholarly discourse can no longer be ignored. The authors illustrate the usefulness of rhetorical theory, bringing its tools and perspectives to bear on such diverse subjects as language acquisition, television viewing, ethnographic writing, psychotherapy, jur
This book provides social science majors with a systematic way of learning to write in their fields. It is based on the assumption that such writing is not a mechanical process, but a kind of rhetoric social scientists use to persuade each other of the validity of their research. KEY TOPICS: Features comprehensive coverage of research methods, including how to plan and propose original research, how to gather data or evidence from sources and how to document it. It goes beyond the typical survey of library tools and offers a brief chapter on how to use the Internet as a research tool.
Responding to skeptics within higher education and critics without, James Crosswhite argues powerfully that the core of a college education should be learning to write a reasoned argument. A trained philosopher and director of a university-wide composition program, Crosswhite challenges his readers—teachers of writing and communication, philosophers, critical theorists, and educational administrators—to reestablish the traditional role of rhetoric in education. To those who have lost faith in the abilities of people to reach reasoned mutual agreements, and to others who have attacked the right-or-wrong model of formal logic, this book offers the reminder that the rhetorical tradition has always viewed argumentation as a dialogue, a response to changing situations, an exchange of persuading, listening, and understanding. Crosswhite’s aim is to give new purpose to writing instruction and to students’ writing, to reinvest both with the deep ethical interests of the rhetorical tradition. In laying out the elements of argumentation, for example, he shows that claiming, questioning, and giving reasons are not simple elements of formal logic, but communicative acts with complicated ethical features. Students must learn not only how to construct an argument, but the purposes, responsibilities, and consequences of engaging in one. Crosswhite supports his aims through a rhetorical reconstruction of reason, offering new interpretations of Plato and Aristotle and of the concepts of reflection and dialogue from early modernity through Hegel to Gadamer. And, in his conclusion, he ties these theoretical and historical underpinnings to current problems of higher education, the definition of the liberal arts, and, especially, the teaching of written communication.
How do scientists persuade colleagues from diverse fields to cross the disciplinary divide, risking their careers in new interdisciplinary research programs? Why do some attempts to inspire such research win widespread acclaim and support, while others do not? In Shaping Science with Rhetoric, Leah Ceccarelli addresses such questions through close readings of three scientific monographs in their historical contexts—Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937), which inspired the "modern synthesis" of evolutionary biology; Erwin Schrödinger's What Is Life? (1944), which catalyzed the field of molecular biology; and Edward O. Wilson's Consilience (1998), a so far not entirely successful attempt to unite the social and biological sciences. She examines the rhetorical strategies used in each book and evaluates which worked best, based on the reviews and scientific papers that followed in their wake. Ceccarelli's work will be important for anyone interested in how interdisciplinary fields are formed, from historians and rhetoricians of science to scientists themselves.
In a series of stimulating essays, William E. Connolly explores the element of ambiguity in politics. He argues that democratic politics in a modern society requires, if it is to flourish, an appreciation of the ambiguous character of the standards and principles we cherish the most. Connolly's work, lucidly, presented and intellectually challenging, will be of interest to students and scholars of political science, philosophy, rhetoric, and law, and to all whose interests include the connections between contemporary epistemological arguments and politics and, more broadly, between thought and language. Connolly criticizes the ways in which contemporary politics extends normalization into various areas of modern existence. He argues, against this trend, for an approach that would provide relief from the rigid identity formations that result from normalization. In supporting his thesis, Connolly shows how the imperative for growth must be relaxed if normalizing pressures are to be obviated. His, however, is not the familiar antigrowth argument; rather, he ties his thesis to his general antinormalization argument, asking how one could create an ethic that would sustain itself when the growth imperatives are relaxed. Connolly's chapters on the work of other thinkers (including Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas, Richard Rorty, and Charles Taylor) are linked with his main theme, as he shows how various tendencies in the philosophy of the social sciences and in political theory aid and abed the normalizing tendency. His analyses of Rorty and Taylor are especially important. Connolly shows the significance of antifoundationalism (Rorty's contribution to the debate on epistemology), while providing a compelling critique both of Rorty's stance and Taylor's alternative to it. Especially important to Connolly's thesis is the ontology on which it rests. He shows how the endorsement of an ontology of discordance within concord--a view that all systems of meaning impose order on that which was not designed to fit neatly within them--can support a more democratizing process. His final chapter, "Where the Word Breaks Off," vindicates the ontology of discordance, which has governed the argument throughout the text. Throughout these essays, Connolly builds a consistent argument for the politicalization of normalization, disclosing forms of normalization where others have seen unproblematic modes of communication and problem solving. Original in concept and bold in presentation, Connolly's work will form the basis for considerable debate in the several disciplines it serves.
