http://justinlewis.me/me/2009/09/18/ccr691-selzer-rhetorical-analysis/ Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:36:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://justinlewis.me/me/2009/09/18/ccr691-selzer-rhetorical-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Eileen E Schell Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:20:10 +0000 http://justinlewis.me/?p=50#comment-20 I was struck by the generational rhetoric of the long Enos et al piece. Edwin Black's text is the pivot point. In 1965, Edwin Black blew the lid off of rhetorical criticism and the Neo-Aristo approach that had become so popular from the 1920s-on. Later Jensen points out that the 1960s made people realize that rhetorical analysis is not just analyzing great speeches or civic discourse; it can be protest rhetorics and analyses of actions and mass movements. There is also discussion of feminism, globalism, and culture (Campbell), discussion of the body and non-human coding (Condit), and others. We have a historical narrative of the development of rhetorical criticism told from different vantage points. It also seems pretty interesting, and it's clear that the movement is from methods to methodological diversity and to examining how rhetoric as a field had to respond to social and political movements and changes in material culture. But I also think that things are portrayed as being a bit more open than they really are. I'd like to talk about that more in class--how do these established scholars have freedoms that those starting out in rhetorical analysis may not? How do the textbook analyses provided by DeWinters show how rhetorical criticism is still held to methods that the scholars in the Enos et al piece seem to eschew? I was struck by the generational rhetoric of the long Enos et al piece. Edwin Black’s text is the pivot point. In 1965, Edwin Black blew the lid off of rhetorical criticism and the Neo-Aristo approach that had become so popular from the 1920s-on. Later Jensen points out that the 1960s made people realize that rhetorical analysis is not just analyzing great speeches or civic discourse; it can be protest rhetorics and analyses of actions and mass movements. There is also discussion of feminism, globalism, and culture (Campbell), discussion of the body and non-human coding (Condit), and others. We have a historical narrative of the development of rhetorical criticism told from different vantage points. It also seems pretty interesting, and it’s clear that the movement is from methods to methodological diversity and to examining how rhetoric as a field had to respond to social and political movements and changes in material culture. But I also think that things are portrayed as being a bit more open than they really are. I’d like to talk about that more in class–how do these established scholars have freedoms that those starting out in rhetorical analysis may not? How do the textbook analyses provided by DeWinters show how rhetorical criticism is still held to methods that the scholars in the Enos et al piece seem to eschew?

]]>