English 700: Introduction to Rhetoric and Composition (Fall 2011)

Drilling

Photo Credit: "Drill Down" by The Wanderer's Eye

This course introduces students to scholarship in rhetorical theory and composition studies by working backwards or “drilling down." The course begins with a very brief introduction to the discipline(s). Each unit thereafter begins with a contemporary work in rhetoric and composition scholarship and then drills down through portions of that text’s citational chain. This approach introduces students to contemporary research in rhetoric and composition while also providing a method for conducting research in medias res. This course puts students into the middle of current research and provides them with strategies for negotiating and mapping scholarly terrain.

Syllabus

English 700: Introduction to Rhetoric and Composition

Professor: Jim Brown
Class Meeting Place: 7105 Helen C. White
Class Time: Wednesday, 9:00am-11:30am
Office: 6187E Helen C. White
Office Hours: T/W 12pm-3pm [Make an Appointment]
Email: brownjr [at] wisc [dot] edu
Website: http://courses.jamesjbrownjr.net/700_fall2011

Course Goals:

  • Develop strategies for analyzing and synthesizing scholarly arguments
  • Understand the theoretical underpinnings of contemporary debates in rhetorical theory and composition studies
  • Develop a process for composing and revising a conference presentation

Required Texts:

  • Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Trans. George Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.
  • Berlin, James. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987. Print.
  • Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Print.
  • Davis, Diane. Inessential Solidarity. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010. Print.
  • Hawk, Byron. A Counter-History of Composition: Toward Methodologies of Complexity. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007. Print.

Texts Available for Download via Dropbox:

  • Booth, Wayne. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Print (excerpt)
  • Enculturation, “Rhetoric/Composition” Issues
    http://enculturation.net/5_1/
    http://enculturation.net/5_2/
  • Jeanne Fahnestock. "Aristotle and Theories of Figuration." Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Eds. Gross, Alan G., and Professor Arthur E. Walzer. 1st ed. Southern Illinois University Press, 2008. Print.
  • Fulkerson, Richard. “Four Philosophies of Composition.” College Composition and Communication 30.4 (1979): 343-348. Print.
  • ---. “Composition Theory in the Eighties: Axiological Consensus and Paradigmatic Diversity.” College Composition and Communication 41.4 (1990): 409-429. Print.
  • ---. “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century.” College Composition and Communication 56.4 (2005): 654-687. Print.
  • Geisler, Cheryl. "How Ought We to Understand the Concept of Rhetorical Agency?: Report from the ARS." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 34.3 (2004): 9-18. Print.
  • ---. "Teaching the Post-Modern Rhetor: Continuing the Conversation on Rhetorical Agency." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.4 (2005): 107-14. Print.
  • Gross, Alan. G. "What Aristotle Meant by Rhetoric." Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Eds. Gross, Alan G., and Professor Arthur E. Walzer. 1st ed. Southern Illinois University Press, 2008. Print.
  • Harman, Graham. Tool-Being. Chicago: Open Court, 2002. Print. (excerpt)
  • Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print. (excerpt)
  • Lundberg, Christian, and Joshua Gunn. "Ouija Board, Are There Any Communications?' Agency, Ontotheology, and the Death of the Humanist Subject, or, Continuing the ARS Conversation." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.4 (2005): 83-106. Print.
  • Nancy, Jean-Luc. “Of Being-in-Common.” Community at Loose Ends. Ed. Miami Theory Collective. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991: 1-12. Print.
  • Syverson, Margaret. The Wealth of Reality. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999. Print. (excerpt)
  • Walker, Jeffrey. "Pathos and Katharsis in 'Aristotelian' Rhetoric: Some Implications." Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Eds. Gross, Alan G., and Professor Arthur E. Walzer. 1st ed. Southern Illinois University Press, 2008. Print.

Course Work
All writing for this class will be submitted via shared folders in Dropbox.

  • Weekly Microthemes (500 word maximum)
    These short papers are turned in 48 hours before class meets and are shared electronically with all seminar members. Seminar members spend time reading these short papers prior to class, and the papers provide fodder for class discussion.

  • Weekly Microtheme Synthesis (750 word maximum)
    Each week, one student will be responsible for synthesizing these microthemes, presenting their synthesis at the beginning of class, and launching class discussion. This synthesis should locate common questions and topics raised by the microthemes and should serve as a launching point for the week’s discussion.

  • Book/Article Review (1000-1500 words)
    Once during the semester, each student will review an article or book that is cited by the central text of a unit (for instance, during Unit 2 a student would choose a text that is cited in Davis’ Inessential Solidarity). Reviews are 4-6 pages and are shared with seminar members. Each week, a different seminar member presents a review in class. Reviewers are not required to complete a Microtheme, but they are expected to read both the assigned text and the text they are reviewing.

  • Conference Paper (1750-2500 words, submitted twice)
    This paper is 7-10 pages and is written in response to a particular conference's call for papers. Papers should address the CFP and should incorporate some of the works we’ve read in class. This paper is submitted twice, once at the midterm and once at the end of the semester, so that students get an opportunity to revise.



Grades
The grade breakdown will be as follows:

  • 15% Attendance and Participation
  • 15% Weekly Microthemes
  • 15% Microtheme Synthesis
  • 15% Book/Article Review
  • 40% Conference Paper

With the exception of Microtheme assignments, I will provide letter grades on each assignment and a letter grade for your final grade. Microthemes will receive a grade of "Credit" (C) or "No Credit" (NC).

Below are the grade criteria I will use when providing letter grades:

  • A: This is graduate level work. The grade reflects work that is the result of careful thinking. This grade also reflects work that effectively contributes to a scholarly conversation.

  • AB: This is graduate level work, but there are minor problems with your argument and/or with your execution. This grade means that the work would need some revision in order to effectively contribute to a scholarly conversation.

  • B: This is not graduate level work, and there are significant problems with your argument and/or your execution. This grade means that the work has serious flaws or would need significant revision before effectively contributing to a scholarly conversation.

  • BC or below: This is not graduate level work, and there are major problems with the argument and the execution. This grade means that the work does not effectively contribute to a scholarly conversation.

Course Schedule


Unit 1: Introductions

September 7

  • Booth, The Rhetoric of Rhetoric (excerpt) [Dropbox]
  • Fulkerson, Richard. “Four Philosophies of Composition," “Composition Theory in the Eighties: Axiological Consensus and Paradigmatic Diversity," “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century.” [Dropbox]

September 14

  • Berlin, Rhetoric and Reality
    Synthesis: Amy
    Review: Angela

September 21


Unit 2: Rereading Aristotle

September 28

  • Gross, Walker, Fahnestock [Dropbox]
    Synthesis: Frances
    Review: Sarah

October 5

  • Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, Introduction, Books 1 and 2 (through page 192)
    Synthesis: Jenn
    Review: Diedre

October 12

  • Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, Book 3 and supplemental materials (pp. 193-311)
    Synthesis: Diedre
    Review: Chelsea


Unit 3: Reworking Community

October 19

  • Davis, Inessential Solidarity (pp. 1-85)
    Synthesis: Ambar
    Review: Frances

October 26

  • Davis, Inessential Solidarity (pp. 86-166)
    Synthesis: Sarah
    Review: Amy

November 2

  • Nancy; Geisler (x 2); Lundberg and Gunn [Dropbox]
    Synthesis: Laura
    Review: Naomi, Ambar

November 9

  • Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives (pp. 1-182)
    Synthesis: Angela
    Review: Laura

November 16

  • Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives (pp. 183-340)
    Synthesis: Neil

***November 23***

  • First Submission of Conference Paper Due
  • Writing Workshop


Unit 4: Rewriting Vitalism

November 30

  • Hawk, A Counter-History of Composition
    Synthesis: Chelsea
    Review: Roland

December 7

  • Hawk, A Counter-History of Composition
    Synthesis: Naomi
    Review: Neil

December 14

  • Heidegger, Harman, Syverson [Dropbox]
    Synthesis: Roland
    Review: Jenn

***December 21***

  • Second Submission of Conference Paper Due

Assignments

The links below provide descriptions of assignments for this course.

Weekly Microthemes

Microthemes are 500-word papers that serve as your "talking points" for that week's discussion, and they will be graded on a credit/no credit basis. Papers are due 48 hours prior to class, and late papers will receive no credit. Your work on these papers will account for 15% of your final grade. Please do not exceed 500 words.

If we are reading multiple pieces during a given week, please devote some space to each of the readings. However, you can devote more space to one of the readings if you'd like.

These papers need not be completely polished prose, but they should provide evidence that you've read the week's readings carefully and that you've developed some ideas for our discussions. They should be devoted to finding connections amongst our readings and to raising questions. They should not focus on whether or not you agree with the author(s).

Some questions that might guide a Microtheme paper are (this list is not exhaustive):

  • What definitions of rhetoric and/or composition are assumed or outwardly stated by the author?
  • What is the relationship of this text to others that we've read?
  • How has the author constructed his or her argument? Why?
  • Who are the possible audiences for this piece?
  • What kinds of evidence are being used? Why?
  • What possible counter-arguments could be raised? Who would raise them? Why?
  • What scholarly problem is the author addressing? How have others addressed this problem?
  • What body of scholarship is the author engaging with? What other scholarly conversations might we connect this piece to?

Microtheme Synthesis

Each week, one student will provide a written synthesis of the submitted microthemes. This synthesis should locate common questions and topics raised by the microthemes and should serve as a launching point for the week’s discussion. The paper is due at the start of class, and the author will read the paper at the beginning of the class period. This paper will account for 15% of your final grade. Please do not exceed 750 words.

When grading these papers, I will be looking for the following:

  • Does the paper locate common questions and trends in the microthemes?
  • Does the paper tell a coherent narrative of the textual conversation?
  • Does the paper raise questions and concerns that should be addressed during that week's discussion?
  • Is the paper written effectively and coherently with very few grammatical errors?
  • Has the author observed the 750-word limit?

Book/Article Review

Once during the semester, each student will review an article or book that is cited by one of our central texts. Reviews are 4-6 pages and shared with seminar members. While the review author will not read the paper aloud, s/he will give a brief (5-minute) presentation explaining the text, its argument, and its relationship to the texts we've read in class. Papers are due at the beginning of class and will account for 15% of your final grade. Please do not exceed 1500 words.

Note: Reviewers are not required to complete a Microtheme, but they are expected to read both the assigned text and the text they are reviewing.

When grading these papers, I will be looking for the following:

  • Have you provided an adequate summary of the text and its argument?
  • Do you explain the text's significance, its most important features, and its contributions to a scholarly conversation?
  • Have you explained how this text connects with the texts we're reading for this class?
  • Do you provide evidence for your claims?
  • Is your paper written effectively and coherently with very few grammatical errors?
  • Have you observed the 1500-word limit?

Conference Paper

This paper is 7-10 pages and is written with a particular conference in mind. When submitting the paper, you are required to include a 250-word abstract and the Call for Papers (CFP) to which you are responding. Papers should address the CFP and should incorporate some of the works we’ve read in class.

This paper is submitted twice, once at the midterm and once at the end of the semester, so that students get an opportunity to revise. This paper will account for 40% of your final grade. The first submission is worth 15% of your final grade, and the second submission is worth 25% of your final grade. Your grade on the second submission will be, in part, based upon whether or not you've significantly revised the paper. The second submission will include a brief cover letter explaining how you've revised the paper and how you've incorporated feedback from me and your peers.

Papers should be between 1750 and 2500 words. They cannot exceed 2500 words.

When grading these papers, I will be looking for the following:

  • Have you addressed a specific CFP and taken account of your audience?
  • Have you explained the scholarly problem that you are addressing?
  • Have you made a clear and specific argument?
  • Do you provide evidence for your claims?
  • Is your paper written effectively and coherently with very few grammatical errors?
  • Have you observed the 2500-word limit?



For the second submission:

  • Does your cover letter provide an explanation of your revision?
  • Does this paper represent a significant revision?
  • Have you incorporated the feedback by your peers during the writing workshop?
  • Have you incorporated feedback provided by me?