McKerrow (2011), "Foucault’s Relationship to Rhetoric"

1. Truth -- "Truth" is a map of rules.

The perception of truth is a result of statements organized in a particular way. Power relationships guide the rules for the "truthful" organization of statements. The organization of "truth" discourses preexist people, and their structure determines social positions.

2. Genealogy -- The map of rules is hidden in plain sight.

McKerrow (2011) argues that critical rhetoric offers a way of problematizing these rules. All forms of discourse exist within these rules, so no discourse is above criticism. For McKerrow (2011), Foucault's primary contribution to rhetoric is the idea of looking at the surface for ruptures in "common sense."

3. Historical subjects -- The rules do not bar human agency.

Foucault argues that subjects communicate within predetermined systems of rules. McKerrow (2011) suggests that this does not strip humans of their agency. Instead, the rules are malleable, and humans contribute to their construction and reconstruction.

Gunn (2006), "ShitText: Toward a New Coprophilic Style"

1. Hygiene is self-surveillance of the body.

Gunn (2006) uses Foucault's concept of biopower (scato-power) to argue that transnational consumerism controls every aspect of bodily function. He suggests that openly messy public speaking and shitting offer a too for hyperproduction that resists consumerist controls.

2. Production should be gifted rather than hoarded.

The consumerist frame that disciplines public speech/shit is about hoarding. Gunn (2006) argues that academic publishing pretends to give away our shit when we are really turning the receiver into our shit. He advocates a style of discourse that freely shits without attempting to hold in the socially undesirable.

Gronbeck (2006), "Rushing, Frentz, and the Matter of Psychological Rhetorical Criticism"

Writing in the 1980s and 1990s, Rushing and Frenz brought psychoanalysis to the range of rhetorical perspectives. They celebrated the idea of working across layers of human discourse. Gronbeck (2006) argues that psychological criticism contributes three areas to rhetorical studies:

1. Study of the submerged

We think of symbolic codes as a manifest representation of psychology below the surface. These codes can become embedded in the submerged. Codes are then used in public discourse as references to hidden psychological realms like anxiety, paranoia, joy, and other frames of consciousness.

2. Study of the overarching

Submerged states are individual and ritualized by the community. Psychoanalysis can therefore identify common psychological states by examining their emergence in public discourse.

3. Study of epistemological alternatives (transmodernism)

Rushing and Frentz (1995) propose a concept called "transmodernism." Modernism privileges duality which leads to hierarchies and oppression. Postmodernism completely fragments the self. Transmodernism uses the unconscious to unify human subjectivity, fragmenting the scientific problems of modernism and stabilizing postmodernism's slippery ego.

Zarefsky (2004), "Presidential Rhetoric and the Power of Definition"

1. Rhetoric argues that language produces change, but this is not the same as causality or effects.

Texts in a vacuum will appear to produce no effect. Therefore, Zarefsky (2004) argues he that scholars must account for context. Furthermore, he urges not to make causal claims.  Instead, Zarefsky (2004) cautions critics to be more precise in using language that indicates languages contribution to shaping culture and inviting certain readings.

2. Critics should acknowledge each of the dimensions of rhetorical transition in each analysis.

A. Interaction between message and audience -- largely empirical
B. Interaction between rhetor and text --issues like intention and motive
C. Interaction between the text and the critic -- this involves issues of context

3. Zarefsky (2004) emphasizes the role of definition in shaping culture. He argues that the process of defining involves things like selecting which data should be important, framing which aspects are worth attention, and bringing the situation to the public mind.

Palczewski (2003), "What is 'Good Criticism?'"

Palczewski (2003) argues that rhetorical criticism should focus on humans as "linguistic animals." Moreover, she believes that the study of rhetorical criticism should be joyful. She also argues that rhetorical criticism must take a stand on a text and make an argument about that text.

In decisions regarding methodological rigor, Palczewski (2003) argues for a focus on heuristics. She gives three criteria for this orientation.

1. Vocabulary should be presented in a way that clarifies. It should take care to "name things" with a responsibility to the never-ending conversation.

2. Vocabulary should look for nuanced differences and similarities between texts. Palczewski (2003) cautions critics not to make over-generalizations in order to paint broad theoretical pictures.

3. The analysis should be engaging and interesting. Palczewski (2003) argues that work should spark interest in the reader.

4. The analysis should be driven by text.

5. The essay should be written to the same standards to which we hold texts.

6. The selection of the text for study is political, and the critic should be sensitive to this.  What are the conditions in which the text was chosen for analysis and what are the implications for choosing this text for study?

Campbell (2001), "Rhetorical Feminism"

Campbell (2001) traces the development of feminist rhetorical scholarship and offers a feminist perspective on the field's future direction.

1. Initial feminist rhetoric work focused on recovering historical women's texts.

2. Feminist rhetorical criticism shifted in the 1990s to include critical theory. This work still included studies of historical texts, but feminist rhetorical work also shifted include mass media and television studies.

3. Women's Studies in Communication played an important role in expanding feminist rhetoric. Though many of the major national journals were still resistant to this work, feminist rhetorical scholars were publishing more and more frequently in regional journals during the 1990s.

4. At the time of writing, Campbell (2001) describes a period of work in alternative theories. Here, she describes work that attempts to define a feminine rhetorical style that works in opposition to the combative style associated with traditional rhetoric. Campbell (2001) also believes that women's practices are an important area for future research.

Medhurst (2001), "The Contemporary Study of Public Address"

Medhurst (2001) outlines three moments in the state of public address and rhetorical criticism. He begins with Black's Rhetorical Criticism then moves chronologically through the present, ending with recommendations for future study.

1. Renewal

Medhurst (2001) calls the period following Black's book in 1965 through 1980 "renewal." (A) This time period is marked by disciplinary self-reflexivity, as critics work to identify systems of public discourse. (B) This time period is also marked by an increasingly open definition of public discourse including media forms. (C) Social movements of the period also led critics to study issues of oppression.

2. Recovery

The period of recovery, which Medhurst (2001) defines as 1980 through 2000, is marked by its dedication to "public affairs." Medhurst (2001) argues that this period recovers its focus on the broad field of politics. This time period also saw a shift from scholarly articles to book length research projects.

3. Reconfiguration

Medhurst's (2001) vision for the future of rhetoric is largely focused on training new scholars. He argues that scholarly training should prepare graduate students to take up a particular area of expertise. Medhurst (2001) largely emphasizes historical forms, and argues that large studies should be taken up involving teams of researchers. Scholars should remember that we are producers, not just critics, of social texts.

Dow (1995), "Feminism, Difference(s), and Rhetorical Studies"

Feminist rhetoric uses feminist theory to celebrate women's contributions to public discourses and to critique the ways these contributions are marginalized. Dow (1995) is concerned with the way theories of difference(s) have been used in discussions of feminist rhetoric.

1. Difference has been used to essentialize women's rhetoric.

Dow (1995) argues that women face a similar set of circumstances that result in a similar rhetorical style. This is importantly different from the idea that women's rhetorical style comes from biological, essential differences between men and women. The latter characterization has appeared in discussions of feminist rhetoric.

2. We have neglected to discuss differences between women.

Dow (1995) criticizes theories of difference(s) for failing to acknowledge differences between women. She notes that feminist rhetorical theory has largely conceptualized "woman" as white, middle-class, and heterosexual. She argues that feminist rhetorical theory should work to fix this problem.

McKerrow (1989), "Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis"

McKerrow's (1989) concept of critical rhetoric is an intervention into Platonic rhetoric's universal notions of logic. McKerrow (1989) proposes a critical rhetoric that accounts for context and contingency and that "seeks to unmask or demystify the discourse of power" (p. 91). Critical rhetoric works against something, and the process of the critique is therefore a practice rather than a method. Critical rhetoric includes the "critique of domination" and the "critique of freedom."

A. A critique of domination aims to demystify the conditions of domination. It looks for the ways ideology works to reproduce domination.

B. A critique of freedom looks at the ways power is reasserted in culture. It looks for new ways power might express itself.

The practice of critical rhetoric is comprised of eight rules:

1. It is a practice, not a method.

2. The discourse of power is material.

3. Rhetoric is doxastic rather than epistemological.

4. Naming is the central act in nominalist rhetoric.

5. Influence is not causality.

6. Absence is as important as presence.

7. Fragments are potentially polysemic.

8. Criticism is a performance.

Blair & Cooper (1987), "The Humanist Turn in Foucault’s Rhetoric of Inquiry"

Blair and Cooper (1987) address Fisher's critique of Foucault. Fisher reads Foucault's positions on the structures of discourse as anti-humanist, and therefore argues that Foucault's theories are inherently flawed. Blair and Cooper (1987) defend Foucault, noting that Foucault's critiques of humanism were aimed at producing a more humanist result. They note that Foucault's work imagines human agency in discourse and attempts to create an environment with even more human rhetorical freedom.

1. Foucault is an important contributor to contemporary rhetoric.

Blair and Cooper (1987) point out that contemporary rhetoric sees humans as entrenched in discourses as opposed to old perspectives which saw rhetoric simply as a tool of persuasion. Foucault imagined human subjects to be active within their discursive environment. Foucault is therefore an important contributor to contemporary rhetoric.

2. Foucault's work reframes rhetoric in a manner consistent with humanist goals.

Blair and Cooper (1987) argue that rhetorical criticism must critique social alternatives that are offered in rhetoric. They see Foucault's methodological arguments as driving rhetorical theory toward a more proactive position.

Blair (1987), "The Statement: Foundation of Foucault’s Historical Criticism"

1. We can trace unities in historical discourse. This lets us see moments of change. Together these moments make up a map of transformation and stability.

2. For Foucault, statements are sets of signifiers that are considered to represent knowledge. Statements facilitate relationships between individuals and groups, and we use them to perform the self. These functions only work through the relationships between statements.

3. When statements are uttered, they tell us something about the epistemological assumptions in a culture. There are three parts to studying statements:

A. Rarity -- Look at what is not being said and what is being silenced as well.

B. Exteriority -- Don't look for the hidden meaning. Look for the context that allows the statement to exist.

C. Accumulation -- Look for how statements come in and out of the culture.

4. Rhetorical studies includes history, politics, and epistemology. Blair (1987) argues that Foucault's concept of the statement allows us to integrate all of these elements.

Fisher (1984), "Narration as Human Communication Paradigm"

1. Humans are story-telling animals.

Fisher (1984) argues that humans are essentially story-telling animals, or homo narrans. This means that we make decisions based on narratives. Narratives circulate around our environment, and we use these to make our decisions. Fisher (1984) notes that we make decisions based on a logic of good reasons. This may include more traditionally rational reasoning, though Fisher (1984) notes that these issues may only be partially understood because they rely on emotions.

2. Narratives can persuade when they have fidelity and coherence.

Narratives have fidelity when they match our understanding of reality. Narratives have coherence when they are internally logical.

3. The logic of good reasons unites the whole brain.

The narrative paradigm was Fisher's (1984) attempt at resolving dualisms like fact/value and reason/emotion. He argued that narrative logic unites the whole brain, and it allows rhetoricians to understand the ways logic and myth work together.

Wander (1983), "The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism"

1. Wichelns' concept of public address was White, male, and class-privileged.

Wichelns' "The Literary Criticism of Oratory" legitimated public address, but in an ideologically limiting way. Wander (1983) notes that rhetoric originally limited public address to two-party politics. Early rhetoric therefore ignored women, people of color, and other classes restricted from government-sanctioned address.

2. Neo-aristotelians used Burke only as a method.

Burke legitimated rhetoric by linking it to other disciplines, but it was used as a method rather than a tool for ideological criticism. Neo-aristotelians strove for objectivity. As Wander (1983) argues, this necessarily made the criticism a description of the speaker's words, centering the speaker and linking the critic to the speaker's perspective.

3. Ideological criticism looks for historically situated power.

A. Ideological criticism should look for "emancipatory moments" in public discourse.

B. Wander (1983) suggests that rhetoric should turn to examine "powerful vested interests" and how these interests benefit from particular uses of discourse in policy development. The critic should evaluate destructive powers behind policies like war and environmental destruction and identify alternatives.

C. For Wander (1983), ideological criticism should acknowledge crises and historically situate "good" and "right."

McGee (1980), "The 'Ideograph'"

"Ideographs are one-term sums of an orientation" (p. 7), McKee (1980) notes. They contain an ideological commitment and assume that others will read the same commitment in the term.

1. Ideologies control populations.

People practice ideology and this is a political practice. It has the power to control the public. Such power is preserved through rhetoric. Rhetoric allows us to see how ideology functions to control populations. Ideology impacts the ruler and the ruled.  This is not a top-down approach.

2. Ideographs contain ideological commitment.

Social control is control over consciousness. Ideographs attempt to create a shared political false consciousness. Since ideographs assume that everyone will read a certain term with the same connotation, they create in-groups and out-groups. Those who do not read the term in the "right" way are excluded from society.

3. Ideographs work vertically together to form sense of logic, and horizontally through time to construct myth.

Ideology is a moral issue.  If we know there is a truth, we have a moral obligation to admit it rather than lying to ourselves. Myth is amoral. It functions metaphorically, and therefore is always a lie. A rhetorical model should account for both ideology and myth. McGee (1980) argues that ideology should be the starting point.

Campbell (1973), "The Rhetoric of Women’s Liberation: An Oxymoron"

1. Feminist rhetoric uses rhetoric to challenge rhetoric.

We think of rhetors as having self-reliance, self-confidence, and independence, which Campbell (1973) argues is a violation of the female role. Therefore, feminist rhetoric is inherently unique because it is an attack on the fundamental assumptions of its cultural context. Campbell (1973) argues that feminist rhetoric contains moral conflict, since it uses imagined shared circumstances to point out that these circumstances are not shared at all.

2. Feminist rhetoric refuses audience passivity.

Style of feminist rhetoric must be anti-rhetorical, since characteristics of rhetors encourage submissiveness in the audience.

3. Feminist rhetoric builds public community from private experiences.

Feminist rhetoric must include discussion of the private, since women's experience has been restricted from the public sphere. Since structural solutions are a goal, discussions of the private must move to unite women's experience.

Bitzer (1968), "The Rhetorical Situation"

Bitzer (1968) argued that rhetoric formed in response to situation. The situation shapes and controls discourse in the same way that a question shapes an answer. Situations are rhetorical when they call for a discursive response, and discourses are rhetorical when they respond to a situation that needs a response.

All rhetorical situations contain three parts:

1. Exigence -- Bitzer (1968) describes exigence as "imperfection marked by urgency" (p. 6). Not all exigences are rhetorical. Rhetorical exigences are those which can only be changed by discourse.

2. Audience -- Situations that are rhetorical must include an audience, and that audience must be capable of acting to produce change.

3. Constraints -- Bitzer (1968) acknowledges that people, objects, and relations may impede the suggested change. These elements are called constraints, and they may include things like attitudes, motives, traditions, and so forth.