I've made pdfs of the summer 2007 issue of Rhetoric Society Quarterly (37.3). Here's the link.
http://www.unm.edu/~sromano/english640/PDFs/Rhetoric%20Society%20Quarterly/
But keep trying to access RSQ on your own, as access to journals via Zimmerman is critical for your next move.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Posted by Susan Romano at 8:40 AM
Labels: Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm still working on RSQ, but I have noted one major difference between this journal and the others we have studied so far. In contrast to the other journals, which are deeply rooted in applying research to practice, this journal seems to offer scholarship for the sake of scholarship. I don't mean to imply that academic scholarship for the sake of academic scholarship is less worthy of note than scholarship rooted in classroom practice and pedagogy. I just thought it was noteworthy that there are venues that exist to encourage academic debate and interpretation. After reading so much over the past few days on classroom and writing center practice, RSQ seemed almost like "pleasure reading": it sort of felt like, "Okay, here are some articles you can read and think about. Stop thinking about how to apply theories to the classroom for now. Take the time to think about interpretation and analysis instead." Rhetoric and composition are built on the foundation of getting things done, and of thinking about how we can take what we believe to the classroom. Still, it's also about interpretation and debate, and it's nice to have that reminder here. And although I suggested that this journal almost seemed like pleasure reading, the articles are by no means "soft'--they contain conversations located within a larger context, an overview of relevant scholarship, the use of discourse-specific terminology, and interpretation which relies upon textual support.
This journal—-in this issue at least—-rather than addressing contemporary issues/problems in rhet/comp (like CE, CCC, or even TCQ), seemed to be directed more toward re-envisioning/imagining historical interpretations of primary texts (i.e., Corax as myth rather than a person, Elizabeth Cady Stanton using ‘sympathy’ as rhetorical appeal and a re-read of the Gorgias within the context of the fall of Athens). So, rather than using building on the ideas of other researchers to advance an position, each presented a different ‘lens’ or 'read' on contemporary historical interpretation relying very heavily on primary textual analysis.
Stylistically it reminded me literary criticism with its careful and close attention to the primary text(s) as well as subtleties in interpretation. The authors also provided more specific and detailed background info to introduce the subject—i.e., Svoboda’s account of the Gorgias is really thorough (amazingly so)-—perhaps because in this style, the author is trying to make a more nuanced point so it’s crucial to thoroughly establish the context before making the argument.
I took a literature seminar a few semesters ago that, now that I think about it, I'm sure I was
supposed to be writing in this style. I was largely unsuccessful!
I found the pieces in this one particularly difficult to understand. I think you have both really hit it--pure, theoretical scholarly writing is so different than the practical work in other journals that my brain has had a hard time adjusting. Add to that how slowly I read and I was forced in many cases to give up simply because I was getting bogged down in trying to reach even a basic level of understanding.
I think, however, if I read more of this sort of article I might have a different take on it. I enjoy pure theory. But I find that to manage my stress levels, the reading and research I do needs to have a practical application for my writing, the classroom, etc.
I like this journal for three reasons. First, since Rhetoric is my primary field of research, it was, as Katie points out, "pleasure reading" for me.
Second, it supports one of my personal philosophies that ideas and solutions to many of our modern political and social issues can be found in classical studies and observation. For example, in the article on Stanton, the author includes a quote from one of her contemporary critics that she "disregards religious injunctions, upheaves existing institutions and overturns all social relations" because she is speaking publicly in front of mixed audiences on topics of women's suffrage et. al. These curiously similar arguments to those applied by modern conservative voices against non-traditional marriage (gay marriage, polygamous marriage, etc).
Third, this journal also relates to my argument last week about professional writing scholars and Rhet/Writing scholars who seem to be justifying their very existence in the journals they publish in. Rhetoric and Writing programs are an extension of classical university education systems. Culturally, our universities seem to be getting away from the classical ideal and more toward merely becoming training centers for professional, capitalistic, corporate careers. The value of classical research and education can be found in the pages of this journal.
a) I spent all my time in this journal looking at one article and a book review. The Article was Beth Innocenti Manolescu’s “Religious Reasons for Campbell’s…”. This is certainly a long way from the WAC journal or the Technical Communication Quarterly! At first I thought that it would be cumbersome reading because the subject is comparatively esoteric, but it didn’t read that way at all. The abstract helps to ground the reader. The first two quotes set up a debate really nicely, and I found what I think is the thesis near the bottom of the second page. My English 100 students couldn’t have done it better! Another thing that I found easing my strain at reading something fairly heavy was the author’s use of paragraphs that don’t run for pages (usually two or three per page) and periodic headings.
b) The review of Michael’s book The Trouble with Diversity… begins with the reviewer presenting a counter-intuitive stance (which is presumably a major part of the core of the book). The left’s “worship” of diversity, we are told, actually aids the continuation of inequality by distracting people from the truths that must be faced, if change is to be brought about. Wow! This is interesting. Ideas like the one on page 219 that “The existence of classes, not classism, is the problem…” The books reviewed in this journal seem different from those in other journals we’ve looked at. It seems the authors of these reviews are much more entwined in the material and perhaps more invested in the work they are tackling. There were places in reading this review that I felt the reviewer had somehow usurped authorship from the writer. I’m not sure I would feel comfortable attempting a review on this scale???
I agree with others about the theoretical nature of the articles in RSQ, and I also found them a pleasure to read. DesertRosy said this was harder to read than other journals, but it had the opposite effect on me. I'm also a slow reader, but I really enjoyed these articles and was able to focus on them without a struggle, whereas I have a much harder time with the teacherly articles. This may have something to do with my--dare I say it--dislike of teaching. My experiences as a TA have convinced me that I was not meant to teach--I would much rather spend my time researching and reading about history and theories of rhetoric.
So anyway…although none of the major articles in this issue of RSQ had much to do with my topic, I tracked some trends throughout the articles that I think will be useful:
1. All of the articles in this issue discussed primary texts (as Candice noted), as well as other analyses of the originals. They all included several long, block-style quotes.
2. They all spent time early in the article discussing what has already been written on their subject and how their work differs from those other studies.
3. Three of the authors used the first person to announce where they were going with the article and what they were trying to accomplish. The fourth (the Gorgias article) avoided the first person by referring to “this article,” but still provided a “map” and description of the article's intentions.
4. All four used academic language and a scholarly tone, and three used language that is very specific to the field of rhetoric. Although Engbers’ article was clearly about Stanton’s rhetorical style and techniques, she didn't use classical rhetorical terms as frequently as the other authors.
5. All of these articles had abstracts, subheadings, and end notes. Two also had an acknowledgements section at the end. None started with a personal narrative.
I spent most of my time on the two articles that dealt with the more contemporary subjects. Both of these articles use the lens of specific rhetorical appeals to analyze primary texts. Although she doesn't state this explicitly, Engbers' article analyzes Stanton's use of appeals to gender, place, and time in her speeches. Jack is more direct--he tells readers that he's going to "explore how configurations of space and time shape the memory texts written by those who were directly involved in designing and building the atomic bomb at Los Alamos, NM" (230): i.e., appeals to place (space) and time.
One other item that I noticed is the voice of authority. For the most part, these articles avoid making any direct assertion or statement of fact regarding other people's intentions or reactions. They couch expectations in terms like "Some may view...," "they tend to...," and "this implies..." They also use "wiggle words" like most, often, and usually. This avoids the embarrassment of stating an opinion as fact; however, Engbers comes close to assuming too much. She seems (wiggle word…) to take a fairly authoritative voice when it comes to her observations of Stanton’s work. Engbers states in direct terms what Stanton intended or meant or tried to do; this makes me a little uncomfortable as a reader. After all, how could she really know? But I also worry that I’m sometimes too cautious as a writer--maybe I'm being overly sensative on this issue.
Well, I’ve gone on long enough—sorry if this is too much personal narrative and not enough scholarly analysis...
I think RSQ definitely was different from the other journals. It was actually what I expected more of the journals in the field of rhetoric to look like. I expected to see a wider variety of topics in the other journals (big rhetoric), rather than just a focus on education.
In the article on LANL, I like that the author talks about public memory intially. Also, talks about the fact that the voices/memory of the scientists were priviledged. I liked the point that their versions of the history mimicked the history taught in the history books. This was a striking point and I hope to be able to capture this in my writing of Bharata Natyam. Jack also talks about the stereotypical way that women were mentioned or referred to by the men.
Next Jack moves into the memory of the women associated with the Manhattan project, the scientists as well as women who had access to LANL. Their account is different, temporally and spacially. I found this interesting and wonder if such a divide is present in Indian culture (it is of course) but especially in the way they view dance, learn dance and get identity from dance.
Then Jack moves into the domestic sphere, oikos. I think, like Sarah is interested in looking at men and women's spaces, Jack also is looking for this difference between the public and private sphere. I think this is another point that can be made in my dance research. She describes that issues in the home, electricity shortages, etc. were mentioned by women but not in the history book- they only presented a 'glorifed history.' It is interesting that she makes the point that women were helping the cause too- if we look at the bigger picture. Having to cook and clean and thrive in this (plus with husbands that often stayed at work late or slept in the labs) they had the added pressure of maintaining their homes on their own.
Then Jack moves into the domestic help front. How ironic that the women felt marginalized whether house-wives or working at LANL and how they in turn marginalized their help.
Besides these temporal/spatial separations, the area of LANL was physically separated. Jack describes these spheres and then makes the jump to talking about how these are combined (or romanticized) to come up with a lasting public memory of an event. Jack ends with a series of questions, the prominent of which is how do we 'disrupt the neat categories'?
So basically Jack appeals to time, gender, space and profession in this piece. I need to find which appeals to make, define the community/public memory and find a way to clarify each group's memory.
Post a Comment