Spring 2024 | Sec 001 | T/R 11:00-12:15 | Ross 1090
- Email: marc dot santos at unco dot edu
- Office: Ross 1140B
- Office Hours: Fridays 12:00-3:00. I am also available by appointment on Mondays and Wednesdays.
Course Description
I often find myself facing a dreadful question. I’m at a party, meeting a group of people for the first time. It really doesn’t matter whether they are academics or not. They ask me what I do. I’ll say “I’m a teacher.” They’ll ask, “Where do you teach?” I’ll say, “At UNC.” They’ll say, “Oh, you’re a professor! So what do you teach?” I say “Rhetoric.” Their face contorts just a little bit as they nod and say “Oh, yes, rhetoric.” There’s usually a second or two pause as they wait for me to elaborate. When I don’t, then they’ll ask, usually politely and with a bit of hesitancy, “What is rhetoric?”
One would think I could articulate a simple, direct answer to this question. After all, I have dedicated the better part of the past 15 years to studying rhetoric. This semester will attempt to show why I often struggle to formulate a response. That struggle is itself rhetorical. Yes, I use the term all the time even though I cannot easily or precisely define it to a person at a party. Talking to a person at a party is a particular context. That context casts us as friendly interlocutors engaged in some likely phatic communication, i.e., empty performative small-talk that simply reaffirms one another’s presence. I pass you in a hallway, “ask how are you?” If you say “fine, how about you?” I say fine and we move on, either passively reassured of our existence or anxious about just having lied. Perhaps you aren’t fine. Your dog just died. You failed to meet an obligation. You crashed your car. If you respond to my query with “Actually I’m having a shit day because something, something” we are no longer having a phatic conversation. Now I’ve been pulled out of my joyous self-possession of the world and into another’s world. Now, depending on our relationship, my schedule, my mood, your affectation, the rest of this scene can play out in myriad ways.
And, by now, you already have a pretty good idea of whether or not you’ll like this class. This little narrative covers some pretty key learning objectives:
- That language is almost always more complicated than we think it
- That the meaning of words is always ambiguous and somewhat indeterminate
- That context shapes both meaning and experience
The complexity of language isn’t my only learning objective. While important, we have significantly bigger fish to fry.
But not yet. Let me spin back to why I struggle to define “rhetoric.” The term “rhetoric” has a fraught and complex history. Typically, in our contemporary culture, it surfaces as a pejorative (“ah, that’s just rhetoric, what he’s really doing is blah blah blah”). Thinking back to my vignette of the party, more than a few interlocutors have asked (with various degrees of politeness): “wait, you teach bullshit for a living?” From what I will call a Platonic perspective, the highest value of rhetoric is that it allows an informed speaker to persuade a hesitant, misguided, or uniformed audience to arrive at a more enlightened understanding or prudent course. Rhetoric, from this Platonic perspective is a tool that allows a speaker to communicate their ideas more effectively. Two things here that might surprise you (and here I am being rhetorical in that I am forming a preconception of you as an audience, what you might already believe, how you might be reacting to this writing): first, I don’t think “persuasion” works in the way that Plato and Aristotle claim it does. I don’t think I make a logical argument, a claim backed by various forms of credible evidence that triggers an appropriate emotional response, that changes your mind. That’s how Plato and Aristotle and nearly 2400 years worth of Idealist philosophers after them want argument to work. But I don’t think that’s how it works. Second, I don’t think this model of philosophy and rhetoric, argument and persuasion, can prepare us to live in a democratic society or diverse world. We need to build a more messy, complicated, and contingent way of dwelling with each other.
This semester I hope to show that rhetoric can mean much more than bullshit or manipulation (and that those connotations were cast upon rhetoric by its staunchest opponents: Idealist philosophers who believe in absolute certainty and pure truth). In doing so, you should gain some sense as to why defining rhetoric can be such a difficult task: we will explore multiple different theorists with quite different ideas regarding rhetoric’s scope, purpose, and methods. We start with Richard Lanham, who will give us some sense of the major ontological, epistemological, and ethical conflicts in rhetoric’s fraught history [big word alert: ontology means what you think reality is and how we can describe it; epistemology is what you think knowledge is and how we develop it; for now, let ethical mean simply how we relate to other people and how we choose to make difficult decisions in times of interpersonal conflict].
At heart in these debates are a series of complex questions:
- Does language and culture come to cover (and hence obfuscate) a real (Ideal) world (truth), a world/Truth that exists beyond the shadow of mere appearances? Or is language and culture the medium through which we determine what is real?
- Can one get outside of language, to see things objectively as they truly are? Or are we always seeing, thinking, and doing within the register of the symbolic?
- Do we control language as a tool? Or are we the tools of language’s own trajectories? Genes and Memes
This debates hinge upon questions of ontology (what is reality), epistemology (what is knowledge), agency (who is in control), morality (right vs wrong), and ethics (how do we determine how to act).
Course Materials
Most course readings for this class will be distributed as .pdfs via Canvas. However there are two books that you will need for the class. Currently, both are available on Amazon.com for $16-20 dollars.
- Cavarero. 2021. Surging Democracy: Notes on Hannah Arendt’s Political Thought.
- Blankenship. 2019. A Theory of Rhetorical Empathy
Course Expectations
I want this course to work like a seminar. Seminars revolve around three things: reading, thinking (in the form of writing), and discussion (in the form of sharing writing). You should expect to read a lot this semester, between 75 and 100 pages a week. By seminar standards, that’s not a lot. But this will probably be difficult reading (I would identify Lanham as a 7 out of 10 on the difficulty scale0. You’ll be writing single-spaced reflection papers for every Tuesday session. These are called “Write Ups.” You will share at least 3 of these Write-Ups with the class. If you want an A, then you will share 4 of those papers with the class.
I will also ask you to annotate readings. This means writing notes, questions, references (to other places in the reading or other readings) in the margins. I will always expect you to have two or three annotations in a reading to share in class.
These are 75 minute class sessions. For a lot of classes, I will want to open with 20-30 minutes of discussion on the reading (depending on how many people are sharing Write-Ups that day). Some days discussion might run long. Other days, I will have an activity planned. Most classes will end with a short(ish) lecture.
In addition to this weekly workflow, we’ll be working on three major projects:
- Non-Demogogic/Totalitarian Rhetorical Analysis: Drawing on the work of Kenneth Burke, Hannah Arendt, and Trish Roberts-Miller, I’m going to ask you to do a rhetorical analysis of a politician’s campaign materials. This might include an analysis of their website and their campaign materials. We’ll do some theoretical readings on demagoguery (propaganda, totalitarianism) to inform our analytical lens.
- Rhetorical Empathy: Dwelling with Race. We live in a strange time in which teaching “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has been labeled racist. This project questions such discursive gymnastics. We’ll do readings on rhetorical empathy by Lisa Blankenship and Jim Corder (which is probably a re-read for 90% of you, but situated in a different context, those texts will mean differently). Then I will ask you to read some pretty charged critical race theory and reflect upon it. I will NOT ask you to share that reflection with me or with your classmates. If you are forced to share that writing, then it will become performance rather than introspection. I’ll talk more about this strange assignment later in the course.
- Staging a Rhetorical Carnival: In the spring, our class will host a “horizontal, nonviolent, creative, participatory” event on campus. I have tentatively named this event a “rhetorical carnival.” The class will have an opportunity to rename it. I want it to feel like a county fair, with various “horizontal, nonviolent, creative, and participatory” events designed and ran by my “carnies.” You are my carnies. I have no idea what a “horizontal, nonviolent, creative, and participatory” event is. Well, I have a few ideas that my grad class brainstormed last year when I first read of this book and designed this project. But I probably won’t share them with you. Your goal as a class will be to design and stage this event, and then write a paper reflecting on the process and product.
- Final “Exam”: The final paper for this class will be a slightly extended Write-Up. In it, you will offer a definition of rhetoric. We will share these papers on our final exam day. [Spring 2024 Prompt]
A few quick notes about writing and sharing:
- This is *not* an academic writing class. These aren’t “papers” that necessarily have theses and transitions. We’ll talk more about that later. But for now, let’s talk voice. You should use whatever voice feels right. Don’t try and be pretentious, and don’t feel compelled to “invent the University.” I am naturally pretentious, and that will often come through in my writing. But that is my voice, and it doesn’t have to be yours. The audience for these papers is our group. No one else. Write for the room. But really, write for yourself.
- Some people hate public speaking. Too bad. Some people cannot do public speaking. That’s a problem. If you are uncomfortable reading a paper to the class, then you are welcome to record a short video of you reading for Youtube or simply asking me or a friend to read the paper for you. Let me know if my proposed accommodation causes an issue for you or if you have another suggestion.
Assessment
This course uses a form of ungrading that I am calling “self-assessment.” Non-major assignments will be assessed on a 0/1 point scale–you will receive a 1 if the assignment is submitted and at least relatively complete. My expectation is that any work you submit will earn a 1. If I believe the work is insufficient, I will provide feedback on what I would like you to address and you will have an opportunity to resubmit.
Major assignments will also be assessed on a 0/4/5 point scale. My aim is to provide some feedback on all assignments, but I do not want to score them. Given the subjective, political, racial, and ontological nature of our readings, I believe it is paramount that you do not think your grade depends on *what* you think. And certainly not on what you think I think of what you think. I am not assessing the propriety of your thought. As a seminar, this is a place to encounter, labor, and grow. Your grade should be a measure of how much thinking you did, and how much you believe you have learned.
Thus, I will award a 4 on a paper that I believe has some lingering questions. I will specify 2-4 things for you do address in order to earn a 5. Papers of exceptional quality will earn a 5 and I will request no revisions.
During exam week I will distribute a Google Form that asks you to assess your work this semester according to the courses’ learning objectives. The final question will ask you to tell me the grade I should enter into Canvas. I reserve the right to question a grade and/or require revisions, but it is my intention to exercise this right only in the most egregious of situations. This class is hard. The readings are hard. I recognize that sharing your work with the class can be daunting. But if you do the work, if you try, then you deserve an A.
And, as I indicate above, I am willing to discuss alternatives for sharing your work with the class. As a seminar, I do think the sharing of ideas is essential.
One last note, to earn an A for the course does require a bit of extra work:
- Share one or two extra write-ups with the class
- Read an additional book on contemporary rhetorical theory and write up an academic book review. I will have a list of books by week 2. Book reviews will be due week 12. You will design a class presentation and activity for week 13, 14, or 15 (note: these can be collaborative team projects). [EDIT: In place of the book review, I’m asking that you incorporate your book into your final write-up]
Final Exam Inclement Weather
If the University is forced to close or cancel final exam week, then I will collect your final reflection papers and score them on a 0-5 scale. We will not meet to share papers.
Attendance
Given the importance of discussion for this class, attendance is essential. Students are expected to attend all scheduled class meetings. That said, things happen. You may miss up to 4 classes this semester without penalty. I do not accept doctor’s notes for illness. You have 4 sick days to use as necessary. If you miss a 5th class, then your final grade cannot be higher than a B. If you miss 6 classes, then you automatically fail the course.
That said, if you develop an illness or have a family situation that requires you to miss more than one class session, then please contact me as soon as possible to see if we can work something out. If you have a medical condition that forces you to miss class, let me know about it. I understand that life happens and will work with you to see what can be done. Note that we might not be able to work something out.
If you miss class and want my assistance catching up, then plan to come to office hours. Always check the class notes to see what we covered.
Student Code of Conduct and Academic Integrity
A quick note. Below is the stock plagiarism material you’ll find on every syllabus. Don’t borrow another person’s ideas without credit. This is a class about thinking, and, as I’ve covered, the grading system doesn’t weigh whether your thinking is right or wrong. It just asks that you encounter and think.
Given this emphasis on thinking, I want to discourage you from using AI technology in this course. First off, these technologies will generally do a bad job with our assignments since they can only synthesize topics about which a lot has been written. We’re working with small slices of some fairly recent and obscure material, and AI won’t be great at that. Second, if you are taking this course, then I’m assuming that you want to learn how to read and respond to difficult reading. There’s way easier paths to your Inclusivity, Diversity, and Community Engagement credits that this class. If when reviewing your writing I suspect you are using AI programs, then I will email you to set up a meeting. I reserve the right to override self-assessment and assign you a different course grade based on your use of these programs.
Back to the boilerplate:
All members of the University of Northern Colorado community are entrusted with the responsibility to uphold and promote five fundamental values: Honesty, Trust, Respect, Fairness, and Responsibility. These core elements foster an atmosphere, inside and outside of the classroom, which serves as a foundation and guides the UNC community’s academic, professional, and personal growth. Endorsement of these core elements by students, faculty, staff, administration, and trustees strengthens the integrity and value of our academic climate.
The Department of English at UNC has adopted the following policy regarding plagiarism. Pretending that another¹s work is one¹s own is a serious scholarly offense known as plagiarism. For a thorough discussion of plagiarism, see the Dean of Students website:
http://www.unco.edu/dos/academicIntegrity/students/definingPagiarism.html
Students who are caught plagiarizing will receive a final grade of “F” in the course. In addition, they will be reported to the Chair of the Department of English and the Dean of Students office for possible further disciplinary action. If you need help with understanding documentation systems and avoiding plagiarism beyond the instruction given in class and as seen in the UNC Code of Conduct, speak with the instructor or visit the UNC Writing Center’s web site for a series of PowerPoint tutorials at http://www.unco.edu/english/wcenter/academicintegrityindex.html. Instructors use experience and a plagiarism detection service, Safe Assignment, sponsored by the University, to aid in spotting cases of plagiarism. Plagiarism will not be tolerated.
Some but not all UNC instructors regard double or repeat submissions of one¹s own work as a form of plagiarism. If you intend to use in this course written material that you produced for another course, please meet with me first. Otherwise, you may be guilty of cheating. I am open to remediating and expanding previously completed work in this class.
Disability Accommodations
Any student requesting disability accommodation for this class must inform the instructor giving appropriate notice. Students are encouraged to contact Disability Support Services (www.unco.edu/dss ) at (970) 351-2289 to certify documentation of disability and to ensure appropriate accommodations are implemented in a timely manner.
Parental Accommodations
As a parent, I understand that life can come at you fast. If you would miss a class session due to babysitting issues, please don’t. Feel free to bring your child to class.
Rough Schedule
Week One: Lanham, Rhetorical Analysis. Write Up #1 due Thursday.
Week Two: Miller, Demogoguery. Burke, Hitler. Introduce Major #1.
Week Three: Miller, Demogoguery. Arendt, Totalitarianism. Work on Major #1
Week Four: Complete Major Project #1
Week Five: Corder, Love. Blankenship, Empathy.
Week Six: Blankenship, Empathy.
Week Seven: Kendi. Coates, Reparations.
Week Eight: Coates, Prisons. Ore, Lynching.
Week Nine: Share Day. Mid-Term Exam.
Week Ten: Spring Break
Week 11: Cavarero.
Week 12: Cavarero.
Week 13: Carnival Planning.
Week 14: Carnival Planning.
Week 15: Rhetorical Carnival.
Week 16: Finals (What is rhetoric? Paper Day)
