Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Prospect Heights: Waveland, 1996. Hart, Roderick P. “Contemporary Scholarship in Public Address: A Research Editorial.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 50 (1986): 282-89. “Test and Theory in Critical Practice.”. 1) communication as the purpose of rhetoric. 2) humans as the creators of rhetoric. 'Qualitative research method designed for the systematic investigation and explanation of symbolic acts and artifacts for the purpose of understanding rhetorical processes' (Foss, 6).
- 7.1: Rhetorical Criticism Overview
- 7.2: Rhetoric In Ancient Times
- 7.3: Understanding Rhetorical Criticism
- In the second half of this chapter we would like to discuss a close associate to rhetorical theory—rhetorical criticism. To explain this exciting subdiscipline we will discuss the scope of rhetorical criticism, the purpose of this method, the kinds of knowledge produced, and the relationship between rhetorical theory and criticism. We will conclude with examples of how rhetorical criticism seeks to answer contemporary socio and political concerns.
- 7.4: Current Uses of Rhetorical Theory and Criticism
- By now you should have a clear understanding of what rhetorical theory and criticism are and the uses they serve for the discipline as well as the world outside academia. We would like to conclude this chapter by detailing some of the current issues and questions occupying rhetorical scholars. As the examples are numerous, we will speak to three specific content areas: the study of social movements, political and campaign rhetoric, and studies of popular culture.
- 7.5: Rhetorical Criticism Summary
- 7.6: Rhetorical Criticism References
Foss Rhetorical Criticism 3rd Edition
Constructing this bibliography was different from my previous experiences with annotated bibliographies because of the types of texts I was consciously trying to locate. I was looking for foundation/historical texts, “how-to” texts, and texts with multiple approaches to rhetorical analysis. In order to locate these types of texts I first began with database searches in JSTOR and ProQuestCentral, and I then moved to search specific online journals (CCC, Rhetoric Review, RSQ). Using google scholar I looked up the texts that caught my interest in the databases and journals to see if and how often they were cited. If these texts were books I also look them up on Amazon.com to view their tables of contents.
My anchor text(s) in this bibliography is Sonja Foss’s Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. This text is on the course syllabus, and since the professor commented that we would be silly not to use valuable sources on the reading list I consider this anchor text to have been located via word of mouth. My foundational text, Rhetorical Criticism (1965),by Edwin Black was first noticed when I was scanning bibliographies and saw that he was repeatedly cited. Using a cited reference search I established that Black’s text is the foundational text for rhetorical criticism in the field of rhetoric and composition. The more current, discussion texts such as “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Rhetorical Criticism” were located through searching in bibliographies.
After completing my research I reviewed Geisler’s article and my research followed her recommended process. Also, most confusing aspect of this research was establishing the difference between rhetorical analysis and rhetorical criticism. To be sure, it is still unclear, to me, as to whether there is any concrete difference between the two terms; however, I feel confident about discussing the how various scholars have used these terms for their own purposes. Finally, the majority of texts on rhetorical criticism are written in the 1970s-80s and greatly taper off in the 1990s. There is the symposium on rhetorical criticism that appeared in Rhetoric Review in 2006, but there has been little discussion of rhetorical criticism since then.
Bazerman, Charles, and Paul A. Prior. “Introduction.” What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Ed. Bazerman and Prior. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004. 1-10. Print.
In the introduction to What Writing Does and How It Does It, editors Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior explain that the uniqueness of this volume is that it is a collection of 11 different disciplinary perspectives and approaches to textual analysis. These multidisciplinary approaches allow the reader to have a well-rounded understanding of how textual analysis can be conducted as well as an understanding that there are conflicts of opinion across various disciplines on how to conduct textual analysis. The volume includes a specific chapter delineating rhetorical analysis focusing specifically on the method of analysis as well as the process of production of texts. I site the introduction because I have not had a chance to look through the entire book; however, the introduction provided important information such as the type of language and vocabulary necessary to discuss and understand textual criticism. Specifically within the field of rhetorical and composition, rhetorical analysis and rhetorical criticism are one in the same. A rhetorical analysis of textual features of a text is a specific approach to rhetorical analysis as well as a type of textual analysis. I find it helpful to have these distinctions clearly marked. This book is quite useful in terms of providing a varied overview of textual analysis. This text was first located in the JSTOR database. I then searched the E-journal ProQuest Central for reviews and checked various online bibliographies that I often reference to see if it was sited.
deWinter, Jennifer. “A Bibliographic Synthesis of Rhetorical Criticism.” Rhetoric Review 25.4 (2006): 388-407. Print.
deWinter’s markedly notes that the theorizing of rhetorical criticism has occurred most often with the field of speech communication. Her article is an effort to theorize and synthesize discussions about rhetorical criticism for the field of rhetoric and composition. deWinter focuses primarily on definitions, general methodology, and objects of rhetorical criticism. To that end, she differentiates between rhetorical criticism and rhetorical analysis. She also provides brief summaries of four textbooks on rhetorical criticism. Sonja Foss’s book (annotated here in this bibliography) is included in this short list. I chose this article because it is an excellent supplement to the symposium discussion on rhetorical criticism and methodology an issue of Rhetoric Review. Also, this is the only text that I have come across, in my limited and brief search that actually synthesizes rhetorical criticism for rhetoric and composition. As deWinter notes, many of the texts on rhetorical criticism come out of speech communication. Because of the nature of deWinter’s project, this article is a discussion text that bridges research in speech communication and rhetoric and composition. I located this text by going directly to Rhetoric Review and running a search with the terms “rhetorical criticism” and “rhetorical analysis.”
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Rhetorical Criticism: Cultural Challenges to Rhetorical Criticism.” Rhetoric Review 25.4 (2006): 357-358.
Kohrs Campbell discusses the relationship (or rather the lack thereof) between rhetorical criticism and non-western texts. She uses this example to highlight a current gap in rhetorical criticism research as well as to historicize past gaps such as analyzing texts by women, minorities, laboring-classes etc. Many of the texts I have come across address where we have been and where we are now in terms of rhetorical criticism; however, I chose Kohrs Campbell’s text because she directs us towards the areas of rhetorical criticism that need to be developed for future research projects. She specifically stresses the need for rhetorical training that enables western critics to consider of non-western texts, languages, and cultures. Kohrs Campbell’s text enhances discussion about rhetorical criticism and offers avenues for continued research.
Edwin Black’s 1965 Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1965. Print.
Black’s book has been labeled as a foundation text for the study and discussion of rhetorical criticism as a method. In researching rhetorical criticism, I kept coming across citations of Black’s text. I read reviews and eventually requested the book through Bird Library. Indeed, Black’s Rhetorical Criticism is positioned in the field as responsible for opening up the possibilities of rhetorical criticism. Black’s text, which was controversial at the time, challenged the paradigm underlying neo-Aristotelian theory and practices. He argues that a neo-Aristotelian approach to rhetorical criticism is too restrictive because it does not account for analysis of emotional, persuasive discourse, which can in turn misrepresent modern rhetorical criticism. Black’s text historicizes how our field has developed in our research practices and demonstrates the transition from one narrowed approach into multiple and varied approaches to rhetorical criticism. For more on a neo-Aristotelian approach to rhetorical criticism refer to Foss and Enos (cited here).
Enos, Richard Leo. “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Rhetorical Criticism: Classical Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism.” Rhetoric Review 25.4 (2006): 357-358. Print.
Enos addresses the value of new approaches to rhetorical criticism, while also stressing that we should not forgo and diminish the traditional neo-Aristotelian approach. He reminds the field that the success and necessity of the neo-Aristotelian approach is that it was well-suited for the evaluation of civic discourse; however, as the field of rhetoric expanded, new approaches were needed to accommodate areas such as women’s rhetorical practices. While Enos acknowledges the fields need to have multiple and varied approaches, he also urges us to be critically considerate of how the neo-Aristotelian approach led us to this point. This text was helpful for highlighting current values for a more dated approach. This is a discussion text that contemporizes the controversy raised by Black’s Rhetorical Criticism.
Fahnestock, Jeanne and Marie Secor. “Rhetorical Analysis.” Discourse Studies in Composition. Eds. Ellen L. Barton and Gail Stygall. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton P, 2002. Print.
This chapter by Fahnestock and Secor address how rhetorical analysis difference from discourse analysis. They then explain the various elements of rhetorical criticism. Fahnestock and Secor’s explanation of rhetorical analysis outlines how to approach rhetorical criticism as a method. This text is helpful for anyone looking for a general explanation of rhetorical analysis. I located this text by scanning multiple bibliographies, and this text functions as a current discussion piece.
These chapters from Foss’s Rhetorical Criticism were fortunately easily to locate because the book is on our course reading list. The entire book is comprised of 11 chapters. While it might seems that choosing four chapters from the book is excessive (or an easy out) for this bibliography, I chose to include these four because they each have a distinct element that illuminates why one might choose rhetorical analysis for their research methods and/or specifically details how to use the most common approaches in rhetoric/composition studies.
Foss, Sonja K. “Doing Rhetorical Criticism.” Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 4th ed. Long Grove: Waveland, 2009. 9-22. Print.
This chapter provides a generic but thorough overview of the step by step process of conducting rhetorical criticism. Foss makes a distinction between the method of rhetorical criticism and the process of rhetorical criticism in order to establish that there are various approaches to conducting rhetorical analysis and each approach has its own procedures for analyzing an artifact. This chapter provides a general outline of the steps one must proceed through when using rhetorical criticism. This is a basic yet solid guide to conducting a rhetorical analysis. In terms of establishing a general understanding of rhetorical analysis this text is beneficial for explaining and teaching rhetorical analysis to others. Because of its specific distinction between process and method, this text helps anchor research in the basic “how-to” steps of rhetorical analysis.
——–. “The Nature of Rhetorical Criticism.” Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 4th ed. Long Grove: Waveland, 2009. 3-8. Print.
This chapter in a basic introduction to rhetoric, and it also establishes the theoretical basis for why scholars use rhetorical criticism as a way to analyze artifacts. In order to choose a method of research the researcher must establish, for themselves, why they are researching a specific artifact in the first place. Foss explains that those using rhetorical criticism examine an artifact because of what it can teach them about the nature of rhetoric and communication. I include this chapter because it crystalizes my reasoning for why I want to use rhetorical analysis as a method for my research project. I want to research sport/body rhetorics because of what it can tell me about rhetoric and how we communicate through the sports and the body. I can use this text as an initial anchor for my theoretical grounding of and reasoning for using rhetorical analysis as my method.
——–. “Generative Criticism.” Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 4th ed. Long Grove: Waveland, 2009. 387-444. Print.
Foss presents generative criticism as a method of rhetorical analysis that is most suitable for experienced scholars of rhetoric. Generative Criticism, unlike the other approaches delineated in the chapters of Foss’s book, is a much more open-ended approach (similar to grounded theory in some respects). One uses generative criticism when they analyze artifacts without following a formal method of criticism. However, this method requires extensive mining since it is not bound to certain aspects such as analysis of ideology. This is a method a researcher uses when an artifact strikes her interest and she wants to explore what the (problematic or fascinating) allure of the artifact. As in the other chapters of this book, Foss provides a detailed account of when/how to use generative criticism. I have been collecting artifacts that tug at me because of what they communicate about women’s bodies, sex, and sports. However, I am unclear as to how they connect to one another and what they say about the values of our culture. This chapter is definitely an anchor text because it will serve as my own outline for conducting my research as well as a guide for explaining my method when I write my research section.
Rhetorical Criticism Foss
——–. “Ideological Criticism.” Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 4th ed. Long Grove: Waveland, 2009. 209-61. Print.
Ideological Criticism is one of the most extensive chapters in the book because scholars often focus on ideology when conducting rhetorical analysis. Scholars interested in hegemonic structures and rhetorically analyzing them from postmodern, Marxist, or feminist (to name a few) perspectives often engaged in ideological criticism. This type of rhetorical analysis considers any type of artifact as open to ideological criticism because ideologies exist all around us. This types of analysis extends beyond the examination of textual artifacts to visual, media, places, events, people, etc. The chapter includes the longest bibliography of suggested readings for examples and further exploration of ideological criticism. This chapter is an excellent frame of reference for those interested in melding feminist methodologies and rhetorical analysis. This is a discussion text for this bibliography because it illustrates a popular and important type of rhetorical analysis that scholars often use. However, because I am also interested in examining the values of our culture, specifically how we value sex and bodies, and because I want to ground my research in feminist methodologies, this chapter illustrates how I can go about combining these elements. In this sense, the chapter is also an anchor for my research. To be sure, I do not solely want to engage in ideological criticism because I think that will limit the possibilities of locating unexplored elements of rhetoric.
Hart, Roderick P. Modern Rhetorical Criticism. Glenview: Little Brown, 1990. Print.
Hart’s book is broken down into three sections: Introduction to Criticism, General Forms of Criticism, and Specialized Forms of Criticism. Each chapter beings with an excerpt from a rhetorical text which is then rhetorically analyzed. While I haven’t had a chance to thoroughly review this book it seems very accessible and great for students. Hart provides the reader with instruction to and imitation of rhetorical analysis. Hart is housed in a speech communication department, but this text transfers to rhetoric and composition and it commonly cited by scholars in the field.
King, Andrew. “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Rhetorical Criticism: The State of Rhetorical Criticism.” Rhetoric Review 25.4 (2006): 365-368.
King provides an firsthand account of living through the paradigm shift away from the neo-Aristotelian approach to rhetorical criticism. King essentially provides a timeline of the development of approaches to rhetorical criticism as a parallel to the growth of rhetoric and composition as an established field within the academy. Many of the approaches King names, such as fantasy-themed approach, are delineated in Foss’s textbook. This text is useful because of its straightforward account of how the method of rhetorical criticism developed. Like the other texts in this issue of Rhetoric Review, this article is a discussion text and illustrates how the method paradigm shifted.
Medhurst, Martin J. “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Rhetorical Criticism: Thirty Years Later A Critic’s Tale.” Rhetoric Review 25.4 (2006): 379-387.
Medhurst labels rhetorical criticism and rhetorical analysis as different endeavors. He considers rhetorical criticism to be a “mode of investigation rather than a method of analysis.” However, he later claims that rhetorical criticism operates through analysis. I chose this text because it continues the discussion of the differences (if there are any) between rhetorical analysis and rhetorical criticism. While the differences between analysis and criticism are murky at best, Medhurst does differentiate between contributing to the study of rhetoric and the rhetorical study of an artifact. His text raises the question of what is the difference between criticism and analysis and rhetorical criticism as a method versus rhetorical criticism as an attitude or way of being.
Selzer, Jack. “Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers.” What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Ed. Bazerman and Prior. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004. 279-308. Print.
Selzer explains textual and contextual analysis as two specific approaches to rhetorical analysis. Selzer then analyzes the rhetoric of two texts to demonstrate and provide examples to of the methods of rhetorical analysis. This chapter is helpful because it provides a historical background of rhetorical analysis as well as actual examples of how to rhetorically analyze a text. Selzer does not limit rhetorical analysis to text and context, but rather presents these two approaches as possible avenues to explore for one’s research. To that end, this chapter functions a discussion text that illustrates two specific approaches while still acknowledging the multiple approaches to rhetorical criticism.
Zarefsky, David. “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Rhetorical Criticism: Reflections on Rhetorical Criticism.” Rhetoric Review 25.4 (2006): 383-387.
Zarefsky addresses the semantic issue behind using the term rhetorical criticism and the disparity between differing interpretations of what rhetorical criticism means. He explains that one interpretation is that the rhetorical criticism of an artifact is also a criticism of rhetoric. The other interpretation is that rhetorical criticism is a type of criticism. This is interesting to consider in light of reading Foss’s textbook which outlines the multiple approaches to rhetorical criticism. I chose Zarefsky text because it helps illuminate the discrepancies between rhetorical criticism and analysis and challenges the discussion put forth by Foss’s and Medhurst’s texts.