are returned; whither rhetoric?
Music: Recoil: subhuman (2007)
We are returned from a delightful visit and intellectual discussion in Duluth, Minnesota. The sights, absolutely beautiful. The company, enchanting. The exchange, invigorating (and if you factor in the revolving eatery at the Radisson, dizzying). Kudos to David Beard and the Magnificent Seven for a marvelous intercoursing and especially for the laughter. Laughing is good medicine for what Debbilicious has aptly dubbed "octobering."
On the drive back to the Twin Cities on Friday, David and I discussed at some length the reality of the squeeze on the humanities in the academy and its relation to what I sometimes term the "Chicken Little Routine." This discussion was prompted by concerns I have about a forthcoming article, but also came on the heels of an asinine post to the department listserver by a former graduate student, who said he "could see how the rhetoricians would enjoy" this parody of academics. Obviously the former student is a former student for a reason. Yet the spoof does reflect, I think, general thoughts about the professoriate in general, and humanities scholars in particular. As a sub-field centered in the humanities tradition, rhetorical studies is prone to the accusation that its claim to the influence of "the role of universities in a free society" is "irrational."
Whether the focus is written or spoken, the more specific claim of rhetorical studies is that it helps to promote an engaged and critical citizenry, regardless of political allegiances or socio-cultural affiliation. This claim was the purchase of the emergence of Speech Communication in the 1920s, and remains a standard justification for rhetorical studies in both Communication and English departments. In various discussions catalyzed by the Alliance of Rhetorical Societies Tent Revival back in 2003, the general consensus seems to be that a renewed attention to the basic course is one way to resist the squeeze: either by retooling the basic course toward argumentation theory (one of Aune's suggestions), by limiting its teaching by the rhetoric savvy only (no social scientists get to teach it, that is), or by recommitting to the goods internal to our practice (teaching engagement, voice, critical thought, and so on), we might be able to fortify and protect the coming corporate End of it All. David suggested these "internal goods" should also be coupled with the external pursuit of recognition (e.g., book awards and so on).
Whether or not rhetoric is getting squeezed in Communication Departments (I don't think so, but perhaps I am misguided), the fact remains there is a perception of general decline. It seems to me that the apocalyptic tone is not going to go away, and is even integral to disciplinarity as such. There's much more to say about this "in theory," but from a pragmatic standpoint, it also seems to me in our times of darkness we also need more instrumentality a la Walter Benjamin: if the Turk of rhetorical studies is to win all the time, then his savvy chess moves are first and foremost with the "the Dean." In other words, I think rhetorical scholars must develop strategies of interaction with dean-ish types, deans who don't understand the word "rhetoric" or its many permutations. This is more than just "stay on message," a very good recommendation from Aune taken from the Rove playbook (David and I agreed that Jim's "Piacular Rite" keynote address was the best and most pragmatic response to Chicken Little thus far). The "message" we craft for "the Dean" must be coherent and somehow address goods external to the practice. Yes, yes: civic engagement and so on is the line to deliver (otherwise, what the hell are we doing in the first place?). But what sort of things do deans like to hear? What kind of stories can we tell to deanies, which they will likely repeat to upper administration types?
Well, hmm. I've been thinking about how to answer this question for a couple of days now, with Rickert's Acts of Enjoyment playing in the background of my head (he's engaging a similar question from the point of view of rhetoric & composition programs). Does a focus on goods external to the practice necessitate a kind of cynical reason? I hope not, but I worry I might already be in that thought-space.
Regardless, I should shut-up and do the laundry.
PS: Jesús, by the way, was very well behaved with his babysitters, DJ K-Thang and DJ B-lo. They said he was a model doggie, loving and sweet. Yet, last night during our reunion playtimes he decided to take a big ol' pee-pee in the bedroom. I don't understand why he cannot behave at home. It bums me out.