re:verb

In this re:joinder episode, Calvin presents Alex and Sophie with a set of op-eds -- all published in ostensibly liberal magazines -- that retroactively justify President Trump’s Jan. 3, 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani, major general of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. In our analysis, we expose the presuppositions latent in these articles’ narratives of post-9/11 US foreign policy, filling in some missing context about US ground and proxy wars in the Middle East since the second-half of the 20th century. We break down the tactics used in these articles to construct Soleimani as an enemy figure for US & European audiences, part of a broader US strategy of demonizing the government of Iran. We also compare these pieces to discourses about prior US assassination targets such as ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Finally, we consider how American war discourse is shaped by our (lack of) proximity to its material consequences, and consider how this constrains political possibilities in the US.

Texts Analyzed in this Episode

Aarabi, K. (Jan. 7, 2020). Suleimani’s Killing Could Change the Middle East for the Better. Foreign Policy.

Bergen, P. (Jan 3, 2020). The killing of Iran's General Soleimani is hugely significant (opinion). CNN.com.

Sadjapour, K. (Jan 9, 2020). “Why the U.S. Assassination of Soleimani Is a Windfall for Iran's Mullahs.” Time.

Relevant Works of Rhetorical Scholarship

Cap, P. (2013). Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Cloud, D. L. (2004). “To veil the threat of terror”: Afghan women and the in the imagery of the US war on terrorism. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 90(3), 285-306.

Engels, J., & Saas, W. O. (2013). On acquiescence and ends-less war: An inquiry into the new war rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 99(2), 225-232.

Flanagan, J. C. (2004). Woodrow Wilson's" Rhetorical Restructuring": The Transformation of the American Self and the Construction of the German Enemy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 7(2), 115-148.

Ivie, R. L. (1980). Images of savagery in American justifications for war. Communications Monographs, 47(4), 279-294.

Lakoff, G. (1991). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. Peace Research, 25-32.

Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ in four US presidential addresses. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287-314.

Oddo, J. (2014). Intertextuality and the 24-hour News Cycle: A Day in the Rhetorical Life of Colin Powell's UN Address. Michigan State University Press.

Oddo, J. (2018). The Discourse of Propaganda: Case Studies from the Persian Gulf War and the War on Terror. Penn State Press.

Vicaro, M. P. (2016). Deconstitutive rhetoric: The destruction of legal personhood in the Global War on Terrorism. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 102(4), 333-352.

Wander, P. (1984). The rhetoric of American foreign policy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(4), 339-361.

In this re:blurb episode, producers and co-hosts Alex and Calvin are re-joined by contributor and co-producer Sophie to discuss the many kinds of Irony, and the unique ways in which this form of humor manifests itself on our favorite website, twitter dot com.

First, we review the three main kinds of irony most often taught in schools--verbal, situational, and dramatic--all of which ask us to hold understandings of multiple, sometimes contradictory “realities” against one another. While the irony we encounter in literature tends to be “stable,” with one clear interpretation, in everyday discourse we are more often met with “unstable” irony, which invites a multitude of possible interpretations.

Or discussion of unstable irony leads us to “irony poisoning,” an emerging trend in online discourse in which people become so accustomed to edgy humor they adopt the premise of unstable irony as a worldview. But we also consider whether Irony might have the potential to open us up to new ways of viewing the world, turning to the works of Friedrich Nietzsche and Richard Rorty to discuss “Ironism,” a philosophy that holds all truths as partial truths, so that no one way of seeing the world can be considered absolute. We point out that this ironist worldview can be instructive when using rhetoric to articulate our views of reality and our place within it.

Finally, for a more practical discussion of these different conceptions of irony, we turn to several examples plucked from twitter, and consider the various ways we see irony being deployed in online discourse.

A partial transcript for this episode can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oELsrsu7lzQxZJPYxvdFz5-I8u5xUphSzA17Qyz1D7c/edit?usp=sharing

Tweets Referenced in Analysis:

Alex’s Example: The “Hot Take” / Plausible Deniability Combo

https://twitter.com/mattzeitlin/status/1178701629060722688

https://twitter.com/MattZeitlin/status/1178739225312800775

Sophie’s Examples

Baby Yoda Tattoo Hoax: https://twitter.com/boring_as_heck/status/1202395122064904193

Wealthy Boomer “Claps Back” at Millenials: https://twitter.com/Swarthyface/status/1194461368709074945

Calvin’s Examples

“Extremely normal”: https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/942836994257891328

“You Hate to See It”: https://twitter.com/MalaikaJabali/status/1195552337651257344

Works and Concepts Cited in this Episode:

Booth, W. C. (1974). A rhetoric of irony. University of Chicago Press.

Nietzsche, F. (originally published 1896) On truth and lies in a nonmoral sense. Retrieved from: http://ieas.unideb.hu/admin/file_7421.pdf

Rorty, R. M. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge University Press.

Tobin, V., & Israel, M. (2012). Irony as a viewpoint phenomenon. Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 25-46.

Further Reading on Irony:

Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2015). Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79-92.

Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Renegar, V. R., & Sowards, S. K. (2003). Liberal irony, rhetoric, and feminist thought: A unifying third wave feminist theory. Philosophy & rhetoric, 36(4), 330-352.

Tobin, V. (2016). Performance, irony, and viewpoint in language. In Blair, R. & Cook, A. (eds.), Theatre, performance and cognition: Language, bodies, and ecologies (pp. 54-67). Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.

Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87(1), 53-76.

Today we have the distinct privilege of discussing horror cinema, culture, and politics with Kendall Phillips, professor in the department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies at Syracuse University. Kendall’s work focuses on the ways popular culture intersects with discursive and affective tensions within society, with a focus on public memory, controversy, and popular cinema. Among his other work, Kendall is the author of three books on the rhetoric of horror films, the most recent of which is entitled A Place of Darkness: The Rhetoric of Horror in Early American Cinema.

Our conversation touches on the ways that horror films have historically reflected the fears of the societies that produce them, pushing at the sensitive edges of controversial and dark topics. We discuss some early iterations of the horror film genre before taking an in-depth look at the cultural themes contained in the films of George Romero, John Carpenter, and Wes Craven (all directors studied in Kendall's 2012 book, Dark Directions). Finally, we ruminate on whether we are currently experiencing a "third golden age" of horror cinema, and what kinds of contemporary cultural fears could be driving the commercial success of horror films in the past decade.

Films Referenced in this Episode

Le Manoir du Diable [released in U.S. as The Haunted Castle] (1896)

The James Boys in Missouri (1908)

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

Dracula (1931)

Frankenstein (1931)

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Day of the Dead (1985)

Land of the Dead (2005)

The Thing (1982)

Halloween (1978)

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

The Last House on the Left (1972)

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Scream (1996)

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Insidious (2010)

The Conjuring (2013)

The Babadook (2014)

Get Out (2017)

Hereditary (2018)

Us (2019)

Midsommar (2019)

The Witch (2015)

The Lighthouse (2019)

Gwen (2018)

The Ritual (2017)

Ready or Not (2019)

Annabelle (2014)

Joker (2019)

Works Cited in this Episode

Calafell, B. M. (2016). Monstrosity, performance, and race in contemporary culture. Peter Lang Incorporated, International Academic Publishers.

Phillips, K. R. (1999). A rhetoric of controversy. Western Journal of Communication, 63(4), 488-510.

Phillips, K. (2005). Projected fears: Horror films and American culture. Praeger.

Phillips, K. R. (2012). Dark Directions: Romero, Craven, Carpenter, and the Modern Horror Film. Southern Illinois University Press.

Phillips, K. R. (2018). A place of darkness: The rhetoric of horror in early American cinema. University of Texas Press.

Williams, L. (1991). Body Genres. Film Quarterly, 44(4), 2-13.

Wood, R. (1984). An introduction to the American horror film. Movies and methods, 2, 195-220.

This week, we’re keeping the laughs going with the second installment in our Rhetorics of Comedy series! In this episode, Calvin speaks with two comedians he met doing stand-up in Beijing, who are now performing comedy in other international locales: Greg Hutt (in Sofia, Bulgaria) and Paul Creasy (in London, UK). In each of these conversations, Calvin and our guests discuss their experiences performing comedy for a diverse array of different audiences around the world, exploring how ideas about place and cultural norms affect their processes of writing and performing comedy.

Comedians, Works, and Concepts Referenced in This Episode:

John Mulaney

Shortform vs. longform improv

Zwarte Piet (blackface character associated with the Christmas season in the Netherlands)

The President Show (feat. Trump impressionist Anthony Atamanuik)

Edinburgh Fringe Festival

Tim Vine (UK pun comedian)

Anti-comedy

Neil Hamburger

Zach Galifianakis

James Adomian (US impressionist)

“Knock Yourselves Out”, an article by Ben Schwartz that explains the distinction between “punching down” and “punching up”

Plugs:

Greg Hutt Comedy on Facebook

Paul Creasy (@spanielapplause) on Twitter

Paul Creasy’s YouTube channel

Who says rhetoric can’t make you laugh? And who says making people laugh isn’t rhetorical? Today’s show is the first in a series on Rhetorics of Comedy, in which we interrogate the connections between humor, discourse, and contemporary life.

In Part 1, we bring you a discussion with three local standup comics working in Pittsburgh, PA: Jared Helfer, Tom Higgins, and Lorenzo DiSilvio. We explore the rhetorical dimensions of what they do, ranging from how they define funny (and not funny), their strategies for developing and editing new material, how they negotiate their relationships with audiences and their own “personas” on stage, and their metacognitive processes as writers and performers. We even manage to work in a few jokes!

Jared Helfer on Instagram: @mysticalhoot

Tom Higgins on Twitter: @homtiggins

Check out Lorenzo DiSilvio’s monthly comedy show in Pittsburgh, “A Good Night Out”, which takes place the last Saturday of every month at the Steel City Improv Theater. Tickets for the upcoming Oct. 26 show are available here.

In this re:joinder episode, producers and co-hosts Alex and Calvin are re-joined by contributor and co-producer Sophie to roast two op-eds that criticize proposed plans to lower the price of college tuition and eliminate student loan debt.

In the first article, Who Will Take a Paycut for Free College, published in the august and impartial Wallstreet Journal, author Joseph Epstein argues that we while the promise of free college might sound appealing, when it comes to higher education, “you get what you pay for.” Taking for granted that tuition funding would need to come out of the budgets of higher education institutions themselves, Epstein suggests that universities might do well to eliminate courses in ‘victimology,’ pay professors by the hour, and turn over profits from university sports programs to the federal government to foot the bill of free college for all. Parsing the many cynical assumptions that underpin this argument, Alex, Calvin, and Sophie note that Epstein has handily overlooked the fact that the costs of these proposals would be shouldered by taxes on the wealthy and on Wall Street transactions (a plan that many economists have determined would be sound fiscal policy). Our co-hosts push back on Epstein’s attempt to coerce his audience into believing that free higher education would be bad through a series of “hypotheticals” about what this kind of change would require, and criticize the author’s failure to try and understand the price of attending a modern university.

In the second article, published in Human Events, Mary Claire Amselem argues “no. Period. Your student loan debt should not be forgiven. Period.” Amselem invokes the grim specters of senators Sanders and Warren to blast the notion that we could forgive student loan debt and provide free university education. In a flurry of nominalizations, the author concedes that student loan debt is undesirable and burdensome, but nevertheless maintains that loan forgiveness would create more problems than it solves. Citing imaginary consensus that eliminating student loan debt would be bad policy because it would promote fiscal irresponsibility, Anselem makes the bogus claim that student loan debt is only incurred by those too irresponsible to manage their finances and make smart decisions, and that student loan forgiveness plans would burden the American taxpayer. Our hosts point out that Anselem’s argument relies not only on stark a lack of data about the cost of higher education, but also on the false dichotomies she draws in order to pit the middle class against itself (namely, students vs. taxpayers, and low-wage earners vs. the college educated). Though Amselem would have us believe that low earners will be forced to subsidize other people’s debt under these plans, our hosts once again point out that in fact, the funding for these programs would come from progressive taxation on the wealthy and targeted taxing of Wall Street speculation. Like Epstein, Amselem invokes cynical rhetoric to encourage her readers to see the enemy next them rather than the enemy up above, in an effort to manipulate the audience into seeing things her way.

We round out the episode pointing out that both authors arguments are based not on factual support, but instead on cruel assumptions and an unwillingness to examine the facts and data about the cost of education today, as well as the economic forces that have brought about the student loan crisis in the first place. Both authors seem to overlook the structural inequalities that have worked to create the well-educated but low earning college graduates lambasted in the articles. We conclude that both athour’s arguments attempt to confirm people’s worst suspicions about higher education, and we question the material interests working behind the scenes at both publications that are invested in promoting these cynical perspectives.

Works and Concepts Cited in this Episode

Amselem, M. C. (2019, 28 June). No, your student loans should not be forgiven. Human Events. Retrieved from: https://humanevents.com/2019/06/28/no-your-student-loans-should-not-be-forgiven/

Epstein, J. (2019, 17 July). Who’ll take a pay cut for free college? The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/wholl-take-a-pay-cut-for-free-college-11563404022?mod=rsswn

Grewal, D. (2012, 10 Apr.). How wealth reduces compassion: As riches grow, empathy for others seems to decline. Scientific American. Retrieved from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/

Piff, P. K., Stancato, D.M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Mar. 2012, 109(11), pp. 4086-4091. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1118373109

Stiglitz, J. E. (2014). Reforming taxation to promote growth and equity. Roosevelt Institute. Retrieved from: https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Stiglitz_Reforming_Taxation_White_Paper_Roosevelt_Institute.pdf [White paper from Nobel Laureate and economist Joseph Stiglitz advocating for the utility of progressive taxation policies and financial transaction taxes]

On today’s show, Alex and Calvin discuss demagoguery and far-right rhetoric with CV Vitolo-Haddad, a doctoral candidate in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication and the Director of Debate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In particular, we discuss CV’s recent publication in Rhetoric Society Quarterly - “The Blood of Patriots: Symbolic Violence and “The West” - which focuses on the rhetoric of the far-right group known as the “Proud Boys.”

This article explores how the Proud Boys are motivated by an imagined, at-risk spatial terrain of whiteness known as “the West” (or “Western civilization”). In our discussion, CV explains what such groups’ demagogic rhetoric can teach us about the paradoxes of demagoguery more broadly: from their vacillation between a rhetoric of strength and violence to one of victimization and precarity, to their attachment to “a libertarian aesthetic of freedom” which often occludes their truly authoritarian politics. We also discuss the pros and cons of publicly debating the far-right, with CV sharing some best practices from direct experience.

Works & Concepts Cited in this Episode

Roberts-Miller, P. (2017). Demagoguery and democracy. The Experiment.

Roberts-Miller, P. (2019). Rhetoric and demagoguery. SIU Press.

Vitolo-Haddad, C. V. (2019). The blood of patriots: Symbolic violence and “the west”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 49(3), 280-296.

Walden, D. (2018, 28 June). Dismantling the “west.” Current Affairs. Retrieved from: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/dismantling-the-west

CV’s Twitter

CV’s Medium

In this re:blurb episode, we explore the history and theory of the rhetorical concept of genre. First, we take a tour through the classical genres of forensic, deliberative, and epideictic speech, before moving on to contemporary theories about genres’ profound and complex social functions. In doing so, we describe how genres mediate everyday social interactions through communicative rules and norms, as well as how political power dynamics affect gatekeepers’ decisions about what kinds of practices are allowable within particular genres.

Then, we’re joined by Martha Sue Karnes, a PhD student in the Department of Rhetoric and Writing at The University of Texas at Austin, to discuss the genre-based controversy surrounding the hit song “Old Town Road” by Lil Nas X. OTR was notoriously removed from Billboard’s Hot Country Songs chart because, according to Billboard, it did not adhere to the genre norms of country music. Through this analysis, we take a closer look at the kinds of social actions that Lil Nas X has accomplished through “Old Town Road” over the course of its viral popularity — actions which may help explain why the song has maintained its place at the top of the charts for 17 weeks running.

“Old Town Road” Videos Referenced:

Original version

Remix feat. Billy Ray Cyrus

Remix feat. Billy Ray Cyrus, Young Thug, & Mason Ramsey

OTR Area 51 Video

Works and Concepts Cited in this Episode:

Alvarez, S. (2017). Latinx and Latin American Community Literacy Practices en Confianza. Composition Studies, 45(2), 219-269.

Bawarshi, A. (2016). Beyond the genre fixation: A translingual perspective on genre. College English, 78(3), 243-249.

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written communication, 10(4), 475-509.

Bhatia, V. K. (1997). The power and politics of genre. World Englishes, 16(3), 359-371.

Caramanica, Jon. (2019, 17 Apr.). “A History of Country-Rap in 29 Songs.” The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/arts/music/country-rap-playlist.html

DeNatale, Dave “Dino”. (2019, 29 May.) “WATCH I Lil Nas X gives performance of 'Old Town Road' for students at Lander Elementary School in Mayfield Heights.” WKYC 3. Retrieved from: https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/watch-lil-nas-x-gives-performance-of-old-town-road-for-students-at-lander-elementary-school-in-mayfield-heights/95-c04e8cdb-41b2-48f5-bb05-b112126a9cf9

Gonzales, L. (2015). Multimodality, translingualism, and rhetorical genre studies. Composition Forum, 31.

Hart, R. P., & Dillard, C.L. (2001) Deliberative genre. In T. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (pp. 209-217). Oxford University Press.

Leight, E. (2019, 26 Mar.). How Lil Nas X’s “Old Town Road” was a country hit. Then country changed its mind. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/lil-nas-x-old-town-road-810844/

Lihua, L. (2010). Interpersonal rhetoric in the editorials of China Daily: A generic perspective. Peter Lang.

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly journal of speech, 70(2), 151-167.

Morrow, T. S. (2001) Forensic genre. In T. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (pp. 314-321). Oxford University Press.

Rounsaville, A. (2017). Genre repertoires from below: How one writer built and moved a writing life across generations, borders, and communities. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(3), 317-340.

Sisario, Ben. (2019, 5 Apr.). “Lil Nas X Added Billy Ray Cyrus to ‘Old Town Road.’ Is It Country Enough for Billboard Now?” The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/business/media/lil-nas-x-billy-ray-cyrus-billboard.html

Too, Y. L. (2001). Epideictic genre. In T. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (pp. 251-257). Oxford University Press.

On today’s show, we’re getting in the summer spirit by firing up the grill and roasting some more scorching hot bad takes with another installment in our re:joinder series. In this episode, Alex and Calvin dish over two articles that make a similar specious presumption: universities are suppressing freedom of speech, and thus need to be stripped of their funding altogether. Or, at least the humanities disciplines do.

The first article comes to us from Quillette, entitled “Federal Funding, the First Amendment, and Free Speech on Campus” by Lauren Cooley. In it, Cooley makes the argument that universities which receive federal research dollars become extensions of the federal government, and are thus bound by the same first amendment laws laid out in the U.S. constitution - if true, this would essentially make it unconstitutional for such a university to deny or cancel invited speakers to college campuses. Calvin and Alex parse through some of the genuine free speech concerns laid out by the argument, while also acknowledging its flaws and contradictions - primarily, that the only examples given of “stifled” speech are already-famous people with large platforms who are bankrolled by major interest groups, as well as the stated caveat that private universities (such as religious institutions) should be conveniently exempted from adherence to first amendment principles. The fatal contradiction, however, comes from the author’s primary suggestion that President Trump can (and should) use his executive authority to cut off research funding for universities who refuse to provide a platform for the likes of Milo Yiannopolous or Peter Thiel - or, in other words, use government power to stifle and coerce speech practices on college campuses.

The second, slightly more extreme article comes from Roger Kimball via the New York Post, entitled “PC Insanity May Mean the End of American Universities.” Here, Kimball delivers a salvo of garbled metaphors and inflammatory rantings about the “violence” being committed by politically correct leftists, who Kimball claims are chilling the speech of conservative voices on college campuses. In addition to pointing out how the author over-states the “free speech problem” to an extreme degree, Calvin and Alex question his incredible assumption that this “crisis” represents “a breakdown in the basic logic of civilization.” Additionally, and perhaps most frighteningly, Kimball more explicitly calls for universities - and humanities disciplines in particular - to be called to heel through “starving” them of their funding.

We conclude our roast of these terrible takes with a meditation on the politics of “free speech” on campuses and attempts to stifle and undermine humanities research, tracing the roots of “anti-PC” reactionary conservatism in the self-contradicting ideologies of logical positivism and “Western civilization” fetishism.

Cover image source

This week’s show features a discussion about collective action, solidarity, and labor organizing with Penn State English PhD Student and organizer Doug Kulchar. In this conversation, Calvin and Alex talk with Doug about methods of leveraging employee power in workplaces, why bosses and other people in positions of power are often opposed to unions, and Doug’s own experience organizing a graduate student union campaign at Penn State. Through these discussions, we touch on the ways in which concepts such as literacy, translation, and rhetorical listening can help us understand the skills necessary to build effective social movements around shared problems.

Connect with Doug on Twitter: @dkulchar

Works and Concepts Cited in this Episode

Burke, K. (1965). Terministic screens. In Proceedings of the American Catholic philosophical association, 39, pp. 87-102.

Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press.

[Contains an articulation of the concept “identification”]

Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Herder.

Glenn, C., & Ratcliffe, K. (2011). Introduction: Why silence and listening are important rhetorical arts. In Silence and listening as rhetorical arts (pp. 1-19). Southern Illinois University Press.

Schaeffer, J. D. (2004). Sensus communis. Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism, 278.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The german ideology (Vol. 1). International Publishers Co.

Ratcliffe, K. (1999). Rhetorical Listening: A Trope for Interpretive Invention and a" Code of Cross-Cultural Conduct". College Composition and Communication, 51(2), 195-224.

Ratcliffe, K. (2005). Rhetorical listening: Identification, gender, whiteness. SIU Press.

Schneider, S.A. (2014). You can’t padlock an idea: Rhetorical education at the Highlander Folk School, 1932-1961. Univ of South Carolina Press, 2014.

Wikipedia article on the Bryn Mawr Summer School for Women Workers in Industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryn_Mawr_Summer_School_for_Women_Workers_in_Industry

Further Reading

Brandt, Deborah. (2001). Literacy in American Lives. Cambridge University Press.

Castells, Manuel. (2013) Communication Power. Oxford University Press.

Cushman, E. (1996). The rhetorician as an agent of social change. College Composition and Communication, 47(1), pp. 7–28.

Gee, J.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Taylor & Francis.

Gere, A.R. (1994). Kitchen tables and rented rooms: The extracurriculum of composition. College Composition and Communication, 45(1), pp. 75–92.

Hampton, F. (1969). Power anywhere where there’s people. Speech delivered at Olivet Church. Retrieved from: https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/fhamptonspeech.html

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

Kelley, R.D.G. (2015). Hammer and hoe: Alabama communists during the great depression. UNC Press Books.

Latour, Bruno. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.

Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern.” Critical Inquiry, 30(2), pp. 225–48.

May, M.S. (2013). Soapbox rebellion: The Hobo Orator Union and the free speech fights of the Industrial Workers of the World, 1909-1916. University of Alabama Press.

Polletta, F. (2019). It was like a fever. University of Chicago Press.

Rai, C. (2016). Democracy’s lot: Rhetoric, publics, and the places of invention. University of Alabama Press.

Scott, T. (2009). Dangerous writing: Understanding the political economy of composition. Utah State University Press.

Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. SIU Press.

Spinuzzi, C. (2015). All edge: Inside the new workplace networks. University of Chicago Press.

Wan, A.J. (2014). Producing good citizens: Literacy training in anxious times. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Wenger, E. (1999) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.