Twentieth-Century Roots of Rhetorical Studies:

328 Pages·2001·1.66 MB·English

by  Jim A. Kuypers

TWENTIETH-CENTURY
ROOTS OF
RHETORICAL STUDIES

TWENTIETH-CENTURY
ROOTS OF
RHETORICAL STUDIES
E J A. K
DITED BY IM UYPERS
A K
AND NDREW ING
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Twentieth-centuryrootsofrhetoricalstudies / editedbyJimA.KuypersandAndrewKing.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0–275–96420–5(alk.paper)
1. Rhetoric. 2. Oralcommunication. I. Kuypers,JimA. II. King,Andrew,1947–
PN4121.T94 2001
808—dc21 00–058018
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataisavailable.
Copyright(cid:1)2001byJimA.KuypersandAndrewKing
Allrightsreserved.Noportionofthisbookmaybe
reproduced,byanyprocessortechnique,without
theexpresswrittenconsentofthepublisher.
LibraryofCongressCatalogCardNumber:00–058018
ISBN:0–275–96420–5
Firstpublishedin2001
PraegerPublishers,88PostRoadWest,Westport,CT06881
AnimprintofGreenwoodPublishingGroup,Inc.
www.praeger.com
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
TM
Thepaperusedinthisbookcomplieswiththe
PermanentPaperStandardissuedbytheNational
InformationStandardsOrganization(Z39.48–1984).
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To the Founders and the Builders

Contents
Introduction: Our Roots Are Strong and Deep ix
Andrew King and Jim A. Kuypers
1 Everett Lee Hunt and the Humanistic Spirit of Rhetoric 1
Theodore Otto Windt, Jr.
2 Henry Lee Ewbank, Sr.: Teacher of Teachers of Speech 31
Henry L. Ewbank, Jr.
3 Hoyt Hopewell Hudson’s Nuclear Rhetoric 71
Jim A. Kuypers
4 Wilbur Samuel Howell: The Trilogy of Rhetoric, Logic, and
Science 103
John E. Tapia
5 Marie Hochmuth Nichols: Voice of Rationality in the Humane
Tradition of Rhetoric and Criticism 123
John H. Patton
6 Waldo Braden: The Critic as Outsider 143
Andrew King
viii Contents
7 Carroll C. Arnold: Rhetorical Criticism at the Intersection of
Theory, Practice, and Pedagogy 157
Thomas W. Benson
8 Robert Gray Gunderson: The Historian as Civic Rhetorician 175
Kurt Ritter
9 Ernest G. Bormann: Roots, Revelations, and Results of
Symbolic Convergence Theory 211
Moya Ann Ball
10 Edwin Black on the Powers of the Rhetorical Critic 235
Fred J. Kauffeld
11 Lloyd F. Bitzer: Rhetorical Situation, Public Knowledge, and
Audience Dynamics 275
Marilyn J. Young
Index 303
About the Editors and Contributors 307
Introduction: Our Roots Are Strong and
Deep
ANDREW KING AND JIM A. KUYPERS
Misunderstandingoftheterm“rhetoric”iscommonamongtheAmericanpublic,
yet our communication discipline graduated 689,917 studentswithbachelorde-
grees, 67,099 students with master’s degrees, and 4,126 students with Ph.D.
degreesintheyearsbetween1973and1992.1Ifoneweretoaddtheothereight
decades of the twentieth century, the total could well reach 2 million bachelor
degrees,perhaps200,000M.A.degrees,andmorethan10,000doctoraldegrees.
Manyofthesestudentsmoveintojournalism,government,business,publishing,
and politics, as well as the bustling academy. Given these huge numbers of
enlightened communicators, one might expect that rhetoric would become an
honored disciplinary and professional term. Why it is not an honored term re-
mains mysterious. Despite our professed best efforts the derogatory definition
of rhetoric as insincere words and inflated style remains the predominantusage
both inside and beyond the academy. Moreover, even in communication class-
rooms students often exhibit a sketchy knowledge of the discipline. Few un-
dergraduates can name more than a handful of the major figures of our
discipline’s history. Too often our survey courses teach Aristotle and Bacon,
BurkeandBaudrillardbutignoreourownfounders.Professorsthemselvesprop-
agate an incomplete and inaccurate picture of our discipline.
UNTANGLING THE ROOTS OF OUR PAST PRACTICES
Goaded by this confusion, we offer this book as yet another attempt to set
therecordstraightaboutthetheoryandpracticeofrhetoric.Weofferacollection
of chapters, each of which is dedicated to assessing the work of a twentieth-
x Introduction
century rhetorical scholar. Our mission is to convey each scholar’s particular
understanding of rhetorical studies. We do not attempt an historical or biblio-
graphic journey through each scholar’s life. Every chapter, rather, attempts a
distillation of a particular scholar’s life work. The communication discipline
often features the work of others whose background and training have little to
dowithourdiscipline;inwhatsomemaywellconsideraradicalturn,weintend
to acclaim the work of our own thinkers. In this book we honor and explore
the individual visions of eleven rhetorical scholars. In so doing, we hope to
expand our disciplinary understanding of the term “rhetoric” and to simultane-
ously share with our readers the rich complexity of our early discipline’s un-
derstandingofthenatureofrhetoric.Inthismannerwealsohopetoaccomplish
several objectives.
To Dispel a Myth
Our first objective is to dispel the myth that the discipline of speech com-
munication was spawned from a monolithic center, a method unhappily named
neo-Aristotelianism. Edwin Black’s Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method is
oftencitedasadefinitiveproofforthemonolithicview,andthisbook’schapter
on Black neatly sums this orthodox point of view. His book is regularly used
to justify the departurefromso-calledconfiningneo-Aristotelianstandards.Itis
well known that Black attacked, at times scathingly, the tradition of rhetorical
scholarship prior to 1965. He believed that“neo-Aristoteliansignoretheimpact
of thediscourseon rhetoricalconventions,itscapacityofdisposinganaudience
to expect certain ways of arguing and certain kinds of justifications in later
discoursesthatthey encounter,evenondifferentsubjects.”2AsThomasBenson
haswritten:“Formanyyoungeracademics,suspiciousthatneo-Aristoteliancrit-
icism had become ideologically conservative, Black’s book took on a force he
had perhaps not intended it to have.”3 It is unfortunate, however, that so many
otherssinceBlackhavecontinuedtooverstatethecase.Take,forinstance,these
lines penned by Martin Medhurst, who, writing of the Brigance volumes of A
History and Criticism of American Public Address, stated:
[V]irtually no progress in critical methodology had been made from the publication of
Wichelns’s essay in 1925. Brigance admits as much in his preface when, concerning
critical methodology, he notes: “Some prefer the pure Aristotelian pattern. Someprefer
theirAristotelianismdiluted.Othersabjureitaltogether.”However,evenacasualreading
reveals that Aristotelianism or neo-Aristotelianism dominates both volumes. Worseyet,
it is a bastardized form of Aristotelianism that Aristotle, himself, probably would not
recognize.IngeneralthecontributorsreducedAristotle’sRhetorictocommentaryonthe
three types of oratory (deliberative, forensic, and epideictic), thefivecanonsofrhetoric
(invention,disposition,style,memory,anddelivery)andthethreemodesofproof(ethos,
pathos, and logos), with some historical background on speech training andpreparation
added for good measure.4