1 CMS 390J: Pragmatism and Rhetoric University of Texas at Austin Spring 2014 Instructor: Dr. Scott R. Stroud Phone: 512-471-6561 Email: sstroud@austin.utexas.edu Class Time: Tu 6:30-9:30 pm Classroom: CMA A3.134 Class Website: on Blackboard Office: CMA 7.138a Office Hours: T/Th 1-2:30pm and by appointment Unique Number: 07795 Course Description: This course will examine what American pragmatism—both as a tradition of thought and as a method of inquiry—has to offer those engaged in the study of rhetoric. We will examine the thought of classical and modern pragmatists in an attempt to figure out what pragmatism means for theories of rhetoric and communication, ideal senses of community, the art of rhetoric, as well as method in the study of rhetoric. Attention will be paid to the advantages pragmatism might offer as a guiding theory compared to standard approaches to the study of rhetoric. The thought of Charles S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and Richard Rorty will assume particular prominence in this course. We will also look at contemporary pragmatists in rhetoric, communication studies, philosophy, and beyond to see how they engage the ideas of rhetoric and communication. Students will be expected to emerge from this course with a grasp of the basic problematics driving classical and modern pragmatism, as well as how these relate to issues in rhetoric and in communication studies. Students are encouraged to link pragmatism to their particular research interests, rhetorical artifacts, or methods of rhetorical study in the course’s culminating research paper assignment. A note about our classroom environment. Since this is a seminar, I will run this class as a discussion among equals as much as I can. I will try to make it fun, engaging, and lighthearted. But I will treat you as “argumentative equals.” While we may not be total equals in terms of knowledge of the course subject matter, we are equals in being able to assert, challenge, and defend arguments. What this practically means is that I will often try to argue, refute, and confound your arguments (and asserted claims) as I would do to an academic colleague in a professional discussion. Do not take this personally. One does not learn boxing or pottery making by staring at a chalkboard, and one will only become better at making arguments though the experience of arguing. Some of our discussions will be aimed at understanding a text and its arguments. But other significant parts of our discussion will be aimed at challenging, appropriating, or evaluating those arguments. I will often help you by playing devil’s advocate for the text/author/position in question, even if I do not ultimately find that argument persuasive. This is done simply to get the most out of our engagement with primary sources that are all too easy to dismiss because of their temporal distance. This is also done to make you better at argument. 2 Required Texts: John J. McDermott (Ed.), The Writings of William James: A Comprehensive Edition, University of Chicago Press, 1978, WWJ. Larry Hickman & Thomas M. Alexander (Eds.), The Essential Dewey, Volume 1: Pragmatism, Education, Democracy, Indiana University Press, 1998, ED1. Larry Hickman & Thomas M. Alexander (Eds.), The Essential Dewey, Volume 2: Ethics, Logic, Psychology, Indiana University Press, 1998, ED2. John Dewey, Art as Experience, Perigee Trade, 2005, AE. John Dewey, The Public & Its Problems, Swallow Press, 1954, PP. John Dewey, Experience and Nature, Dover Publications, 2000, EN. Robert Danisch, Pragmatism, Democracy, and the Necessity of Rhetoric, University of South Carolina Press, 2007, (selections). Course Reader (available at Jenn’s Copy across from CMA), CR. Assignments: Participation Reading Response Papers Discussion Presentation Research Paper Proposal Research Paper 15% 25% 10% 5% 45% Grading: 93-100% = A 90-92% = A- 87-89% = B+ 83-86% = B 80-82% = B- 77-79% = C+ 73-76% = C 70-72% = C- 67-69% = D+ 63-66% = D 60-62% = D- 59 and below = F Assignment Descriptions: This class is a seminar. As such, I expect you to listen attentively while I discuss certain points and to engage in productive, on-topic comments while we are discussing various issues and readings. Come to class having done the reading and ready to talk about what you understand and what you don’t. My observations of your role in the classroom community will constitute your participation grade. For each class session (save our first meeting), please prepare a reading response paper. These should be 1-2 pages in length (12 pt font, double-spaced, 1” margins, with just your name at the top). I will not prepare discussion questions in advance of each class. Instead, I want you to begin to sense the important issues and moves in each piece on your own. Your response paper can be your critical (meaning argumentatively skilled and interesting) response to any part of the assigned reading(s) for that class. Another way to think of these would be as chances to connect a topic in the reading to some issue in rhetorical theory or practice. I will evaluate these papers based upon their engagement 3 with substantive points in the reading, as well as the depth of critical thought displayed (albeit for a paper of this length). What we don’t want to do on these papers, say, is to link James’ essay to something you witnessed on our family vacation, to write about our emotional reaction to his point, etc. Argue something. You argue something, don’t burn up all your space by throwing quotations or airy introductions in there. Try to argue something interesting or important. Also, keep the sort of formal voice you would have in an academic piece—these are not article length pieces, but the sort of critical thinking and argument should be of the same cloth. Out of the 15 weeks this course meets, you must turn in 7 of these reading response papers (I will count the 7 best scores if you turn in more). Over the course of the semester, each student will be a “discussion leader” for one session. There will be (at most) one student discussion leader per section. For that week, this student will not need to prepare a reading response paper. Instead, they will lead a 45 minute discussion presentation. You will choose some subset of the assigned readings for that day, present thoughts on it, and lead a discussion about it. This will involve you presenting some main points of the reading(s) and then critically analyzing them. If you want to link the reading(s) in question to larger concerns in rhetoric, communication, or to other class readings, that is fine. Also be prepared to stimulate class discussion for a while. We will start the process of picking days for presentations in the second class session. Each student will write a research paper (15-25 pages) dealing with a significant issue involving pragmatism and rhetoric/communication. This paper must include research outside of assigned course materials and must involve critical reflection and argument. You must inform me (in a 1-2 page document) of your proposed topic for feedback on its suitability. This is your chance to link discussed ideas in pragmatism to your own areas of study or to expand on something that only received a bit of treatment in the course. More details concerning this paper will follow in class. It would be a good idea to share drafts of your paper with your classmates to get their feedback on it, although I will not require this. Ideally, your final paper should be ready for submission to a regional or national conference in communication studies or related discipline. Your completed research paper will be due May 10, noon, by email. Notes to Syllabus: -Due dates: assignments (except the final paper) must meet the due dates or be subject to a 20% penalty if turned in within a week (after that, a zero must be recorded). No late final papers will be accepted. Do not feed habits of procrastination, they will turn on you. -The university policy on plagiarism will be strictly enforced. Using the text or ideas of someone else in your papers or presentations without clearly citing them is the stealing of those words or ideas, and significant cases will result in an “F” for the course (less significant cases will result in an “F” on the assignment). Using written work you prepared for other courses is also not allowed. As graduate students, I expect that none of you will resort to cheating on papers or presentations in this course. -Grading: 93-100% = A 0-92% = A- 87-89% = B+ 83-86% = B 80-82% = B- 77-79% = C+ 73-76% = C 70-72% = C- 67-69% = D+ 63-66% = D 60-62% = D- 59 and below = F 4 Disability Statement: Students with disabilities who require special accommodations need to get a letter that documents the disability from the Services for Students with Disabilities area of the Office of the Dean of Students (471-6259 voice or 471-4641 TTY for users who are deaf or hard of hearing). This letter should be presented to the instructor in each course at the beginning of the semester and accommodations needed should be discussed at that time. Five business days before an exam the student should remind the instructor of any testing accommodations that will be needed. Blackboard: This course uses Blackboard, a Web-based course management system in which a passwordprotected site is created for each course. Blackboard is available at http://courses.utexas.edu. I will use Blackboard to distribute handouts, as well as to post any additional information or comments. Also, I encourage you to post questions or comments on the “discussion board” part of Blackboard. This can only be read by students in this class and it can count as “participation” to some extent if you sign your comments (anonymous posts can’t be linked to a student name, obviously). I’ll try to respond to these comments and questions in a timely manner. Course Calendar The listed readings are subject to change with adequate notice. (1) January 14 Pragmatism and Charles S. Peirce on Communication Larry Hickman, “Why American Philosophy? Why Now?” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 1(1), 2009, 1-3. Peter Simonson, “Varieties of Pragmatism and Communication: Visions and Revisions from Peirce to Peters,” In D. K. Perry (Ed.), American Pragmatism and Communication Research. LEA, 2001. Charles S. Peirce, “The Fixation of Belief,” “How to make our Ideas Clear,” In N. Houser & C. Kloesel, The Essential Peirce, Volume 1 (1867-1893), Indiana University Press, 1992. Mats Bergman, “Experience, Purpose, and the Value of Vagueness: On C. S. Peirce’s Contribution to the Philosophy of Communication,” Communication Theory, 19, 2009, 248–277. Vincent Colapietro, “C. S. Peirce’s Rhetorical Turn,” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 43, (1), 2007, 16-52. [OPTIONAL] Louis Menand, “An Introduction to Pragmatism,” Pragmatism: A Reader, Vintage, 1997. [OPTIONAL] Larry Hickman, “Classical Pragmatism: Waiting at the End of the Road,” Pragmatism as PostPostmodernism: Lessons from John Dewey, Fordham UP, 2007. [OPTIONAL] 5 Douglas Anderson, “Some Preliminary Remarks on the Origins of Pragmatism,” Philosophy Americana, Fordham UP, 2006. [OPTIONAL] (2) January 21 William James on Pragmatism, Truth, and Rhetoric William James, “The Present Dilemma in Philosophy,” “What Pragmatism Means,” “Pragmatism's Conception of Truth,” Pragmatism, 1907. WWJ 362-389, 429-442, 461-472 William James, “The Will to Believe” (1896), “Faith and the Right to Believe” (1911), WWJ 717-741. Paul Stob, “Empowering a Pragmatic Public,” William James and the Art of Popular Statement, Michigan State University Press, 2013. Robert Danisch, “William James on Contingency, Plurality, and Belief: Toward a Pragmatist Philosophy of Rhetoric,” Pragmatism, Democracy, and the Necessity of Rhetoric, University of South Carolina Press, 2007. (3) January 28 William James on Habit, Consciousness, and Radical Empiricism William James, “Habit” (1893), “The Stream of Thought” (1890), “Does Consciousness Exist?” (1904), “A World of Pure Experience” (1904), WWJ 9-21, 21-74, 169-183, 194-214. Chris Russill, “The Road Not Taken: William James’s Radical Empiricism and Communication Theory,” Communication Review, 8, 2005, 277-305. Gregory J. Shepherd, “Pragmatism and Tragedy, Communication and Hope: A Summary Story.” In D. K. Perry (ed), American Pragmatism and Communication Research, LEA, 2001. (4) February 4 William James on the Ideal, Orientation, and Ethics William James, “On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings” (1899), “What Makes a Life Significant” (1899), “The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life” (1891), WWJ 610-660. William James, “The Gospel of Relaxation,” Talks to Teachers on Psychology and to Students on Life's Ideals, 1899. Paul Stob, “Talking to Teachers,” William James and the Art of Popular Statement, Michigan State University Press, 2013. Scott R. Stroud, “William James and the Impetus of Stoic Rhetoric,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 45 (3), 246-268. Paul Stob, “Pragmatism, Experience, and William James’s Politics of Blindness,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 44, 2011, 228-249. 6 M. C. Otto, “On a Certain Blindness in William James,” Ethics, 53, 1943, 184-191. [OPTIONAL] Issac E. Catt, “The ‘Cash Value’ of Communication,” In L. Langsdorf & A. R. Smith (eds.), Recovering Pragmatism’s Voice, SUNY, 1995. [OPTIONAL] William J. Leonhirth, “William James and the Uncertain Universe.” In D. K. Perry (ed), American Pragmatism and Communication Research, LEA, 2001. [OPTIONAL] Paul Stob, “Lonely Courage, Commemorative Confrontation, and Communal Therapy: William James Remembers the Massachusetts 54th,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 98 (3), 2012, 249-271. [OPTIONAL] (5) February 11 John Dewey on Experience, Value, and Activity John Dewey, “The Postulate of Immediate Empiricism” (1905), ED1 115-119. John Dewey, “Experience and Philosophic Method,“ “Experience as Precarious and as Stable,” “Nature, Ends and Histories,” “Existence, Value and Criticism,” Experience and Nature, 1925, EN Chapters 1-3, 10 John Dewey, “From Absolutism to Experimentalism” (1930), ED1 14-21. [OPTIONAL] (6) February 18 John Dewey’s Concepts of Inquiry, Reflective Thinking, and Habit John Dewey, “The Pattern of Inquiry,” Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, 1938, ED2 169-179. John Dewey, “The Existential Matrix of Inquiry: Cultural,” Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, 1938, ED2 78-87. John Dewey, “Introduction,” “The Place of Habit in Conduct,” Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology, 1922, ED2 19-49. John Dewey, “Moral Judgment and Knowledge,” “The Moral Self,” Ethics, 1932, ED2 328-354. Robert Danisch, “John Dewey on Communication and the Practical Arts: A History of Philosophy and a Return to Rhetoric,” Pragmatism, Democracy, and the Necessity of Rhetoric, University of South Carolina Press, 2007. John Dewey, “Analysis of Reflective Thinking,” How We Think, 1933, ED2 137-144. [OPTIONAL] 7 (7) February 25 John Dewey on Inquiry, Community, and the Public Walter Lippmann, “The World Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads,” “The Entering Wedge,” “Intelligence Work,” “The Appeal to the Public,” “The Appeal to Reason,” Public Opinion, Free Press, 1922/1966. John Dewey, “Review of Public Opinion” (1922). John Dewey, “Eclipse of the Public,” “Search for the Great Community,” The Public and Its Problems, 1927, PP Chapters 4 and 5. John Dewey, “Democracy is Radical” (1937), “Creative Democracy—The Task Before Us” (1939), ED1 337-343. John Dewey, “Education as a Necessity of Life,” “The Democratic Conception in Education” (stop at pg 84), Democracy and Education, Dover, 1916/2004. Sue Curry Jansen, “Phantom Conflict: Lippmann, Dewey, and the Fate of the Public in Modern Society,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6, 2009, 221-245. [OPTIONAL] (8) March 4 John Dewey on Eloquence and Communication Nathan Crick, “Rhetoric and Aesthetics,” Democracy and Rhetoric: John Dewey on the Arts of Becoming, University of South Carolina Press, 2010. Christopher L. Johnstone, “Dewey, Ethics, and Rhetoric: Toward a Contemporary Conception of Practical Wisdom,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 16, 1983, 185–207. Ronald W. Greene, “John Dewey’s Eloquent Citizen: Communication, Judgment, and Postmodern Capitalism,” Argumentation and Advocacy, 39, 2003, 189–200. Scott R. Stroud, “Mindful Argument, Deweyan Pragmatism, and the Ideal of Democracy,” Controversia, 7, 2011, 15-33. Scott R. Stroud, “Selling Democracy and the Rhetorical Habits of Synthetic Conflict: John Dewey as Pragmatic Rhetor in China,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 16 (1), 2013, 97-132. March 10-15 – Spring Break – No Class – Be Pragmatic (9) March 18 John Dewey on Art and Aesthetic Experience John Dewey, “Experience, Nature and Art,” Experience and Nature, 1925, EN Chapter 9 8 John Dewey, Art as Experience, Perigee, 1934/1980, AE Chapters 1-6, 12, 14. Richard Shusterman, “The End of Aesthetic Experience,” Journal of Aesthetic and Art Criticism, 55, 1997, 29-41. [OPTIONAL] Scott R. Stroud, “Reflection and Moral Value in Aesthetic Experience,” John Dewey and the Artful Life, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011. [OPTIONAL] (10) March 25 John Dewey and the Art of Communication John Dewey, “Nature, Communication and Meaning,” Experience and Nature, 1925, EN Chapter 5. Scott R. Stroud, “John Dewey and the Question of Artful Communication,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41, 2008, 153-183. Joli Jensen, “Art as Experience: John Dewey’s Aesthetics,” “Conclusion: The Value of Expressive Logic,” Is Art Good for Us? Beliefs about High Culture in American Life, Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Nathan Crick, “John Dewey’s Aesthetics of Communication,” Southern Journal of Communication, 69, 2004, 303-319. [OPTIONAL] Nathan Crick, “’A Capital and Novel Argument’: Charles Darwin’s Notebooks and the Productivity of Rhetorical Consciousness,” Quarterly Jounal of Speech, 91, 2005, 337-364. [OPTIONAL] (11) April 1 Richard Rorty, Neopragmatism, and Rhetoric Richard Rorty, “Pragmatism as Romantic Polytheism,” “Pragmatism and Romanticism,” “Analytic and Conversational Philosophy,” Philosophy as Cultural Politics: Philosophical Papers, Volume 4, Cambridge, 2007, 26-41, 105-130. Richard Rorty, “Private Irony and Liberal Hope,” Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Cambridge, 1989. Robert Danisch, “The Absence of Rhetorical Theory in Richard Rorty’s Linguistic Pragmatism,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 46 (2), 2013, 156-181. Scott R. Stroud, “Comprehensive Rhetorical Pluralism and the Demands of Democratic Discourse: Partisan Perfect Reasoning, Pragmatism, and the Freeing Solvent of Jaina Logic,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, forthcoming. Arthur P. Bochner and Joanne B. Waugh, “Talking-With as a Model for Writing-About” Implications of Rortyean Pragmatism.” In L. Langsdorf & A. R. Smith (eds.), Recovering Pragmatism’s Voice, SUNY, 1995. [OPTIONAL] 9 Janet S. Horne, “Changing the Subject: Rorty and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory.” In L. Langsdorf & A. R. Smith (eds.), Recovering Pragmatism’s Voice, SUNY, 1995. [OPTIONAL] Richard Rorty, “Introduction: Pragmatism and Philosophy,” Consequences of Pragmatism, Minnesota, 1982. [OPTIONAL] (12) April 8 Stanley Fish, Speech, and Rhetoric Stanley Fish, “Rhetoric,” from The Rhetorical Tradition (Bizzell & Herzberg). Stanley Fish, “Boutique Multiculturalism,” “A Wolf in Reason’s Clothing,” “Truth and Toilets,” The Trouble with Principle, Harvard University Press, 2001. Stanley Fish, “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too,” “Fish Tales: A Conversation with ‘The Contemporary Sophist,” There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too, Oxford University Press, 1994. Robert Danisch, “Stanley Fish is not a Sophist: The Difference between Skeptical and Prudential Versions of Rhetorical Pragmatism,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42 (5), 2012, 405-423. **Research paper proposal due by Thursday, April 10th by 8pm via email** (13) April 15 Pragmatism, Meliorism, and Rhetoric Scott R. Stroud, “What Does Pragmatic Meliorism Mean for Rhetoric?” Western Journal of Communication, 74, 2010, 43-60. James O. Pawelski, “Mitigation and Construction: Toward a Balanced Meliorism.” Paper presented at the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy Annual Meeting, March 9-11, 2006, San Antonio. James O. Pawelski, “William James, Positive Psychology, and Healthy-Mindedness,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 17, 2003, 53-67. Edward Schiappa, “The Impossible Dream of Representational Correctness,” “Beyond Representational Correctness: Five Suggestions,” Beyond Representational Correctness, SUNY, 2008. Barbara Ehrenreich, “Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness,” “Postscript on Post-Positive Thinking,” Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking has Undermined America, Metropolitan, 2009. James A. Mackin, Jr., “Rhetoric, Pragmatism, and Practical Wisdom.” In R. A. Cherwitz (Ed.), Rhetoric and Philosophy, LEA, 1990. [OPTIONAL] 10 Tadd Ruetenik, “Social Meliorism in the Religious Pragmatism of William James,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 19, 2005, 238-249. [OPTIONAL] Daniel Sommer Robison, “A Critique of Meliorism,” International Journal of Ethics, 34, 1924, 175-194. [OPTIONAL] (14) April 22 Kenneth Burke and Pragmatism Kenneth Burke, “The Nature of Art under Capitalism,” “Intelligence as a Good,” “Liberalism’s Family Tree,” The Philosophy of Literary Form, University of California Press, 1973. Kenneth Burke, “On Interpretation,” Permanence and Change, University of California Press, 1954. David L. Hildebrand, “Was Kenneth Burke a Pragmatist?” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 31, 1995, 632-657. Paul Stob, “’Terministic Screens,’ Social Constructionism, and the Language of Experience: Kenneth Burke’s Utilization of William James,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41, 2008, 130-152. Scott R. Stroud, “John Dewey, Kenneth Burke, and the Role of Orientation in Rhetoric,” Trained Capacities: John Dewey, Rhetoric, and Democratic Culture, Gregory Clark & Brian Jackson (eds.), University of South Carolina Press, forthcoming. David Blakesley, “Kenneth Burke’s Pragmatism—Old and New.” In Bernard L. Brock (Ed.), Kenneth Burke and the 21st Centrury, SUNY Press, 1999. Scott Wible, “Professor Burke’s ‘Bennington Project,’” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 38, 2008, 259-282. [OPTIONAL] Paul Stob, “Kenneth Burke, John Dewey, and the Pursuit of the Public,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 38, 2005, 226-247. [OPTIONAL] (15) April 29 Pragmatism, Criticism, and Rhetoric John Dewey, “Criticism and Perception,” Art as Experience, AE Chapter 13. Raymie E. McKerrow, “Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis,” Communication Monographs, 56, 1989, 91-111. Scott R. Stroud, “John Dewey and the Question of Artful Criticism,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 44, 2011, 27-51. Steven Knapp & Walter Benn Michaels, “Against Theory,” Critical Inquiry, 8, 1982, 723-742. 11 Steven Mailloux, “Truth or Consequences: On Being Against Theory,” Critical Inquiry, 8, 1982, 760766. Richard Rorty, “Philosophy without Principles,” Critical Inquiry, 11, 1985, 459-465. Steven Knapp & Walter Benn Michaels, “A Reply to Richard Rorty: What is Pragmatism?” Critical Inquiry, 11, 1985, 466-473. Richard Rorty, “Texts and Lumps,” “Inquiry as Recontextualization: An Anti-Dualist Account of Interpretation,” Objectivist, Relativism, and Truth, Cambridge, 1991. Richard Shusterman, “Beneath Interpretation,” Pragmatist Aesthetics: Living Beauty, Rethinking Art, 2nd Ed., Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. Robert Hariman, “Critical Rhetoric and Postmodern Theory,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 77, 1991, 6770. [OPTIONAL] Maurice Charland, “Finding a Horizon and Telos: The Challenge to Critical Rhetoric,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 77, 1991, 71-74. [OPTIONAL] Raymie E. McKerrow, “Critical Rhetoric in a Postmodern World,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 77, 1991, 75-78. [OPTIONAL] Stanley Fish, “Consequences,” Critical Inquiry, 11, 1985, 433-458. [OPTIONAL] Steven Knapp & Walter Benn Michaels, “A Reply to Our Critics,” Critical Inquiry, 9, 1983, 790-800. [OPTIONAL] **Final Papers due May 10 by 12noon via email (Word .doc format)**