Rhetoric and Communication: Alternative Worlds of Inquiry

Abstract

Rhetoric and communication inquiry characterize the broader discipline of communication studies. The discipline has developed by retaining interest in questions of interaction and exchange, language and institutions, as well as publics and social change. The futures of such work include critical investigations into communication societies that are culturally diverse, technologically wired, local-cosmopolitan networks. I support Andrew King's position that economics should play an increasingly important role in our discipline, but I urge that inquiry be extended beyond ideological critique with its melioristic ends. Communication society should be examined in its varied and specific sites of inquiry in order to create an emergent global discipline.

Keywords:

• Communication Society
• Political Economy
• New Institutional Theory
• Discipline

Notes

[1] Caleb Bingham, The Columbian Orator: Containing a Variety of Original and Selected Pieces Together With Rules, Which Are Calculated to Improve Youth and Others, in the Ornamental and Using Art of Eloquence, ed. David W. Blight (New York, NY: NYU Press, [1797] 1998).

[2] Werner Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, Three Volumes (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1939).

[3] Robert Scott “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic,” Central States Speech Journal 18, no. 1 (1967): 9–17.

[4] Karl R. Wallace, “The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 49, no. 3 (1963): 239–49.

[5] Kathleen J. Turner, “Students at the Center: Appreciating the Value of Oral Communication,” NACC Conference, Arizona State University, April 2014, http://commcenters.org/resources/keynote.

[6] Leland M. Griffin, “The Rhetoric of Historical Movements,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 38, no. 2 (1952): 184–88.

[7] John S. Nelson and Allan Megill, “Rhetoric of Inquiry: Projects and Prospects,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72, no. 1 (1986): 20–37.

[8] Deirdre McCloskey, The Rhetoric of Economics, 2nd ed. (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998); James Arnt Aune. Rhetoric and Marxism (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994).

[9] Thomas Picketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014).

[10] Michael Calvin McGee, “The Ideograph: A Link Between Rhetoric and Reality, Quarterly Journal of Speech 60, no. 1 (1980): 8.

[11] Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London, UK: Sage, 1992).

[12] Wayne Brockriede, “Rhetorical Criticism as Argument,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 60, no. 2 (1974): 165–74.

[13] Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation (New York, NY: Farrar and Rinehart, 1944).

[14] G. Thomas Goodnight and Sandy R. Green, Jr., “Rhetoric, Risk, and Markets: The Dot.com Bubble,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 96, no. 2 (2010): 115–40.

[15] David B. Hingstman and G. Thomas Goodnight, “From the Great Depression to the Great Recession: The 1932 Hayek–Keynes Debate: A Study in Economic Uncertainty, Contingency and Criticism,” POROI 7, no. 1 (2011), http://ir.uiowa.edu/poroi/vol7/iss1/5/

[16] G. Thomas Goodnight, David B. Hingstman, and Sandy R. Green, Jr., “The Student Debt Bubble: Neoliberalism, the University, and Income Inequality,” Journal of Cultural Economy (2014).

[17] Richard McKeon “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts,” in Professing the New Rhetoric, eds. Theresa Enos and Stuart C. Brown (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994), 126–44.

[18] G. Thomas Goodnight, “Rhetoric, Communication and Information,” POROI 10, no. 1 (2014), http://ir.uiowa.edu/poroi/vol10/iss1/4/

[19] Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Black Swan: The Impact of Highly Improbable Events (New York, NY: Random House, 2010).

[20] Gordon R. Mitchell and Kelly E. Happe, “Defining the Subject of Consent in DNA Research,” Journal of Medical Humanities 22, no. 1 (2001): 41–54.