![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Notes
1. For example, see Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (1977; New York: Vintage, 1995).
2. Influence is ultimately a kind of force; however, we separate these out to acknowledge the more common distinction between coercion and persuasion. For a detailed description of influence as force, see Brian Massumi, A User's Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Deviations from Deleuze and Guattari (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992), 10–46.
3. Immanual Kant, “The Contest of Faculties,” in Kant: Political Writings, ed. H. S. Reiss, trans. H. B. Nisbet, 2nd ed., Cambridge Tests in the History of Political Thought (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 176–90. For a lucid explication, see Carlos Leone, “The Kantian Insight on the Future of the Humanities,” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 5 (2006): 264–74.
4. Theodor Adorno, “Commitment,” in Aesthetics and Politics (London: Verso, 1980), 177–95; and Herbert Marcuse, The New Left and the 1960s, ed. Douglas Kellner (London: Routledge, 2005). For a nuanced understanding, see Christopher Swift, “Herbert Marcuse on the New Left: Dialectic and Rhetoric,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 40 (2010): 146–71.
5. See William M. Keith, Democracy as Discussion: Civic Education and the American Forum Movement (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007).
6. Library of Congress, “Morrill Act: Primary Documents of American History,” Virtual Programs and Services, Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Morrill.html.
7. Herman Cohen, The History of Speech Communication: The Emergence of a Discipline, 1914–1945 (Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, 1994), 13.
8. See Pat J. Gehrke, The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2009), esp. 43–59; and Keith, Democracy as Discussion.
9. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, “Gimme Shelter,” on Let It Bleed, The Rolling Stones, compact disc, Decca Records/ABKCO, 1969. We stress that listening to the song rather than simply reading the lyrics is a better way to feel the context we think the music captures. Numerous fan videos on YouTube.com that use the song are available.
10. See Forbes Hill, “Conventional Wisdom—Traditional Form—The President's Message of November 3, 1969,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 58 (1972): 373–86; Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, “‘Conventional Wisdom—Traditional Form’: A Rejoinder,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 58 (1972): 451–54; and Forbes Hill, “Reply to Professor Campbell,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 58 (1972): 454–60.
11. Campbell, “‘Conventional Wisdom,” 453.
12. Hill, “Reply to Professor Campbell,” 456.
13. This debate was extended in the early 1980s following the publication of Philip Wander's “The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism,” Central States Speech Journal 34 (1983): 1–18. See in particular Lawrence W. Rosenfield, “Ideological Miasma,” Central States Speech Journal 34 (1983): 119–21; Forbes Hill, “A Turn against Ideology: Reply to Professor Wander,” Central States Speech Journal 34 (1983): 121–26; Allan Megill, “Heidegger, Wander, and Ideology,” Central States Speech Journal 34 (1983): 114–19 Michael Calvin McGee, “Another Philippic: Notes on the Ideological Turn in Criticism,” Central States Speech Journal 35 (1984): 43–50; Robert Francesconi, “Heidegger and Ideology: Reflections of an Innocent Bystander,” Central States Speech Journal 35 (1984): 51–53; Farrel Corcoran, “The Widening Gyre: Another Look at Ideology in Wander and His Critics,” Central States Speech Journal 35 (1984): 54–56; and Philip Wander, “The Third Persona: An Ideological Turn in Rhetorical Theory,” Central States Speech Journal 35 (1984): 197–216. The issue was revisited in a special section of volume 4, issue 1 (2000) of the American Communication Journal titled “Criticism, Politics, and Objectivity,” including essays by Edwin Black, “On Objectivity and Politics in Criticism”; and Jim A. Kuypers, “Must We All Be Political Activists?” at http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol4/iss1/. The topic was pursued further two issues later in volume 4, issue 3 (2001) of the American Communication Journal under the title “Rhetoric, Politics, and Critique.” See in particular Dana Cloud, “The Affirmative Masquerade”; Robert Ivie, “Productive Criticism Then and Now”; and Michael McGee, “On Objectivity and Politics in Rhetoric” at http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol4/iss3/.
14. Space limits any discussion, but we must mention that television and embedded reporting is also a causal factor here, so much so one might argue television and Nixon politicized rhetorical criticism.
15. Richard Cherwitz, “Intellectual Entrepreneurship: A Cross-Disciplinary Consortium,” University of Texas at Austin, http://webspace.utexas.edu/cherwitz/www/ie/index.html. Also see Rick Cherwitz, “The Challenge of Creating Engaged Public Research Universitie” Planning for Higher Education 38 (2010): 61–64; James W. Hikins and Richard A. Cherwitz, “The Engaged University: Where Rhetorical Theory Matters,” Journal of Applied Communication Research 38 (2010): 115–26; Gary D. Beckman and Richard A. Cherwitz, “Intellectual Entrepreneurship: An Authentic Foundation for Higher Education Reform,” Planning for Higher Education 37 (2009): 27–36; and Richard A. Cherwitz and E. Johanna Hartelius, “Making a ‘Great “Engaged” University’ Requires Rhetoric,” in Fixing the Fragmented University: Decentralization with Direction, ed. Joseph C. Burke (Boston, MA: Anker Publishing, 2007), 265–88.
16. See John M. Ackerman and David J. Coogan, ed., The Public Work of Rhetoric: Citizen-Scholars and Civic Engagement, introd. Gerard A. Hauser (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, forthcoming 2010).
17. For example, see Lisa Blee, Caley Horan, Jeffrey T. Manuel, Brian Tochterman, Andrew Urban, and Julie M. Weiskopf, “Engaging with Public Engagement: Public History and Graduate Pedagogy,” Radical History Review, no. 102 (2008): 73–89; Tessa Hicks Peterson, “Engaged Scholarship: Reflections and Research on the Pedagogy of Social Change,” Teaching in Higher Education 14 (2009): 541–52; and Lori J. Vogelgesang, Nida Denson, and Uma M. Jayakumar, “What Determines Faculty-Engaged Scholarship?” Review of Higher Education 33 (2010): 437–72. Also see Audrey Williams June, “Colleges Should Change Policies to Encourage Scholarship Devoted to the Public Good, Report Says,” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 26, 2008, http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Should-Change/937/; and Scott McLemee, “The Public Option,” Inside Higher Ed, October 21, 2009, http://www.insidehighered.com/views/mclemee/mclemee263/.
18. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship 1 (2008). This journal is published by the University of Alabama Press.
19. Julie Ellison and Timothy K. Eatman, “Scholarship in Public: Knowledge Creation and Tenure Policy in the Engaged University,” Imagining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life Tenure Team Initiative on Public Scholarship, 2008, http://imaginingamerica.org/TTI/TTI_FINAL.pdf; also see Peterson, “Engaged Scholarship”; John Saltmarsh, Dwight E. Giles Jr., Elaine Ward, and Suzanne M. Buglione, “Rewarding Community-Engaged Scholarship,” New Directions for Higher Education, no. 147 (2009): 25–35.
20. See, for example, David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin, One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy (New York: Crown Forum, 2009).
21. Stanley Fish, “Aim Low,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 16, 2003, http://chronicle.com/article/Aim-Low/45210. See also Stanley Fish, Save the World on Your Own Time (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
22. See Darrin Hicks, “The New Citizen,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93 (2007): 358–60; and Ronald Walter Greene and Darrin Hicks, “Lost Convictions,” Cultural Studies 19 (2005): 100–26.
23. Ellison and Eatman, “Scholarship in Public,” iv.
24. Nancy Cantor and Steven D. Lavine, “Taking Public Scholarship Seriously,” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 9, 2006, http://chronicle.com/article/Taking-Public-Scholarship-S/22684/.
25. Ellison and Eatman, “Scholarship in Public,” iv.
26. Ellison and Eatman, “Scholarship in Public,” iv.
27. Cantor and Lavine, “Taking Public Scholarship Seriously.”
28. Peter Schmidt, “Public Scholar Engages Syracuse U. in Public Tenure Dispute,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 18, 2009, http://chronicle.com/article/Public-Scholar-Engages-Syra/47260/.