Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1622860
{"title":"Summer 2019—Recent ad hoc reviewers—Argumentation and advocacy","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1622860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1622860","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"12 1","pages":"257 - 257"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73106127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2018.1429065
Mollie K. Murphy
ABSTRACT This article examines Rachel Carson's rhetoric following the 1962 publication of Silent Spring. Although she had generated a fierce controversy, Carson could not rely on a scientific consensus to defend her arguments. As the author of this article argues, she turned to a series of interrelated strategies necessitated by the fact that controversy over pesticides was legitimate. Carson argued that the pesticide issue was moral, exigent, and corrupted by corporate interests. Rather than cloistering debate to scientific professionals, she granted the public autonomy to engage and form scientific arguments. In addition to extending scholarship on Rachel Carson, this article contributes to historical and contemporary understandings of environmental controversy. When an issue is contested within the scientific community, framing debate as open and promoting audience participation may be necessary – and perhaps effective – rhetorical strategies.
{"title":"Scientific argument without a scientific consensus: Rachel Carson's rhetorical strategies in the Silent Spring debates","authors":"Mollie K. Murphy","doi":"10.1080/00028533.2018.1429065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2018.1429065","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines Rachel Carson's rhetoric following the 1962 publication of Silent Spring. Although she had generated a fierce controversy, Carson could not rely on a scientific consensus to defend her arguments. As the author of this article argues, she turned to a series of interrelated strategies necessitated by the fact that controversy over pesticides was legitimate. Carson argued that the pesticide issue was moral, exigent, and corrupted by corporate interests. Rather than cloistering debate to scientific professionals, she granted the public autonomy to engage and form scientific arguments. In addition to extending scholarship on Rachel Carson, this article contributes to historical and contemporary understandings of environmental controversy. When an issue is contested within the scientific community, framing debate as open and promoting audience participation may be necessary – and perhaps effective – rhetorical strategies.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"12 1","pages":"194 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89769249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-30DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1617617
Ryan Mitchell
Abstract This essay furthers scholarly investigations into how the dissociation of concepts works in actual argumentative contexts. It argues that in moments of biomedical controversy, dissociation can stabilize the epistemic grounds of argument by drawing on taken-for-granted and fundamentally nonscientific forms of evidence. In service of this argument, I explore the role that dissociation plays in paramedical AIDS information materials published before the official recognition of HIV as AIDS's etiological agent in 1984. My analysis illustrates that these texts circumvent the uncertainty surrounding the cause of AIDS by forwarding tentative prevention protocols that dissociate sexuality from intimacy and thus encourage members of at-risk communities to adopt dominant, heteronormative relationship patterns. I conclude by arguing that the dissociation of concepts undergirds biomedicine’s ever-broadening epistemic authority—even in moments of palpable uncertainty—by legitimating contingent biomedical knowledge with commonplace social values.
{"title":"Decoupling sex and intimacy: the role of dissociation in early AIDS prevention campaigns","authors":"Ryan Mitchell","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1617617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1617617","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay furthers scholarly investigations into how the dissociation of concepts works in actual argumentative contexts. It argues that in moments of biomedical controversy, dissociation can stabilize the epistemic grounds of argument by drawing on taken-for-granted and fundamentally nonscientific forms of evidence. In service of this argument, I explore the role that dissociation plays in paramedical AIDS information materials published before the official recognition of HIV as AIDS's etiological agent in 1984. My analysis illustrates that these texts circumvent the uncertainty surrounding the cause of AIDS by forwarding tentative prevention protocols that dissociate sexuality from intimacy and thus encourage members of at-risk communities to adopt dominant, heteronormative relationship patterns. I conclude by arguing that the dissociation of concepts undergirds biomedicine’s ever-broadening epistemic authority—even in moments of palpable uncertainty—by legitimating contingent biomedical knowledge with commonplace social values.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"111 1","pages":"211 - 229"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75866137","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-16DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1613860
Raymie E. McKerrow
Life is precarious—we are all vulnerable in some conditions at some times for reasons we cannot always control. Thus, it comes as no surprise that rhetoric, that art of the contingent and variable ...
{"title":"Precarious Rhetorics","authors":"Raymie E. McKerrow","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1613860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1613860","url":null,"abstract":"Life is precarious—we are all vulnerable in some conditions at some times for reasons we cannot always control. Thus, it comes as no surprise that rhetoric, that art of the contingent and variable ...","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"100 1","pages":"254 - 256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90067529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-03DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1608741
J. Justice
Abstract Designing campaigns to discourage youth smoking remains a difficult task. Paradoxically, data suggests that The Real Cost campaign has been a success, despite research predicting that its fantastic imagery would be dismissed by adolescent audiences. In this essay I argue that The Real Cost messages activate values-based evaluative standards that are salient for adolescent audiences in an attempt to encourage them not to smoke. In addition to explaining the persuasiveness of this campaign, my findings suggest future directions for anti-tobacco messaging while enhancing understanding of public controversies where fantastic narratives are treated as “real” while strongly-supported arguments are not. Where a disconnect between public opinion and scientific consensus exists, rhetors should tap into their audience’s transcendent values, activate emotional associations, and produce new frameworks for evaluation, rather than relying upon fact-based appeals.
{"title":"Fantastic visual argument and the Food and Drug Administration’s The Real Cost campaign","authors":"J. Justice","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1608741","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1608741","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Designing campaigns to discourage youth smoking remains a difficult task. Paradoxically, data suggests that The Real Cost campaign has been a success, despite research predicting that its fantastic imagery would be dismissed by adolescent audiences. In this essay I argue that The Real Cost messages activate values-based evaluative standards that are salient for adolescent audiences in an attempt to encourage them not to smoke. In addition to explaining the persuasiveness of this campaign, my findings suggest future directions for anti-tobacco messaging while enhancing understanding of public controversies where fantastic narratives are treated as “real” while strongly-supported arguments are not. Where a disconnect between public opinion and scientific consensus exists, rhetors should tap into their audience’s transcendent values, activate emotional associations, and produce new frameworks for evaluation, rather than relying upon fact-based appeals.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"36 1","pages":"230 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81406201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-29DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1603711
Samuel Boerboom
In their book, A Feeling of Wrongness, Joseph Packer and Ethan Stoneman articulate a goal of providing “an interpretive heuristic or critical-rhetorical hermeneutic for the identification and criti...
{"title":"A feeling of wrongness: pessimistic rhetoric on the fringes of popular culture","authors":"Samuel Boerboom","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1603711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1603711","url":null,"abstract":"In their book, A Feeling of Wrongness, Joseph Packer and Ethan Stoneman articulate a goal of providing “an interpretive heuristic or critical-rhetorical hermeneutic for the identification and criti...","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"16 1","pages":"250 - 252"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74758450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-20DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1603027
Ryan Neville-Shepard
Abstract Building on the notion of post-truth, this essay suggests that Donald Trump—both as a candidate and president—has crafted a notion of post-presumption argumentation. While there are many theories of how presumption functions in argumentation, scholars agree that it is largely a procedural device meant to promote deliberation. The essay suggests that post-presumption argumentation has become a new model—rising partly from a cultural shift triggered by rampant conspiracy theorizing by political and social elites—that undercuts the presumption of veracity, undermines faith in institutions that give presumptions force, and rejects deliberation as a communal goal.
{"title":"Post-presumption argumentation and the post-truth world: on the conspiracy rhetoric of Donald Trump","authors":"Ryan Neville-Shepard","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1603027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1603027","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Building on the notion of post-truth, this essay suggests that Donald Trump—both as a candidate and president—has crafted a notion of post-presumption argumentation. While there are many theories of how presumption functions in argumentation, scholars agree that it is largely a procedural device meant to promote deliberation. The essay suggests that post-presumption argumentation has become a new model—rising partly from a cultural shift triggered by rampant conspiracy theorizing by political and social elites—that undercuts the presumption of veracity, undermines faith in institutions that give presumptions force, and rejects deliberation as a communal goal.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"18 1","pages":"175 - 193"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75306605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2018.1544828
Lili Pâquet
Abstract In 2016, Waleed Aly, a prominent Muslim Australian academic and media personality, made an argument using the Twitter hashtag “Send Forgiveness Viral” that asked for empathy in the face of Islamophobia. While initially appealing, deeper consideration of his use of and appeal to his audience to use Rogerian strategies to combat racism presents problems. Can Rogerian argumentation strategies be utilized to combat racism? Using Aly’s #SendForgivenessViral argument as a case study, this article evaluates Rogerian argumentation and empathic response in therapeutic situations compared to arguments about discrimination, particularly those taking place through social media. While scholarly writing by Lassner (1990) and Ede (1984) is dated, they provide pertinent and influential ideas to consider. More recent scholarship used to evaluate #SendForgivenessViral includes arguments on race, rhetoric, and Twitter revolutions by Brock (2012), D’Cruz (2017), Gerbaudo (2012), Margolin (2017), and Roose (2016). Other sources will be drawn from contemporary social media responses to Aly’s segment. This article concludes that Aly’s use of Rogerian argumentation is flawed because it places the onus of combatting racism onto victims. Furthermore, Rogerian argumentation models have underlying problems with power relations.
{"title":"The #Rhetoric of Waleed Aly’s “Send Forgiveness Viral”: Is Rogerian argumentation an appropriate response to racism?","authors":"Lili Pâquet","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2018.1544828","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2018.1544828","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2016, Waleed Aly, a prominent Muslim Australian academic and media personality, made an argument using the Twitter hashtag “Send Forgiveness Viral” that asked for empathy in the face of Islamophobia. While initially appealing, deeper consideration of his use of and appeal to his audience to use Rogerian strategies to combat racism presents problems. Can Rogerian argumentation strategies be utilized to combat racism? Using Aly’s #SendForgivenessViral argument as a case study, this article evaluates Rogerian argumentation and empathic response in therapeutic situations compared to arguments about discrimination, particularly those taking place through social media. While scholarly writing by Lassner (1990) and Ede (1984) is dated, they provide pertinent and influential ideas to consider. More recent scholarship used to evaluate #SendForgivenessViral includes arguments on race, rhetoric, and Twitter revolutions by Brock (2012), D’Cruz (2017), Gerbaudo (2012), Margolin (2017), and Roose (2016). Other sources will be drawn from contemporary social media responses to Aly’s segment. This article concludes that Aly’s use of Rogerian argumentation is flawed because it places the onus of combatting racism onto victims. Furthermore, Rogerian argumentation models have underlying problems with power relations.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"10 1","pages":"152 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90382235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1589410
Nicholas Lepp
Dr. Craig R. Smith’s Romanticism, Rhetoric, and the Search for the Sublime sets out to develop a Neo-Romantic theory of rhetoric for modern times. Smith’s primary argument throughout this book is t...
{"title":"Romanticism, rhetoric, and the search for the sublime by Craig R. Smith. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2018, 335 pp., $119.95 (Hardcover), ISBN-10: 1527515958 (English) ISBN-13: 978-1527515956","authors":"Nicholas Lepp","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1589410","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1589410","url":null,"abstract":"Dr. Craig R. Smith’s Romanticism, Rhetoric, and the Search for the Sublime sets out to develop a Neo-Romantic theory of rhetoric for modern times. Smith’s primary argument throughout this book is t...","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"3 1","pages":"172 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73444870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2019.1597592
Sara C. VanderHaagen
Abstract Prior to the unveiling of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. in the fall of 2011, controversy swirled about a paraphrased quotation etched on the side of King’s likeness. The paraphrase, which read, “I was a drum major for justice, peace, and righteousness,” was derived from a sermon given by King in 1968. This essay examines the quotation controversy, which first erupted in August 2011, just before the memorial’s scheduled dedication. The debate over this “misquote” seems at first to be about historical accuracy—i.e. whether the paraphrase accurately reflects what King said and who he was. However, I argue that this debate actually reveals more about how elites use the discourse of “commemorative stewardship” to secure the credibility to speak on, make decisions about, and ultimately control interpretations of public memories. Participants’ claims rely on a rhetoric of commemorative stewardship that acknowledges a public obligation, expresses a commitment to a sacred memory, emphasizes the best practices of shared responsibility and accountability, and demonstrates investment in the good of future generations. Tracing the rhetoric of stewardship in the debate shows how critics of the paraphrased inscription were able to achieve their goal of “correcting” the perceived error while deflecting attention from other controversial elements of the memorial.
{"title":"(Mis)quoting King: commemorative stewardship and ethos in the controversy over the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial","authors":"Sara C. VanderHaagen","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2019.1597592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1597592","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Prior to the unveiling of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. in the fall of 2011, controversy swirled about a paraphrased quotation etched on the side of King’s likeness. The paraphrase, which read, “I was a drum major for justice, peace, and righteousness,” was derived from a sermon given by King in 1968. This essay examines the quotation controversy, which first erupted in August 2011, just before the memorial’s scheduled dedication. The debate over this “misquote” seems at first to be about historical accuracy—i.e. whether the paraphrase accurately reflects what King said and who he was. However, I argue that this debate actually reveals more about how elites use the discourse of “commemorative stewardship” to secure the credibility to speak on, make decisions about, and ultimately control interpretations of public memories. Participants’ claims rely on a rhetoric of commemorative stewardship that acknowledges a public obligation, expresses a commitment to a sacred memory, emphasizes the best practices of shared responsibility and accountability, and demonstrates investment in the good of future generations. Tracing the rhetoric of stewardship in the debate shows how critics of the paraphrased inscription were able to achieve their goal of “correcting” the perceived error while deflecting attention from other controversial elements of the memorial.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"1 1","pages":"114 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90325373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：