Michael William Pfau

Evaluating Conspiracy: Narrative, Argument, and Ideology in Lincoln's “House Divided” Speech

Despite the prevalence of conspiracy theories in contemporary political discourse, scholars of rhetoric and argumentation remain confounded as to how best to evaluate these theories. Many scholars dismiss conspiracy theories as paranoid fantasy, others believe that standards like narrative fidelity and coherence are sufficient, while others long for the clear-cut evaluative standards of formal argument. In response to this evaluative impasse this essay adopts an evaluative stance that is at once comparative, contextual and ideological. Specifically, the essays package of evaluative strategies emerges through critical engagement with the “slave power” conspiracy theory of Abraham Lincolns “House Divided” speech. Evaluation of this conspiracy theory reveals the value of a more relativistic approach to evaluation, as well as the importance of an ideological lens capable of adjudicating ambiguous cases, and interrogating the political agenda underlying any evaluative method.

Rhetoric and Reform in the Progressive Era (review)

who already have a good grounding in civil religion will be at an advantage, since Beasley does not spend much time addressing the concept of civil religion in its own right. In the end, the book is convincing on the point that presidents are in a unique position to define national identity and that they have consistently done so in ways that both unify and divide us. As Beasley points out, “as banal as presidential constructions of American national identity might seem at times, they may serve an important social function by promoting a sense of enduring democratic unity in the United States” (23).

Bright lines or blurred lines? Universal background checks and the NRA slippery slope argument

ABSTRACT This essay analyzes and evaluates the slippery slope argument (SSA) as presented by the National Rifle Association. The work of argument scholars and informal logicians, particularly of Douglas Walton, provides the central interpretive and evaluative vocabularies enabling the most complete understanding of this argument. Evaluation of the argument is enabled both by the SSA critical vocabulary, as well by a dialogic approach that considers the NRAs SSA within the larger context of President Obamas public discourses on the issue. Analysis of the argument generates insights that enrich the theoretical foundations of SSA scholarship, and potentially contribute to a more reasonable public debate about gun rights and gun control.

Review ofListening to nineteenth century Americaby Mark M. Smith: Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2001

But more than this, I think, I have found myself considering the ways in which modernity’s efficient, commodified, “mastered” sound has shaped my interpretations of my environment, of what I can even “hear” as sound rather than noise. As a teacher, my intuition tells me that the “noise” of our classrooms may be important-that we may need to overcome the tyranny of the modern construction of sound to be able to listen to our decidedly postmodern students, many of whom inhabit very different acoustical spaces than do we. Although Thompson’s work is appropriately too focused on her historical moment to muse about such contemporary topics, she provides a lucid framework for thinking about how modernity’s soundscape has shaped contemporary listening practices and our ability to listen to and within architectural spaces.