Raymie E. McKerrow

The historiographical dilemma in Myrdal's American greed: Rhetoric's role in rescuing a historical moment

In An American Dilemma (1944), the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal argued that race relations in America would improve because the American Creed, democratic liberalism, created a dilemma between existing racial practice and the national ideology. The resulting dilemma, he argued, disposed white America to gradual, progressive change. Not only did Myrdals value‐laden sociology find its way into American jurisprudence through footnote 11 to Brown v. Board of Education, but also it appealed to liberal opinion leaders who were encouraged by the prospect for change through gentle social engineering. Among those leaders was an influential group of historians who helped spread the Myrdalian gospel and in so doing acquiesced in its ideological determinism. This essay describes how the deterministic perspective robbed civil rights historiography of some of its drama and shows how a rhetorical approach to documents can restore the vividness of a historical moment.

Antimasonic rhetoric: The strategy of excommunication

This essay examines the nature of the antimasonic rhetoric during the late 1820s and early 1830s from the perspective of Therborns conception of people constituted/reconstituted by discourse which articulates what exists, is good, and is possible. The essay argues that the principal strategy of antimasonic rhetoric was that of excommunication, as it sought to remove Freemasonry from the community, and to relieve Masons of their political power. The essay also notes the transition of the antimasonic rhetoric from that of a moral crusade to mainstream political issues. The short‐term success and long‐term failure of the Antimasonic Party is attributed to the inherent limitations of a negative strategy of excommunication.

“Research in Rhetoric” Revisited

This essay begins with a brief review of past research in rhetorical theory and criticism. Attention then turns to an examination of two present issues—big rhetoric and the critique of postmodernism—that influence rhetorics prospects. The essay closes with a consideration of the vibrancy and vitality represented by recent scholarship in the Quarterly Journal of Speech. The diversity and sophistication of current scholarship bode well for rhetorics future.

Review Essay: The Public Intellectual and the Role(s) of Criticism

The role of the critic has animated our discipline’s conversation since its earliest days. Our goal in this review is not to revisit that history, but rather to consider its most current expression in relation to the larger question of the work of the public intellectual. In this review, we initially examine recent work by Omar Swartz and others (2005, 2006) that promotes a specialized sense of partisan criticism in the service of social justice. Following that discussion, we broaden our focus to examine recent texts about the status of the public intellectual in contemporary society. In Defense of Partisan Criticism refines an argument Swartz raised in Conducting Socially Responsible Research . In the earlier text, Swartz took the discipline to task for

Visions of society in discourse and art: The failed rhetoric of social realism

In the late 20s and 30s, a group of artists developed art which depicted the injustices in society and developed forums to advocate social reforms they felt were necessary, both for themselves and others in society. This essay provides an analysis of the ultimate failure of both discourse and art during this “social realism” period in the United States. Their anomalous discourse undid their efforts to provide a sustained, cohesive message of social reform, and their paintings, while they had a definite impact within the period, failed to sustain a message of social injustice sufficient to force social change.

Whately's philosophy of language

The purpose of this essay is to elucidate Whatelys philosophy of language and thereby counteract the conclusion that his treatment of Style in the Rhetoric is devoid of any theoretical underpinning. Special attention is given to Whatelys observations on the relationship between language and thought, language and reality, and language and meaning. His comments on the necessity of language for thought, his nominalistic account of languages relation to reality, and his contextualist approach to meaning interact to substantiate the claim that his stylistic advice in the Rhetoric is anything but a casual or indifferent treatment of the subject.