LAE6392

The following is a brief summary of what we hope to accomplish for our GROUP PROJECT to be presented on Nov. 26th, 2007.

This GROUP PROJECT represents the culmination of our work within LAE6392's Composition Practicum.

Our group consists of:

Sunayani Bhattacharya, Melinda Hollis, Jessica McKee, and Adam Pridemore.

I really love what you are proposing here... as I mentioned in class, my only concern would be that you are tackling so much.  I suppose for the corporate rhetoric project, we must do much more than just critique a single company such as Disney.  I would want to avoid the accusation that we were singling one specific company.  I am very serious about the sorts of tax you'll be able to generate to grow this specific project.  I have not read the links that you have provided it about globalization I wonder if these links are a little more general than your proposed topic and blood I will need to review the links as well... the links certainly look superb for a project that looks a little more generally at globalization, perhaps an essay that looks at the pros and cons... I have mentioned your proposal to Ken and others and we are all very eager to see this work

Description/Summary:

Rather than creating a single new project for ENC1101 or ENC1102, we decided to create an alternative course structure for ENC1102, focusing on revising the three central projects, focusing them more so on a continued involvement with rhetoric, as well as a distinct social involvement that might be lacking in their current formulations.

We have devised 4 new projects for ENC1102: a new version of Project One, two alternatives for Project Two, and a new, more socially involved and active version of Project Three. In addition to Project handouts, we also are creating weekly schedules, as well as additional homework assignments, and readings.

The new version of ENC1102 Project One focuses on examining Corporate rhetoric in the context of globalization. This version of ENC1102 will focus on analyzing and comparing an advertisement for a company from a set list of companies... In addition to analyzing a television or print ad of the student's choice, the student will also be required to analyze the rhetoric of an article that criticizes the company that produced their ad. By having the point, counter point of the ad and the critique of the company that produced the ad, hopefully the students will be encouraged to deconstruct their own understandings of the pop culture world.

For Project Two, we have two different options: Social Rhetoric and Political Rhetoric. This project emphasizes the difference from our curriculum and the current curriculum. Rather than centering rhetorical analysis only on the first project, now we will have the first and second both focus on rhetorical analysis, first on corporate rhetoric, then on social or political rhetoric. This shift will continuously focus the students on realizing that different groups and different audiences produce and respond to rhetorics differently. Who says something and who they say it to will affect how it is interpreted. The social and political projects both will focus on analyzing and sythesizing different readings, and understanding the rhetorics employed in both the political and in the social world.

For Project Three, the shift moves toward the actual world. The students will break into groups (of three to five students) and each group will choose a social injustice, a social problem they will address. Using the ideas of rhetorical analysis that they have synthesized thus far, the students will research their injustice, as well as the different ways one could protest (protest songs, slogans, petitions, etc.). Once they formulate what they feel will be the most effective way to protest their social injustice, we will send them out onto campus to practice this. Project Three will represent a well thought out, supported, and clearly reasoned personal narrative, explaining, pondering, and synthesizing all that the students have learned through the first two projects and this actual real world experience.

More to come as we finalize the handouts, readings, and schedules...

Reading Bank:

Project One:

WRITTEN TEXTS:

"Wal-Mart and the Public Good"

Writing Arguments 561

"Environmental Friendliness vs. Market Freedom: The Case of the Sport Utility Vehicle"

Writing Arguments 584

“Global Realization” in Fast Food Nation By Eric Schlosser

“Filmmaker Offers Food for Thought”

Blackboard

“Downsize This!”

Blackboard

"Shop Til You Drop"

Dynamic Arguments 724

"The More Factor"

Dynamic Arguments 718

WEB TEXTS:

Introduction to Globalization

http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/teaching_resource/tr_globalization.htm

“Will Globalization Make You Happy?”

http://www.21learn.org/arch/articles/globalization-happy.pdf

“Unrestricted Globalization: Boon or Hazard?”

http://india_resource.tripod.com/globalization.html

“Ideology and Economic Development”

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0504lebowitz.htm

 Affleck and Clooney in Foreign Commercials

http://tubetalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/celebrities-foreign-commercials-george.html

Film Texts

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices

Killing Us Softly

Project Two:

Social Rhetoric Option DESCRIPTION:

Option Two: Project Three: The Rhetoric of Social Advocacy

Abstract: Analyze the rhetoric of a social movement including attention to language, rhetorical situation, desired outcomes, chance for success, audience, and surrounding cultural climate.  Compare rhetorical methods of this movement to that of corporate or political rhetoric.

Our goal in this paper is to examine the rhetoric of one of many social movements in American culture.  Students may choose any social organization (official or not) as a text and examine the rhetorical features and measures beginning with the organization’s purpose and ending with its success or chance for success based on its audience and methods.  In class, we will discuss the rhetoric of several social movements and some texts which introduce rhetoric that is produced by individuals within larger social and cultural systems (but not by governments or corporations) in order to unpack the similarities and differences between argumentative methods used on different levels of social structures.

This paper should have four parts:

1.      An introduction to the social group or cause with a discussion of its purpose, audience, and methods.  

2.      A specific textual analysis of the implementation and function of rhetorical methods and the possible successes and failures of each for both the social group’s audience and for contemporary or unconnected audience members.

3.      A comparison/contrast between social rhetoric and corporate or political rhetoric.

4.      A synthesis of what this means to rhetorical studies and American culture.

Your paper should be approximately 1000-1500 words in length.  All sources must be cited according to MLA format.

Audience/Tone:  This is an academic paper for an informed audience of your peers.

Grading: Preparation and participation in workshop constitutes two homework grades.  Your conference draft comprises ½ of your final paper grade, and your final draft comprises the other ½.

POLITICAL RHETORIC OPTION:

Project Overview: What makes rhetoric political? In this project we will look at what defines political rhetoric and how it is shaped. The rhetoric of the state often comes across as a text that is self-sustaining and independent of context. However, this project aims to understand and analyze the socio-political context that makes this form of rhetoric possible.

For this project you will look at a political speech, propaganda advertisement, song, poem or short story to see how political rhetoric is worked into your chosen text. In your research you are also strongly encouraged to look at the context of the text.

Suggestions for Approach: These are some of the questions you might want to consider while looking at the text (the list is by no means exhaustive)—is the rhetoric successful in achieving its aim? How does the state articulate its rhetoric? Does the author/artist discuss structures of power? Is the rhetoric different for a different social and cultural group?

Genre: Rhetorical analysis, with a focus on the context of a specific kind (political) rhetoric.

Purpose: The project aims at introducing students to the internal workings of political rhetoric and at understanding what makes it compelling/disturbing.

Audience: Thoughtful, questioning readers. Remember, they are not going to buy your analysis/understanding unless you can make it as convincing as the rhetoric you are discussing.

Voice, Tone, Persona: Academic, analytical tone. Avoid the use of the personal pronoun unless absolutely necessary.

Length, Format, Design: 1000 to 1500 words with an annotated bibliography and a 500 word abstract.

Media: Internet, library databases, television.

Possible In-class Activities: Asking students to prepare brief speeches to demonstrate, in the form of a debate, how political rhetoric works. They would also be encouraged to challenge these presentations with questions and comments.

PROJECT TWO READING BANK:

Print Texts:

"Appealing to a Resistant Audience"

Writing Arguments 152

"It Should not Take a Disaster to Help America's Blameless"

Writing Arguments 281

Excerpt from Against Our Will

Writing Arguments 285

Roderick P. Hart’s “The Meanings of Speech Acts” and “Examining Group Lexicons.” Modern Rhetorical Criticism 2^nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. 40-42 and 158-162

Aaron Friedman’s “All that Noise for Nothing” Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. New York: Pearson, 2007. 205-207

Theodore Otto Windt, Jr “The Diatribe: Last Resort for Protest.” Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest. Ed. Charles E. Morris III and Stephen H. Browne. State College: Strata Publishing, 2001. 60-73.

Emma Goldman’s “The Psychology of Political Violence.” Anarchism and Other Essays. New York: Dover, 1969. 79-108.

United Way’s “Kids Who Do Not Participate . . .” Writing Arguments 262

 Center for Children’s Health and Environment’s “More Kids are Getting Brain Cancer: Why?” Writing Arguments 351

WEB TEXTS:

Gloria Steinem’s “If Men Could Menstruate”

http://www.mum.org/ifmencou.htm

Malcolm X’s “Ballot or Bullet”

http://www.historicaldocuments.com/BallotortheBulletMalcolmX.htm

(audio)

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/malcolmxballotorbullet.htm

Spinsanity

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/

Interview with Osama Bin Laden

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

Stanford’s Rhetoric of Social Change Information Center:

https://www.stanford.edu/group/ic/cgi-bin/drupal/node/271

“Why Democrats Need to Stop Thinking About Elephants”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E4D9143FF936A25752C1A9629C8B63

American Rhetoric

www.americanrhetoric.com

Labor Net

http://www.labornet.org/

Linked Timeline of the Women’s Movement

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html

Resource Site for Social Movements and Culture

http://www.wsu.edu/~amerstu/smc/smcframe.html

Idealist.org

http://www.idealist.org/

The League of Revolutionaries for a New America

http://www.lrna.org/

Monthly Review

http://www.monthlyreview.org/index.html

Film Text:

The Weather Underground

PROJECT THREE DESCRIPTION:Reflections: Rhetoric in Action