Journal 2 Assignment

Journal 2 Assignment

In lectures over the past week, we have talked about popular culture and the role it plays in reflecting wider beliefs, values, and assumptions. Culture is far from neutral, and can be a site for rhetorical action - making arguments, supporting beliefs, encouraging action and raising awareness.

Sellnow has proposed a method for analyzing such arguments:
(1) Select a text
(2) Select a rhetorical perspective
(3) Examine text via description, interpretation, evaluation

This is exactly what I would like you to do for this week's journal!

(1) Select a text:

You have a choice of 4 texts to analyze, dealing with quite a variety of topics and rhetorical goals:
a) Luke Muehlhauser - Video Games as Art
b) Steven Wilson - Music and Mass Culture
c) Two Little Girls (Human trafficking awareness ad)
d) ID&T: Release (advertisement)
See further below for links to videos and additional information about these texts.

(2) Select a rhetorical perspective

We already have a couple of perspectives to start with, and another one will be added during the following week. Feel free to choose any one or any combination of them - but be sure to cover the key details!
a) Classical Rhetoric: Aristotle (3 Appeals, Structure/Style), Cicero (5 canons), Rhetorical Fallacies
b) Toulmin Model: Claim, Grounds, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, Qualifier
c) Narrative: Coherence/Fidelity, Events, Organization (causal, temporal), Setting, Characters, Narrator, Intended Audience, Conveyed Morals
d) Dramatism: the Pentad, Absolution of Guilt, Implications

(3) Examine text via description, interpretation, evaluation

Describe the structure of the argument you are analyzing, consider the implied and stated messages, and evaluate how effective it is (and why/why not). You are welcome to take a stance on the issue yourself and add your personal take on the argument - but only after you analyze it!

As always, you should aim for 500 words (or more if you wish). This is not a formal essay and you are welcome to write in first person, add your own commentary and not have formal organization if you wish, but I do encourage you to be serious and organized in this one.
Hint: this is, in a sense, practice for the type of writing you will have to do on your midterm.

------------------------------------------------

Artifacts (choose one):

(1) Videogames as Art

By Luke Muehlhauser, AI researcher and logician, Singularity Institute
http://lukeprog.com/

Luke is involved in developing “Friendly AI”, i.e. intelligent software to help humans

(2) Music and Mass Culture

By Steven Wilson, musician and producer, leading member in bands Porcupine Tree, Blackfield and No Man.
http://www.swhq.co.uk/

This clip comes from the documentary film “Insurgentes”. You can also see this interview excerpt where Steven expands on the same theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys-ivbIRWu8

(3) Two Little Girls (human trafficking)
(caution - there is some rather emotionally-heavy and disturbing content in this video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udHSutTF4Us

Originally designed as part of the "not Natasha" exhibition, about the stories of Eastern European women trafficked abroad, at the Impressions Gallery in the UK. More info:
http://www.impressions-gallery.com/exhibitions/exhibition.php?id=30

(4) ID&T - Release

(caution - uncensored swearing in this video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4kvmIa4LU

ID&T is an event-organizing company in the Netherlands, specializing in hosting electronic dance parties and raves.

http://www.id-t.com/ (website in Dutch)

Narrative (Jan 20th Lecture)

Narrative Perspective

Fisher, Walter R. (1987). Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

-Life as an ongoing series of narratives
-Rhetoric not merely supported arguments – stories in themselves are persuasive
-Even classical arguments themselves unfold within larger narratives
-Values, stereotypes, morals are all part of unfolding narratives

Traditional/Neoclassical World View:

People are essentially rational
We make decisions on the basis of arguments
The type of speaking situation determines the course of our argument
Rationality is determined by how much we know and how well we argue
The world is a set of logical puzzles that we can solve through rational analysis

Fisher's Narrative World View:

People are essentially storytellers
We make decisions on the basis of good reasons
History, biography, culture, and character determine what we consider good reasons
Narrative rationality is determined by the coherence and fidelity of our stories
The world is a set of stories from which we choose, and thus constantly re-create, our live

Narrative Rationality

The 'trueness' of stories

Coherence

How consistently and logically does the story come together?
How complete and unaltered is the story?

vs. Fidelity

How true is the story?

Response chord: ringing true – resonating with common sense & lived experience
Good reasons to accept the story's moral – ideals about how the world should be
What is acceptable, believable, appropriate in the story's moral universe?

Applying Narrative Analysis

Narratives are strings of events
Every narrative composed of at least two events

Active events
Action, a story with evolving plot, setting and characters

Stative events
An existing state or condition

Organization of Narratives:

Temporal
time

Causal
cause-and-effect

Coherence

Examining the text (cont'd)

Setting

Where does the action take place?
Is the setting coherent and believable?

Characters

Flat – predictable/unchanging/one-sided characters
Round – unpredictable/evolving/multi-sided characters

Narrator

Who is the narrator? How does the narrator communicate?
Does the narrator show bias in interpretation of events?

Events

Active vs. Stative
Major vs. minor – primary/secondary, or portrayed/implied

Causal Relations

What causes the events? Who/what initiates action?
Subjects/objects – volition, intention

Temporal relations

Syntagmatic: one thing logically leads to another; linear story
Paradigmatic: non-linear story; flashbacks and episodic action

Intended audience

Who is the target audience?
What morals or values are they presumed to have?
Do they play a part in the story? Are they invited to enter the story, or just observe?

Conveyed morals

What is the moral of the story?
What does the story say about what we should believe? How we should behave?
What reasons does the story provide to support this?

Evaluating Implications

What do the conveyed morals logically lead to?
If we adopt the narrative as 'ours', what beliefs or behaviours will we have to adopt?
“So what?”

Cultivation effect

Persuasion by recurring narrative
Similar types of narratives encountered often change beliefs and behaviours
Causality of beliefs: in the narrative perspective, beliefs originate and spread through narratives.

Without narratives, there can be no beliefs!

Modern Rhetoric & Popular Culture (Jan. 18th Lecture)

What is rhetoric? (again)

Rhetoric (1)

Art and study of persuasion

Rhetoric (2)

Persuasive communication

Accomplished through signs

Sign

-a token of meaning; something that makes you think of something else

-things we can perceive with senses but see a different meaning behind them

-not only audio-visual – but in our culture tend to be predominantly a/v

Properties of signs:

(1) Resemblance

role of signs as stand-ins for the real thing

can displace reality of objects (Baudrillard)

(2) Signs become icons

a recognizable symbol of the thing it represents; summarizes it in an instantly-understandable fashion (for a particular cultural group, at least)

(3) Association

we often cannot simply associate a sign with one thing (e.g. Madonna; ethnic stereotypes, etc.)

=> Semiotics

The study of signs and sign systems

Culture

Encompassing set of identity-forming beliefs and practices

Mediated through signs and sign systems (and rhetoric)

Elitist notions – culture as a vertical construct

“cultured”

Class, refinement, taste, exclusion

vs. Diversity notions – culture as horizontal

“culture(s)”

Ethnic, national, religious, regional identity

Both dimensions shape cultural artifacts and preferences

Ethics and Aesthetics:

Ethics

Social and personal principles of right and wrong

Morals, values, virtues

vs. Aesthetics

Artistic and judgments of merit, appearance, balance

Taste, beauty, greatness

Ethics and aesthetics are culturally determined

How we judge ethics and aesthetics depends heavily on our background and position in life (Bourdieu)

Ethics and aesthetics are also culturally constitutive

Sets of preferences we possess IS our cultural identity

Popular Culture

Neither status nor demographics (Sellnow)

Everyday objects that influence people’s ordinary behaviours and beliefs

Works through subtle messages about what is (in)appropriate, (un)desirable, (ab)normal, good/bad, etc.

Mediated popular culture

Popular culture as we experience it through media

e.g. TV, music, comic books, etc.

A medium itself is culturally determined and comes with values, perceptions and traditions attached

An artifact is a token of mediated popular culture

-a sign or a series of signs that is socially grounded

-its meaning shared by an identifiable community or cultural group

Through popular culture, we identify with a variety of groups along the lines of both ethics and aesthetics

Everybody identifies with more than one cultural group simultaneously

Groups we identify with share beliefs/value systems/opinions – that sometimes conflict

We identify with traits in any particular group

Communities can be identified by their ideology

Ideology:

-a cultural group’s perceptions about the way things are, and assumptions about things ought to be

-can be both loose and highly formalized (e.g. codes of behaviour),

-apply to narrow topics (i.e. determine only certain behaviours we engage in, e.g. music we listen to) or all-encompassing (determine everything about our life)

Popular Culture Text

-something comprised of an interrelated set of signs and artifacts that contribute to the same argument/discussion

-not necessarily ‘text’ in the narrow sense – nothing to do with it being written word

-think of it as an intentional arrangement of any given set of elements to deliver some sort of message, with some sort of purpose (or a number of messages or purposes simultaneously)

Mediated popular culture text is what we will be examining in this course as a project

Popular culture often takes beliefs and assumptions for granted

Examining it fully requires a critical method that takes no assumptions as given or natural

Works covertly, on multiple levels, and often with conflicting messages

Multi-dimensional approach required

Conducting rhetorical analysis:

-revealing covert messages in mediated texts and uncovering taken-for-granted beliefs

Method:

(1) Select a text, formulate a research question

(2) Select a rhetorical perspective

(3) Examine text via description, interpretation, evaluation

(1) Selecting a text, formulating a research question

-you can start either with a text (that you consider interesting)

-or with a question (e.g. assumptions you know you want to examine in culture)

-but in the end the goal is the same in both cases:

-you need to have a text to work with and you need a specific question to answer

-what you aim for is not merely a surface question about the features of text – you have to dig deeper into what stands behind text (values, goals, ideology)

(2) Rhetorical Perspective

aka. the sections/weeks/chapters of this course

-Neo-Aristotelian

-Narrative

-Dramatistic

-Marxist

-Feminist

-Illusion of Life

-Visual Pleasure

-Media effects

(3) Examining the Text

Interpreting text, drawing implications -> answering the research question(s)

Different approaches come with different methods

You already have at least two systematic approaches that have been discussed

-(Neo-)Aristotelian

-Toulmin Model

More to come as we move through the course!

Rhetorical Fallacies (Workshop Jan. 16th)

Rhetorical Fallacies

-Rhetorical ‘do-nots’: poor, misleading arguments

-Errors in Logos + Ethos + Pathos x Toulmin Model

(1) Logical fallacies

- Faulty logic

- Poor or deceptive use of factual information

(2) Emotional (Pathetic) fallacies

- Unreasonable, overdramatized or presumptious appeals to emotion

(3) Ethical fallacies

- Unrealistic or misleading representations of the author’s credibility or authority

***

Logical Fallacies:

(1) Hasty Generalization

Drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence.

Insufficient grounds/backing for a claim.

e.g.: One simply needs to turn on MTV to see that rap music is a degenerate style which only promotes violence and sexism.

(2) Faulty Causality (or Post Hoc)

Confusing chronology with causality: suggesting that one event caused another because it preceded it.

Faulty warrant.

e.g.: In the year after the release of Marilyn Manson’s previous albums, school violence rose 30% - surely not a coincidence.

(3) Non Sequitur (Latin for “It doesn’t follow”)

A leap of logic – an important step in the line of thought is omitted, making the claim difficult to follow or justify.

Missing warrant.

e.g.: If you actually had a good taste in music, you wouldn’t be listening to punk.

(4) Equivocation

Half-truth: saying something that is partially true, or true only with a particular caveat or definition.

Convoluted warrant or partially inaccurate grounds/backing.

e.g.: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” – President Bill Clinton

(5) Begging the Question

Repeating the same claim in a different way, circling around an argument without adding support.

Repeating claim without adding grounds/warrant.

e.g.: The reason there's such a big demand for this product is because everyone wants to get it.

(6) Faulty Analogy

Misleading, inaccurate or inappropriate comparison.

Illogical or convoluted warrant; excessive qualification.

e.g.: Music piracy is no different from car theft or mugging, as it takes away something that rightfully belongs to others.

(7) Stacked Evidence

Distortion through representing only one side of an issue.

Ignored rebuttal; Claims supported by biased evidence.

e.g.: Women write better novels because they are more sensitive, more interested in romance and create more believable characters.

Pathetic Fallacies

(1) Sentimental Appeal

Distracting the audience from facts using dramatic emotion.

Grounds based on selectively-emotional content rather than broad scope of facts.

e.g.: Conservative energy policies kill thousands of baby seals every year.

(2) Red Herring

Distracting the audience through irrelevant information.

Unrelated or marginally related grounds used to support a claim.

e.g.: This movie is terrible because Samuel L. Jackson is not in it.

(3) Scare Tactics

Frightening an audience with exaggerated dangers stemming from a cause or action.

Threatening descriptions as warrant.

e.g.: The union is led by communists, who will only be happy when our free market society is destroyed forever.

(4) Bandwagon Appeals

Encouraging an audience to agree with a claim because someone else does.

Popularity of a claim (rather than strength of grounds) as warrant.

e.g.: One million iPhone 4S customers can’t be wrong.

(5) Slippery Slope

Suggesting that one action will lead to a chain of events which will have disastrous results in the end.

Faulty warrant , exaggerated qualifier – taking logical connections far beyond the original claim.

e.g.: Reducing our military budget will force us to rely on the US more than we already do, spelling the end for Canadian independence.

(6) Either/Or Choices

Reducing complicated issues to only two possible solutions.

Faulty warrant or false rebuttal.

e.g.: You can either buy this great product on sale right now, or forever miss a great offer.

(7) False Need

Presenting something as a necessity (even when it is not).

Faulty grounds, exaggerated warrant.

e.g.: If you don’t join the club, you’re a nobody.

Ethical Fallacies

(1) False Authority

Appeal to an authority that may not be qualified to make a particular judgment.

Faulty grounds+warrant.

e.g.: My dad says capitalism is terrible, therefore it must be true.

(2) Authority Instead of Evidence

Using personal authority as grounds for a claim.

Faulty grounds+backing.

e.g.: Trust me – my dad wouldn’t lie.

(3) Guilt by Association

Attacking someone’s character based on people they associate with.

Faulty grounds/backing.

e.g.: Your brother is a drug dealer, so you can’t be class president.

(4) Dogmatism

Shutting down discussion by claiming that only the writer’s/speaker’s position matters.

Faulty everything – precludes further discussion.

e.g.: I know it’s true because we learned that in class, and obviously that’s a better source than anything you can offer.

(5) Moral Equivalence

Equating minor problems to serious crimes or faults.

Faulty warrant.

e.g.: This professor grades like a Nazi.

(6) Ad Hominem Attack

Arguments aimed at an opponent’s character rather than his/her reasoning.

Misleading grounds/backing – not directly relevant to claim.

e.g.: Why should we believe this candidate when he is a French-speaking cultural elitist who can’t relate to the common man?

(7) Strawperson Attack

Deliberately setting up arguments that can be easily attacked and dismantled to misrepresent an opponent’s position.

Inappropriately extending an opponent’s claim.

e.g.: My opponent believes that we should legalize marijuana, giving everyone open access to drugs and endangering our children’s future. Unlike my opponent, I believe in our children and want them to grow up without drugs.

The Toulmin Model (Jan 13 Lecture)

Toulmin Model

Stephen Toulmin
British philosopher, 1922-2009

-Studied the logic and origins of human ethics/morality

-Rejected both moral absolutism (as advocated by Plato – absolute truth and unalterable virtues, though Plato suggested that these cannot be known by humans) and relativism (post-modern idea that there can be no truth and all morals are just false constructs – ironically one could argue that this was Socrates' true position)

-Promoted reason, compromise, humanism – argued that we need to be practical and realistic about the way we live, think, argue

-Developed a model of practical argumentation (or rhetoric) to suit this purpose

Six parts to any argument:

- Claim, Grounds, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, Qualifier

Useful to both producing and critically-analyzing arguments

1. Claim

The conclusion to be proven, aka the thesis

The “what” of an argument – what are you trying to say?

– e.g. “We don't know what Socrates really thought.”

2. Grounds

Evidence, data, or primary argument supporting this claim

Facts – not always 100% reliable, but can be argued logically (logos!) to defend a claim as sufficiently convincing or scientifically supportable

The “how” of an argument – how do you know that your claim is true?

– e.g. “...because we only know about Socrates from others' writing, primarily Plato's”

3. Warrant

The link between a claim and its grounds – should be made clearly, whether explicitly or implicitly

Can be provided using ethos, pathos or logos, but ideally should incorporate all three – cover all fronts!

The “why” of an argument – why do your grounds prove/support your claim?

– e.g. “...because memory is not perfect and everyone – including Plato – has their own bias and philosophy”

4. Backing

Additional information and credentials which extends your grounds and warrant

Should enhance your claim's credibility (ethos!), provide an alternative but also sensible logic (logos!), and serve to back up your warrant

Any claim, grounds or warrant has more than one possible angle to it – backing is a reminder to explore some of the other ones that can help your argument

The “also” of an argument

– e.g. “...also because Socrates was distrustful of writing and did not like others speaking on his behalf, which is why he refused to write down anything he said”

5. Rebuttal

The opposite or antithesis that needs to be recognized

Restrictions or limits of an argument need to be acknowledged

Talking about views that oppose yours does not necessarily weaken your argument, and if you do it effectively, in fact strengthens it significantly (by building your ethos as someone who is ethical and informed enough to know all sides of an issue, and confident enough to tackle opposition effectively and respectfully)

Any claim comes with alternatives – there are always other angles, and a rebuttal is a reminder to address these

The “negative” of an argument

– e.g. “...however what Plato tells about Socrates is largely consistent with what is told by other contemporaries, and shows great respect for Socrates, suggesting that there is at least a great overlap between Plato's and Socrates' thinking”

6. Qualifier

The degree of certainty or force with which a claim is argued

The strength of the rebuttal will often naturally lead here

Restate or conclude your claims, starting with words ranging from “perhaps” or “possibly” to “likely” or “certainly”

Should be determined logically by the strength of grounds, warrants, backing, and rebuttals

Be careful not to claim more than you can justify!

The “degree” of an argument

– e.g. “...therefore we will certainly never know what Socrates really thought, but it is likely that Plato's portrayal of his philosophy is at least partially accurate.”

Inventio(n) Strategies (Jan 11-13 Workshop)

INVENTION STRATEGIES

Targeted brainstorming

Good persuasive ideas rarely come out of nowhere – usually you have to start by thinking about something, with even a vague goal in mind

Best taken slowly and strategically

Best ideas don’t appear instantly or at random – usually you have to work for them

Sometimes sitting on an idea really is the best thing you can do

But make sure that meets requirements of your work

Better to be organized to avoid lapsing into procrastination

Thinking about your audience

demographics (what group(s) does your audience fit into? What do you know about these groups?)

expectations (What does the audience want to hear? What does the audience not want to hear? How is the audience likely to take you seriously?)

how do you establish common ground with the audience? (you do not want to turn your arguments into an uphill battle)

What kind of supporting materials can you bring to bear on your arguments?

-Facts, statistics - research
-Narratives, expert testimony
-Humor, emotionally-engaging content

Different audiences respond differently to different supporting materials/evidence

-better to cover more than one approach,
-but remember to be strategic and emphasize the kinds of materials that will be most effective

(e.g. in an academic essay, facts and quotes from peer-reviewed academic journals will always be the best way to convince your prof!)

Appeals: Ethos/Logos/Pathos

again, different audiences respond differently and may prefer one type of appeal over the other

a good idea is to address all three at least to some extent

but at the same time be strategic about the appeals that you will believe will be most effective

don’t put your eggs in one basket!

Kairos

Think about the right time to pitch an argument

logos is the one area that you will need to cover in most academic and professional situations – you cannot move far without clear, rational logic

ethos is important at least insofar as you establish yourself as credible

pathos is the trickiest one – in any setting, it can be both extremely effective (if you strike an effective emotional note) and extremely damaging to your ethos (if you appear overly-emotional, irrational, or disingenuous). Use with caution in serious settings.

Now for some practical suggestions…

4 PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO INVENTION

LISTING

List the ideas, arguments, facts, questions, key words, goals you want to cover

Point form only – avoids getting stuck on wording or style

Good for generating initial thoughts, not necessarily most useful for structuring

Don’t sort until you run out of ideas

Use another strategy to organize (e.g. mapping)

FREEWRITING

Useful for generating unsorted ideas if you think better in ‘stream of consciousness’

Start writing down whatever comes to mind (preferably with a goal in mind) and don’t stop until you reach a limit you set (e.g. 500 words or 15 minutes)

Again, useful for generating initial thoughts and often results in surprising ideas that you didn’t have in mind before

Also not very useful if you need organization – use another strategy to organize thoughts after you freewrite

MAPPING

Like listing, but with text bubbles instead of bullet points

Use lines/arrows or clusters to connect bubbles of related ideas together

The result is often a bit complex, but also gives more cues on future organization of your arguments

Especially helpful if your project requires finding connections between ideas

CUBING

Approach an idea from 6 different sides, thus putting it inside a discrete ‘cube’

Describe (‘What is it?’)

Compare (‘What is it like/not like?’)

Associate (‘What other ideas does it belong with?’)

Analyze (‘What parts is it made up of?’)

Apply (‘How can you use this idea?’)

Argue (‘How can you support or oppose it?’)

Useful for developing coherent theses for academic essays – helps avoid one-sided thinking

Classical Rhetoric and Neoclassical Education (Jan. 11 Lecture))

Cicero

-Roman philosopher and politician, 106-43 BC
-Built on Greek rhetoric
-Believed in liberal education for all free men
-Broad scope of erudition – studying many natural and human sciences, as well as arts, rhetoric, law, spirituality
-Looked to Aristotelian rhetoric as a model for good arguments, and classical Greek literature philosophy as models of virtue

Cicero's Canons of Rhetoric

-Five separate arts or skills comprising the art of rhetoric
-Processes that a successful rhetor must engage in
-Mastered by practice + imitation of virtuous models

-Inventio
-Invention, planning
-Brainstorming for ideas, coming up with major points, developing and refining arguments
-Thinking about your goals, audience, strenghts and weaknesses as speaker

-Dispositio
-Arrangement, organization (“disposition”)
-Organizing your arguments logically to achieve maximum impact (e.g. ordering main points of an argument or order of thesis/antithesis in dialectic)

-Elocutio
-Style, language (“elocution”)
-Choosing your tone, words, metaphors, and other language devices to suit the needs of your argument

-Memoria
-Memorization, preparation
-Learning how to deliver your speech without relying on notes, building up a general erudition (facts, quotes, and useful references that you could bring up in any situation); learning how to prepare effectively but also to think on the spot

-Actio
-Delivery, expression (“action”)
-Learning how to use your voice, body language, speech setting to deliver your speech persuasively, confidently, dynamically – mastering your nerves, your body and the space around it

(Neo-)Classical Rhetoric

-Continues to be taught, nearly 2400 years since Aristotle formalized it
-Was a significant part of liberal education, particularly popular in ancient times (Greece and Rome) and from the Renaissance onwards in modern Europe (thus “Renaissance Man” as someone of very broad knowledge and many talents)

-Frequently criticized by scholars and philosophers as deceptive, but also praised as a means of spreading and stabilizing truth and virtueby others (e.g. St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas)
-Never managed to successfully shake off suspicion towards it as an imprecise science

-Reached its height during the Enlightenment (17th-19^th centuries), when the Neoclassical movement looked back to Greek and Roman culture as a model for how civilization should be, and sought to create an scientific community, intellectual culture, and social institutions that imitated the ancients (or, more accurately, their own ideal of the ancients)

-From the late 19^th century onward, rhetoric fell into decline along with liberal education – scientific progress (which was presented as the real vehicle of truth) and the Industrial Revolution led to increasingly specialized education which produced specialists in narrow fields of knowledge rather than liberal thinkers of broad erudition

-Interest in rhetoric was revived significantly by the 1960s – while the Neo-Aristotelian perspective remained a potent one, many new schools of thought emerged

Journal 1 sample

I wrote 3 possible short responses to my own prompts - see what you think of them! With your journal, you welcome to respond to only one of the options, but if you run out of ideas, you can also do the same thing and have a couple of unrelated responses if you wish - just be sure to develop them. 500-1000 words is recommended; if you wish, you can certainly go above that (but don't make this difficult for yourself!)

As I noted before, Journals are not meant to be formal writing and I certainly do not expect either totally polished writing or fully-fleshed-out ideas. The point of the exercise is for you to prove that you can develop ideas in an intelligent, rhetorical way and connect them to both your personal experience and theory we discuss in class.

So, here is what I wrote…

(1) Think of a favourite...

One of my favourite music artists is the Russian rock band Aquarium. They appeal to me for three main reasons: the diversity of musical styles and influences found in their work, the cleverness and positive messages of their lyrics, and the personality of their lead singer whom I can closely relate to.

Aquarium are one of the first rock bands to appear in Russia, starting as an underground duo in the 1970s. While they started out as an acoustic rock band, they brought in many different styles as the band grew and changed. Many of their albums incorporate elements of Russian folk music, reggae, industrial, progressive rock, African drum music and Buddhist chants, Celtic fiddle and Japanese koto – sometimes all at the same time. Listening to them made me curious about music from all over the world, and motivated me to explore things outside my usual listening range. Thus you could say that the band is aesthetically interesting.

The band's lyrics are always an interesting mix of surreal comedy, biting social commentary, and spiritual philosophy that encourages listeners to think, feel and live freely but responsibly. It's a positive ethical message, but it's also worded very cleverly. In fact, because the band started out under an oppressive Soviet regime, Aquarium had to be clever with their language and use metaphors and 'code language' to avoid being censored (or losing their day jobs, or going to jail). This resulted in some pretty hilarious, smart lyrics that cleverly said exactly what the band wanted to say but avoided trouble. Thus you could say that the band is intellectually very engaging and also promotes a positive ethos.

Finally, the band's unchanging lead singer and lyricist B.G. (Boris Grebenschikov) is a personality that I can relate to very closely. In the early days of the band's underground career, he found himself in a low-paying academic job that left him with limited freedom, and lived in a society that sometimes filled him with doubt and anxiety. However he stuck to his values and ideals, kept his thirst for new knowledge and new opportunities to change the world, and stuck close to his trusted friends. This is clearly reflected in many of his songs. He stood up to censorship and oppression, paid for it dearly by losing his job and being hounded by authorities, but continued making music, even when he couldn't afford food and a place of his own. When the Soviet regime fell, he refused to become a celebrity and continued making biting critiques of life in the new Russia. His positive philosophy, which I already mentioned, really makes him one of the most influential cultural figures in my life. I believe he is a good example of an ethical role model.

Thus, I really like the band Aquarium and I believe they have made a positive difference in my life through engaging me intellectually, ethically and emotionally.

2) Think of good rhetoric that convinced you...

I already mentioned in class that I have always been a big fan of airplanes and aviation, but I have also been afraid of actually flying for a long time. You could say that this was something that I was originally persuaded into that position by my parents who were themselves afraid of flying, and convinced me to be like them through their ethos (as parents and therefore authority figures), and pathos (scary things that happen when airplanes crash). So, I was often really scared while flying on airplanes, imagining wings falling off, mountains hiding in clouds, or other things that could suddenly go wrong.

What ultimately solved my fear of flying was exposure to very reliable information sources (logos and ethos), positive personal experience (pathos), and a more relaxed philosophy of life that I've developed over the last few years.

The biggest source of information for me has been my involvement with flight simulations as a hobby – and I don't mean games where you just fly, shoot things, or do barrel rolls on any plane you want – but serious flight simulator software worth several hundred dollars and requiring dozens of hours of reading and training to use properly, in order to follow real procedures that passenger planes carry out. It's been both a rewarding and eye-opening experience – appreciating how a plane works as a complete system where every part makes sense is very different than seeing it as a big pile of engines, wings, and all sorts of moving bits flying through the sky. I came to appreciate how intelligently everything on an airplane is designed, how many backups and special procedures there are should anything go wrong, and how something truly bad happening on an airplane – while still totally possible – required an extremely unlikely combination of many things going wrong at the same time. I gained a lot of respect for people who work in aviation, learning the amount of human intelligence, training, and effort on the part of many individuals every moment that a passenger plane is in the sky. I learned to better understand what risk statistics mean. And ultimately, sometimes one just needs to accept that nothing you do – not even sitting at home in front of a computer – is without some sort of risk.

3) Think of a time when rhetoric misled you...

While not necessarily a bad thing, I had been once persuaded to buy something I regret a bit – it was a Wacom drawing tablet for my PC, worth a couple of hundred dollars. I am not an artist, but good marketing, peer pressure and a convenient opportunity conspired to make me buy it. A tablet is something that allows you to draw on a panel and have your drawings instantly transmitted into the computer, where they can be easily edited – which is a lot more flexible and convenient than a pencil. However, since I bought it, I hardly got to use it.

I happen to have many friends who work in graphics design and animation, who constantly tell me about their projects. I do occasionally draw too, but I am by no means good, nor have time to do it regularly. Still, hearing about all the interesting things they do has always got my imagination started – which I guess is a form of pathos, positive feeling of creative freedom; but also ethos – listening to people in the know talk about a tool they find to be very useful, and wanting one yourself so you could be more like them.

Looking at tech descriptions and reviews of the tablet, I only became more intrigued – the youtube videos promoting it were really well-designed, the features looked very good, and all of it was written in a techy language that, in a strange way, was very appealing and made the tablet sound like an extremely useful thing for anyone to have. I suppose this is a sort of logos to the argument – a slightly deceptive but well-composed description of something can definitely make a product seem like a necessity, not just a neat toy.

Finally when I went to Future Shop one day, they had a sale on these tablets – it was only something like 10%, but that was enough to seal the deal for me by putting a thought into my mind: “if not now, when?” So, I bought it and it has been collecting dust on my desk for two years since. Yes, a Wacom tablet really is a very neat piece of tech, but one that I'd rather not have spent my hard-earned cash on. But I'm sure this is a very common story, one that many tech-savvy people can relate to!

****

PS - I don't encourage you to imitate me - there are many more ways of doing well with your journals. What I want you to pay attention to is mostly a) the fact I've incorporated structure and just a little bit of thinking along the lines of rhetorical concepts and values; and b) the fact that I've kept it relatively casual and personal, without stressing too much over academic tone. I think keeping those two things in mind will help you quite a bit with this and future journals.

Good luck!

-G.R.

Classical Rhetoric - Ancient Greece (Jan. 9th lecture)

Today's Class

-Classical Rhetoric
-Ancient Greece (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle)
-Rhetorical Appeals

Perspective

-Western/Eurocentric
-This does not mean that scholars elsewhere did not write about the art of speaking and arguing – rich traditions exist elsewhere
-Cultures outside the Western (Greek, Roman and Christian) tradition have contributed to Western knowledge as well (e.g. we owe much to Islamic scholars of the Middle Ages in preserving Greek philosophy)
-However in the interest of keeping to English argument structure, we'll stick to Western theory and history of rhetoric

Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

-Art of public speaking
-Was not associated with writing
-Resulted largely from the political system
-Large public meetings where speaking loudly, clearly, expressively and briefly was crucial
-Involved very little writing, and required a lot of on-the-spot thinking and decision-making
-All (male) citizens were not only able, but obliged to participate in political process

-Taught by Sophists
-Traveling intellectuals that made a living by going between Greek city-states and teaching science, art, philosophy as well as rhetoric, in public as well as private seminars
-Many of them became famous and highly sought-after – intellectual celebrities of their day (e.g. Pythagoras)

-Rhetor: the speaker; a master of the art of rhetoric
vs.
-Rhetorician: the student of rhetoric; a master of the study of rhetoric

Socrates

-Athenian philosopher, 469–399 BC
-Socrates challenged and criticized the Sophists, who presented themselves as experts and teachers of great knowledge and virtue in exchange for money
-Alleged to have accepted no fee for his lectures, and professed having no wisdom (except the truth of knowing nothing), and was a masterful debater who took apart the ideas and assumptions of the most capable minds of his age
-Sentenced to death for questioning the official religion (and challenging the governing authorities)
-Central to Western thought and philosophy

Socratic problem

-Socrates never wrote down any of his teachings, and dissuaded others from doing so
-All we know about Socrates comes from others' writings, the majority of it from his student Plato
-But Plato and his other students had agendas of their own – so what we know about Socrates' views and philosophy may be different from what he really said
-Ultimately, we cannot say with 100% certainty what Socrates really believed (Socratic Problem)

Socratic Method

-A method of dialogue, debate between two individuals or viewpoint (aka Dialectic)
-Used for examining assumptions and questioning values, particularly those poorly defined (e.g. virtue, morality, wisdom)
-Takes two opposing perspectives
-Thesis and Antithesis (e.g. wisdom is a good thing vs. wisdom only causes trouble)
-Examines one against the other (pros, cons, clashing definitions)
-Emerges with a Synthesis that balances (but also often undermines) both sides
-Often results in Aporia – a state of mental confusion and actually realizing that you cannot state your beliefs with such certainty (e.g. wisdom is neither a good nor a bad thing, but more importantly, can we ever say for sure what it means to be wise if the real wise man knows only that he knows nothing?)

-Plato's Dialogues (a series of works which allegedly document conversations between Socrates and other wise men of his time) show Socrates employing this method to undermine assumptions and often implicitly ridicule the true ignorance of even the most educated people

Plato

-Athenian philosopher, 424-347 BC
-Student of Socrates, teacher of Aristotle
-His most famous writings are about Socrates
-Derided Sophists as those who use their rhetorical skill and intelligence to deceive other people and ensure a good living for themselves
-Rhetoric as art of deceit
-Having to use rhetoric is inevitable, but we should avoid it as much as we can
-Even the best-composed argument is merely a convoluted reflection of truth and virtue – so better to seek truth and virtue more directly...

Forms and Virtues

-Plato believed in eternal, metaphysical truth of forms
-Everything in the world is merely a reflection of the true, abstract, unchangeable forms or principles
-We can only perceive these forms indirectly and through a very limited perspective through being human
-However by observing the world methodically and without bias or agenda, we can draw out principles by which truth works, and apply those principles to elevating human life

-Virtues
-Qualities of moral being
-Should be promoted as basis for healthy individual and collective life

-Ethics (morality and righteousness in life) vs. Aesthetics (creativity and balance in art)
-Plato saw both as related and flowing from the same source

-Main classical virtues (as per Plato): temperance, prudence, courage, justice

Rhetoric

-For Plato, rhetoric (and language in general) is merely a flawed way of trying to persuade people (in their fallen, un-virtuous state) to become virtuous, and should be avoided wherever possible
-Words that are written down are merely a bad copy of the real process of thought or conversation – they convey only the shape of what was thought or said, but none of the real process of understanding (which requires 'being there' to happen – language can't get you 'there')
-Ironically, this is why the Socratic Problem is such a problem!
-If you think Plato is harsh on Rhetoric, you should see what he has to say about poetry & art!
-Plato thought that education and society should avoid deceptive rhetoric and art in favour of straightforward and well-reasoned philosophy

-Republic
-Long work defining the organization and nature of the virtuous, functional state and virtual, functional man
-Socrates is the 'protagonist' of the work and outlines the ideal Republic in philosophical debates with foremost minds of his day
-Achieved through reason, not rhetoric

Aristotle

-Athenian philosopher, 384-322BC
-Student of Plato, teacher of Alexander the Great
-Founder of formal disciplines and sciences that continue to shape knowledge today
-First to define a comprehensive Western scientific method and philosophical system (i.e. a complete understanding of how the world works and how it can be known)
-Classical education based on this system
-Rhetoric as part of this education

-Rhetoric
-Unlike Plato, saw it as neither good nor evil, but productive when used correctly
-An art to be mastered, a study to be systematized
-Good rhetoric reflects classical ethical and aesthetic virtues

Aristotelian Rhetoric

-Means of Persuasion
-Logos, Pathos, Ethos
-Rhetorical genres
-Structures
-Rhetorical topics, themes and situations
-Understanding your subject and audience
-Kairos
-Style, grammar, presentation

Means of Persuasion

Three Appeals:

Logos:
-Logic, reason, facts
-Persuading your audience by presenting ideas based on facts, numbers, 'hard' science
-Good, easy-to-follow line of logic – common sense or well-explained
-Good structure of speech and clear, straightforward language

Pathos
-Emotion, feeling, drama
-Persuading your audience by strong emotional language and powerful emotion
-Tapping into the audience's concerns, fears, sympathies, emotional needs
-Engaging, confident, expressive delivery
-Captivating language and dramatic structure

Ethos
-Ethics, credibility, values, sources
-Persuading your audience by appealing to your (and your arguments') credibility and virtue
-Tapping into shared values, common ideas, similar experienced, equal standing (I am one of you!) or authority (I am a great, accomplished person!)
-Appealing to authority bestowed on you (and your argument) by outside powers – science, God(s), people's trust, luck, talent
-Presenting yourself as likeable, admirable, interesting, serious, trustworthy

Kairos (Not one of the three main appeals, but a crucial principle!)
-Timeliness, 'The Moment of Truth' – the right argument at the right moment can make great difference
-Knowing your audience beforehand – what they want to hear, what they are likely to respond to, when they want to hear it
-Choosing the right occasion to present your topic / right topic for the occasion
-Structuring the length and key points of your speech for maximum impact

Structure and style
-Tone and register
-The way you might make a point to your friends and to your political opponents is completely different, and so is the language you would use
-Mastery of kinds of language appropriate to intellectual debate and political meetings crucial to making a difference
-Developing vocabulary and grammar to be taken seriously
-Eloquent and complex arguments, or extremely emotional and poetic language, will not always help make your point
-Study the style of others' arguments to make more effective arguments yourself!

Structure
-Clear organization
-Good models

-Classic 3-point model (used as basis for 5-paragraph essay):

-Thesis (your main point/argument)
-Supporting argument 1 (2^nd strongest)
-Supporting argument 2 (weakest)
-Supporting argument 3 (strongest)
-Thesis restated

-Dialectic (based on Socratic Method)
-Thesis ('pro'/main point/argument/assumption)
-Antithesis ('con'/the opposite perspective/argument challenging your thesis or assumption)
-Synthesis (balancing thesis and antithesis)
-Can also be used to test a thesis and either effectively show how it withstands criticism or how it's indefensible and should be modified

Next class:

-Ancient Rome: Cicero

-Neoclassical Education

-Modern Rhetoric

Journal 1 Assignment

-Take what you've learned in our previous class
-Read chapters 1 and 2 of the textbook (Sellnow – The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture)
-Take out a piece of paper and jot down a few point-form notes on the following 3 questions….

---------------------------------------------------------------------

a) From page 1 of the textbook...“Take a moment or two to jot down a favourite (1) movie, (2) TV program, (3) song, (4) cartoon, (5) comic strip, and (6) advertisement. Beside each selection, identify a sentence or two why it is a favourite of yours. The reasons you offer actually demonstrate the influential role that each one plays in how you interpret the world around you.”

(you can also think of other cultural favourites of yours if you wish)

b) Can you think of something you thought to be “meaningless rhetoric” or “empty words”? Why did you think so? What could have made you think differently?

c) Think of a situation where a good argument motivated you to do something positive orchange your beliefs for better. How did you react to it? Why was it effective? Conversely, can you think of a situation where a good argument persuaded you to do, say, or buy something you regret? Why was it effective? How could you have avoided it?(you don't have to do all of these, but I do suggest that you come up with at least 6 different examples in total)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that you have some notes, choose 2 or 3 things that you think would be interesting, appropriate and possibly 'rhetorical' to write about (i.e. would make an interesting argument).

Come up with at least 2 sub-points for each of your examples.

Keep the following ideas from readings/class in mind (these will be discussed further in lecture on Monday):

-The problem of knowing – how do you know? Dig deeper!

-Socratic method, Dialectic

-Ethics and Aesthetics

-The three appeals: logos, ethos, pathos

-weighing pros/cons, looking for opposites

-Add to these any ideas you get from reading Chapters 1 and 2, and refer to them in discussing why arguments you encountered have been effective (or not)

Write it down in clear, serious text. Use paragraphs, and do NOT use point form. You can separate your journal into 2 or 3 parts that are not related (i.e. discussing different ideas), and these parts can have their own titles/headings. Try to keep your writing structured as much as possible.

Aim for 500 words (450+ accepted) – but you are welcome to go beyond it (just don't make this more difficult for yourself than it should be).

Feel free to write in first person (i.e. “I think...”), but avoid informal language and slang.

Remember that I (i.e. your prof) am your audience.

Keep the possibility of using one (or more) of the ideas that you come up with for your final project – this is a good way to brainstorm and compare ideas.

Print and have the finished journal ready to submit in class on Thursday, Sept. 22

Have some fun with this!

-------------------------------------

A reminder - my office hours are tomorrow (Friday) 3:00-5:00 in PAS 1284. If you have any questions, you can also email me anytime.

Course Syllabus

English 101B – An Introduction to Rhetoric

Time: Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, 12:30-1:20pm

Location: HH139

Instructor: George Ross, gross@uwaterloo.ca
Course blog: http://uw-engl101b.blogspot.com/

Office hours: Wednesdays 1:30-3:30pm, PAS 1284

Course Description

This course will introduce rhetoric – which, in a nutshell, is the art and study of persuasion. As a student in this course, you will learn to approach arguments in a critical and systematic manner, using a variety of methods and theories that this field of study has offer.

Course Objectives

1) You will learn what rhetoric is and how it works, in the context of history, literature, language, and a variety of popular media.

2) You will learn to use your knowledge to analyze existing arguments in a systematic, critical and respectful manner.

3) You will learn to produce effective academic arguments and think critically about the world around you.

Theory of rhetoric is far from straightforward and easy – it was and is subject to intense debate among experts, and it offers few simple answers or all-encompassing methods. Models of good arguments, such as Aristotle's or Toulmin's, will be discussed – but so will their shortcomings and criticisms. The goal of this course is not to give you ready answers or provide formulas to follow, but to engage you in using rhetoric to work with real, complex, multi-sided issues in media and literature studies.

Readings and lectures will provide ideas and approaches for you to build on, but the real focus of the course will be on applying rhetorical analysis to a variety of real arguments, ranging from the pages of history to today's headlines, from academic debates to pop culture, from ordinary logic to surprising and controversial positions. You will engage with these arguments through class discussions and written assignments, learning to analyze and critique all types of rhetoric in a serious, balanced and well-composed manner. And in this process, you will most importantly be expected to produce your own effective arguments.

In the long term, the goals of this course fit into the overall aims of higher education, whatever you choose to specialize in. It is hoped that better understanding of rhetoric will make you a better critical thinker, speaker and writer, and will allow you to approach all types of arguments, problems and ideas with a rational, respectful and practical mindset.

Text

Sellnow, Deanna D. 2009. The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture. Toronto: Sage

Course Schedule

Date	Topic of the week	Readings	Date	Assignment (due)
Jan 4	Rhetoric: Introduction		Jan 6
Jan 9	Classical Rhetoric	Chapters 1 & 2	Jan 13	Journal 1
Jan 16	Narrative Analysis	Chapter 3	Jan 20
Jan 23	Dramatistic Analysis	Chapter 4	Jan 27	Journal 2
Jan 30	Marxist Analysis	Chapter 5	Feb 3
Feb 6	Feminist Analysis	Chapter 6	Feb 10	Essay Proposal
Feb 13	Musical Analysis	Chapter 7	Feb 17	Take-home midterm
Feb 20	READING WEEK		Feb 24
Feb 27	Functional Analysis & Visuals	TBA	Mar 2
Mar 5	Visual Pleasure & Psychoanalysis	Chapter 8	Mar 9	Journal 3
Mar 12	Media Effects, Essay Workshop	Chapter 9	Mar 16
Mar 19	Workshops, Peer Editing	TBA	Mar 23	Essay Draft
Mar 26	Workshops	TBA	Apr 2	Final essay

Course Evaluation

Journals - 15% (3x5%)

Take-home midterm - 15%

Final exam - 20%

Final essay - 35% (proposal – 5%, essay – 30%)

In-class participation - 15%

Coursework Description

In-class Participation

Much of what we do in this course, particularly towards the end, will involve in-class discussions and activities. There will be both discussions of theory and of artifacts (i.e. examples of arguments). You will be expected to contribute to these discussions and to be rhetorical as much as possible – meaning that you will be expected to demonstrate that you can apply the theories you learned, participate in reasoned arguments, and contribute new ideas effectively to the course.

(In-Class Participation continued)

Note that while you are graded individually on all of your work, including participation, you will be expected to work with other students extensively during class, and there will be activities to complete as a group. Please be respectful, considerate and proactive when working with partners – don't count on others to do all the talking for you, and make sure that you both make yourself heard and give others the opportunity to speak!

Journals

Reflective journals are designed to give you an opportunity to engage with concepts discussed in the course, develop ideas for your final paper (or other projects), and practice writing. It also allows me as the instructor to get a better sense for your writing and thought process, and help guide you with direct feedback.

There will be 3 total journal entries assigned on weeks with no other work due. These must be 500 words (approx. 2 double-spaced pages) long, and will be based on a prompt given to you a week an advance. You may be asked to address concepts in the course, brainstorm on ideas, or analyze a bit of text. The journals are a reflection of your work-in-progress, so don't get overly formal with them, and use prompts as take-off points – there is no right and wrong answers, and what I am looking for as the instructor is evidence that you have studied course material and can formulate your ideas about it effectively.

The journals will be worth 5% of final grade each: 2 points for how well your journal responds to the given prompt and/or develops a creative/persuasive idea, 2 points for how closely and effectively it connects to theories of rhetoric discussed recently in the course, 1 point for completion (i.e. sufficient length and depth) and quality of writing.

Take-home Midterm

The take-home midterm is designed to test your ability to apply specific methods of rhetorical analysis to a given text artifact. You will be given texts to analyze, and three short-essay questions to respond to, each worth 5% of your final mark. It is designed similarly to a 1.5-2 hour written exam, but you will be given 2 days of your own time to work on it. The assignment (text artifacts + prompt + analysis methods to be covered) will be given at the end of class on Wednesday, Feb. 15th. The submission is due at the start of class on Friday, Feb. 17^th.

Final Exam

The final exam will be similar to the midterm in format, but written as a single 2.5-hour exam in April. It will include two parts – definitions of terms/theories from the course (short answers), and analysis text artifacts (short essay answers). The exam will be worth 20% of your final grade. More information on the exam and preparation for it will be given towards the end of the course.

Final Essay

The final essay is the largest single component of your grade, worth 35% of the final grade, and comprised of a proposal (500-1000 words = 2-3 double-spaced pages, worth 5% of final grade, due Feb. 10^th), and the final paper (2000-2500 words = 6-8 double-spaced pages, worth 30% of the final grade, due Apr. 2^nd).

The assignment for this essay is to apply rhetorical theory to critically examine an artifact or a discourse (through a set of artifacts). You will choose the artifact(s) and methods of analysis yourself, using theories and approaches studied in the course, as well as additional academic literature. In other words, the choice of topics, texts and theories is up to you – as long as you do a bit of research and demonstrate a critical approach, virtually any type of cultural artifact is acceptable. Your topic can be as broad as discussing the discourse of global warming in the media, or a particular theme in a genre of literature - or as narrow as analyzing a movie scene, a song, an advertisement, or even the design of your favourite T-shirt or soft drink can. However, be wise about your choice, and choose something that you're confident you can make a compelling argument about! Don't choose something that is either too broad and ambitious for a course paper, or something that is too insubstantial or one-dimensional to make an interesting analysis of. When in doubt, you are welcome to consult with me about your topic.

The proposal is designed to help you decide on your topic. You are expected to do sufficient research and make a convincing argument for your essay topic in the proposal. Your proposal should include 3 sections: a description of your artifact, a discussion of what you want to argue about it (i.e. your thesis), and a preview of the theories and supporting materials (e.g. other research written about your topic) that you will use to produce your argument. While your proposal should reflect the contents of your final paper, you can change your topic or approach later in the course if you find it unmanageable. You will not be penalized for changing your topic after the proposal, however you must consult me about this in advance. You will not need to re-do the proposal for a new topic, but I may ask you to write about it in one of your later journals. Changing your topic late in the course without consulting me may raise serious concerns about your academic integrity.

The key to writing your essay successfully is not what you research and write about, but how you go about it. You must demonstrate substantial effort and understanding, and produce an interesting, critical and original analysis. It is not enough to imply describe the contents and history of your artifact, and list ways in which it is rhetorical – you must discuss your reasoning substantially.

More information on this assignment will be provided as the course goes on, and there will be an in-class writing workshop on the week Mar. 12^th.

Course Policies

Academic Integrity:

Members of the University of Waterloo community are expected to promote honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. [Check Academic Integrity at UW for more information.]

Attendance and Responsibility for Course Materials:

Attendance of all classes in this course is mandatory. Missing classes without a valid (e.g. documented medical) reason will result in the loss of participation marks. If you must be absent from a class, please alert me in advance.

While this course does use a textbook, much of the study material will be provided in lectures – the textbook is only a starting point and will not provide sufficient information to complete assignments and pass the course. Likewise, while some of the course notes will be posted weekly on the course blog, these will only provide a brief outline of what has been discussed in class. You are expected to follow lectures and keep your own course notes.

If you miss a class or due date for medical reasons, you must submit the University of Waterloo Verification of Illness form, completed and stamped by UW Health Services or your family physician, or you will lose credit for missed work.

Written Assignment Guidelines:

You must submit all your written work (journals, proposal, in-class midterm, final essay) typed and printed on paper. If you are unable to attend class, please email the work to me, but also to print and bring it to the following class. Please make sure that every assignment you submit includes at least the following information in the header, on separate lines: name, student number, course number, and date. All assignment submissions must be double-spaced and in standard size 12 font (Times New Roman, Arial, Calibri recommended; others acceptable as long as they are reasonably professional). Title pages are not required. Please print your assignments in black ink on plain white 8”x11” paper. Double-sided printing is acceptable and recommended. Assignments printed on multiple sheets should be stapled together.

Due Dates:
All written work is due at the start of Friday classes (except for the final paper, due on Monday Apr. 2^nd), as per the schedule above. Please ensure that all work is submitted on time – no late assignments will be accepted, unless you have a documented medical reason, or make arrangements for extension with me at least two days in advance.

Since all work in this course, including the short journals, is assigned at least a week in advance, extensions will be granted only in exceptional cases. Missing previous classes, forgetting due dates, workload in other courses, extracurricular activities, writer's block, or addictions to video games are not considered legitimate excuses for extension! Avoid leaving your work until the last moment, and when stuck for any reason – please let me know as far in advance as possible so I can give advice, grant extensions or issue partial credit. No credit will be given if you simply come to class without your assigned work.

Respect and Potential Offense:
Since analyzing interesting, up-to-date and unusual text artifacts and arguments is an integral part of class discussion and participation, please be aware that some of these artifacts may be potentially offensive (e.g. when discussing the rhetoric of racism, you may be presented an example of explicitly racist text to analyze, etc.). As course instructor, I will never endorse offensive or controversial views, but I may ask you to critically examine them. You may encounter opinions which you strongly disagree with in the process of discussion. Please approach these critically, and remain respectful of everyone else in the class at all times. If any of the discussion in the class makes you uncomfortable, please make me aware as soon as possible. However please do not disrupt the class to do so, and please keep all discussion at a level expected of a serious academic setting.

Discipline:
You are expected to know what constitutes academic integrity [check Academic Integrity at UW] to avoid committing an academic offence, and to take responsibility for your actions. A student who is unsure whether an action constitutes an offence, or who needs help in learning how to avoid offences (e.g., plagiarism, cheating) or about “rules” for group work/collaboration should seek

guidance from the course instructor, academic advisor, or the undergraduate Associate Dean. For information on categories of offences and types of penalties, students should refer to Policy 71, Student Discipline. For typical penalties check Guidelines for the Assessment of Penalties.

Appeals:
A decision made or penalty imposed under Policy 70 (Student Petitions and Grievances) (other than a petition) or Policy 71 (Student Discipline) may be appealed if there is a ground. A student who believes he/she has a ground for an appeal should refer to Policy 72 (Student Appeals).

Grievances:
A student who believes that a decision affecting some aspect of his/her university life has been unfair or unreasonable may have grounds for initiating a grievance. Read Policy 70, Student Petitions and Grievances, Section 4. When in doubt please be certain to contact the department’s administrative assistant who will provide further assistance.

Note for Students with Disabilities:
The Office for Persons with Disabilities (OPD), located in Needles Hall, Room 1132, collaborates with all academic departments to arrange appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities without compromising the academic integrity of the curriculum. If you require

academic accommodations to lessen the impact of your disability, please register with the OPD at the beginning of each academic term.