Over the past two decades, rhetorical scholars have debated the merits of the public sphere as articulated by scholar Jürgen Habermas.  While the concept of the “public” has enthralled scholars interested in public communication, public policy, and democracy, scholars also have debated the viability and wisdom of Habermas’s vision, have questioned his understanding and respect for a vibrant conception of rhetoric, and lamented what some characterize as a view that offers few real possibilities for democratic engagement by disenfranchised groups.  Concerns about the viability of Habermas’s views has given way to alternative modeling, under the label “counterpublics,” with a greater focus on the plight of the marginalized who seek inclusion in and acknowledgement by state actors (who are often conflated with the public). 

In an essay published in the latest issue of the well respected journal Philosophy and Rhetoric, Wabash College Visiting Assistant Professor of Rhetoric Jeff Motter, and his co-author Melanie Loehwing (Indiana University Bloomington, Department of Communication and Culture), revisit theories of publics and counterpublics and their relationship to democracy while advancing an intriguing reading of Habermas that advocates the potential benefits of his vision for democratic practice.  Starting with Habermas’s works on publics and Nancy Fraser’s work on counterpublics, Loehwing and Motter argue “for a return to the original point of theoretical contention [between Fraser and Habermas] in an effort to specify the different normative commitments of the two perspectives and reevaluate the role each envisions for rhetoric as a potentially democratic praxis” (p. 220).  In doing so the essay is concerned with the implications of adopting one view of (counter)public-democracy relations over the other (p. 221) and, perhaps even more interestingly, the “kind of function each imagines rhetoric to serve in the creation and maintenance of democratic culture” (p. 221).

While the essay begins by examining Habermas’s seminal work in the area, The Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere, and how it has been critiqued in an extensive body of scholarship, the central idea of the essay is the advancement of a unique reading of Habermas that is interested more in the democratic potential of his vision than becoming mired in the particulars of his specific historical example of structural transformation (p. 226).  More specifically, of fundamental interest to Loehwing and Motter is the sense of democracy entailed by theories of publics and/or counterpublics. They contend that the distinction in how democracy is viewed in the two perspectives is rooted in the contrast between a “Habermasian perspective [that] understands democracy to thrive as the ongoing constitution of democratic culture from public spheres’ rational-critical debate” and the view of counterpublic studies that sees “democracy both as the setting in which counterpublics operate (actually existing democracy) and at the level of optimally universal access to participation (democratic treatment of publics)” (p. 231).

Ultimately, Loehwing and Motter favor seeing public spheres as a “revitalizing force” in democratic culture, which means pursuing how democracy can be a product of civic rhetorical action rather than focusing on how relationships might be reformed via a counterpublic perspective.  This view is developed out of a concern that counterpublic studies advocate a substituting of one power interest for another. This, then, is a project that seeks to reclaim power rather than enriches democratic practice itself (234).  In contrast, the authors contend that the perspective offered by Habermas “features the sort of civic discursive engagement, identification, and judgment central to our notion of rhetoric as (democratic) praxis” (p. 239).

The implications of the investigation are significant for rhetorical studies as the discipline seeks to make increasing contributions to multi-disciplinary conversations of democratic theory and culture, contributions that are also sought by the Wabash Rhetoric Department in its Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts project that is revising the department’s Public Speaking course.

For further reading see Melanie Loehwing and Jeff Motter, “Publics, Counterpublics, and the Promise of Democracy,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2009): 220-241.  The journal is available in print form in the Lilly Library and also accessible through Communication and Mass Media Complete and Project Muse.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 01:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

L. Jill Lamberton has joined the Wabash College English and Rhetoric Departments with a two-year appointment as a Lilly Teaching Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor. Professor Lamberton will be splitting her duties between the two departments while helping English and Rhetoric explore the connections between the two academic fields.  In important respects, Professor Lamberton’s work illustrates the close and complex relationship between the two disciplines.  For instance, while her education is in Rhetoric and Composition as affiliated with English, her dissertation was recognized with an award from the American Society for the History of Rhetoric, an organization affiliated with the National Communication Association.

Professor Lamberton has a B.A. in English, Religious Studies, and Spanish from Walla Walla (College Place, Wash), an M.A. in English Studies from Western Washington University (Bellingham, Wash), and in 2007 she completed her PhD at the University of Michigan.  Her dissertation, Claiming an Education: The Transatlantic Performance and Circulation of Intellectual Identities in College Women’s Writing, 1870-1900, explores the role of student writing in late nineteenth-century women’s colleges by examining artifacts such as diaries, letters, poetry, and campus publications.  In particular she examines the rhetorical strategies used by the women during their integration into Girton and Newnham Colleges at Cambridge and Radcliffe College at Harvard. 

During the Fall semester Professor Lamberton will teach Freshman Composition, Public Speaking, and Cultures and Traditions. Her office is in Center Hall (112B) and she can be contacted at lambertj@wabash.edu or campus extension 6154.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday (August 24) marked the twentieth anniversary of Pete Rose’s banishment from baseball. During that time the Rose controversy likely has been the most consistently talked about issue in sports, recurring with every Hall of Fame weekend, Rose appearance at a gambling establishment, and player, columnist, and fan musing on the issue.  And, of course, an anniversary such as this provided a new round of television programs and sports columns.

I’ve long been interested in Pete Rose’s situation; after all, I grew up a Reds’ fan and a Pete Rose fan.  I collected his baseball cards, had his poster on my bedroom wall, and attended Reds’ games.  I also made Pete Rose part of my scholarship, examining his image repair efforts in the wake of his appearance at the 1999 World Series and the infamous Jim Gray interview. In a book chapter entitled “The Rhetorical Resurgence of Pete Rose: A Second-Chance Apologia” (Case Studies in Sport Communication, eds. Robert S. Brown and Daniel O'Rourke, Praeger Publishers, 2003), I argued that the confluence of events presented Rose with a redefined rhetorical situation that gave new salience to his apologia.  Furthermore, the passage of time, the sympathy evoked by the Gray interview, and the disappearance of many of Rose’s accusers from the public eye suddenly made Rose’s rhetoric more appealing. Finally, the fragmentation of contemporary culture—seen through the multitude of media outlets broadcasting parts of Rose’s message—raised his effectiveness and seemingly partially redeemed him in the public eye. 

With that, Rose seemed potentially poised for reinstatement and, by all accounts, privately confessed to baseball commissioner Bud Selig in November 2002.  However, with his public confession issued outside of an agreement with baseball, announced in his 2004 autobiography entitled My Prison Without Bars (and released the same day that a new Hall of Fame class was announced), Rose seems to have lost his chance at a return.  While Rose did confess his gambling, he did so in ways that undercut his effectiveness.  Through his narrative Rose attempted to minimize the offensiveness of his actions and, when possible, evade responsibility by appealing to psychological diagnoses such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Behavior, his acculturation in gambling from childhood, and his unwillingness to lose in any encounter (which made it impossible for him to admit his wrong doing). The result was measured mortification, an apology without contrition and one that sacrificed 15 years of consistency while failing to assure readers that Rose had really learned from his mistakes or truly regretted anything other than getting caught.

What should Rose have done?  Instead of a lengthy book, which required an extended and often unflattering narrative and suggested an economic motive for Rose, Rose would have been well served to first reach an agreement on his baseball reinstatement and/or Hall of Fame eligibility.  Then, at a press conference with the commissioner and his most well known supporters such as baseball Hall of Famers Hank Aaron, Joe Morgan, and Mike Schmidt, a humble, repentant Rose could have expressed his regrets in a more appealing image repair effort.  Yes, Rose could have still written his book, but he should have done so after his confession and after reaching an agreement with MLB.

What does the future hold for Pete Rose? Presently, reinstatement is unlikely.  However, with the passage of time it is likely that Rose will again become more appealing and more people will wonder why he is banned from baseball and if he should be reinstated.  Such questions arise when figures such as Hank Aaron express their support for Rose, when columnists and radio personalities advocate his reinstatement, and as fans try to compare the damage done to baseball by Pete Rose and that done by performance enhancing drugs. Whether redemption is possible in Rose’s lifetime is in serious question, but in the meantime the best discourse strategy for Rose on the issue is to say nothing about his possible reinstatement.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)