Over the next few months, here on Rhetoric Notes we hope to feature a few of our Rhetoric majors and minors.  We will share “email interviews” that consist of questions and answers with graduates, checking in with what they are doing, getting their perspectives on Wabash education, and reminiscing a bit about their Wabash experiences.

Our first alumnus profile on Rhetoric Notes is of Grant Gussman ’09.   Grant was an active member of the Wabash community with memberships including Theta Delta Chi, the Sphinx Club, the Thomas Riley Marshall Democrats, and the Parliamentary Union.  Grant was one of the most decorated forensics competitors at Wabash in recent years, winning top honors at both the Indiana State Individual Events Tournament and at the DSR-TKA national tournament.  He was also a Baldwin oratorical contest winner, a Moot Court finalist, and the 2009 recipient of the Joseph O’Rourke Jr. Award for the top senior project in Rhetoric (Gussman is pictured at right with Joe and Beverly O'Rourke).

TFM: Tell us about your decision to participate in Teach for America (TFA).

GG: Nearing the end of college, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. I seriously considered graduate school, but ultimately I decided to enter the workforce for at least a while to see how I liked it. I applied to TFA because I wanted to do some kind of service while simultaneously working and gaining experience. The program is a great way for recent college graduates to do exactly that—gain valuable real-world experience and give something back to the country.

TFM: Where have you been placed?

GG: I teach at Edna Karr High School. It's in a New Orleans community called Algiers. Prior to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it was a magnet school and was twice recognized as a National School of Excellence. Since the storm, we've changed to open enrollment, but our academic reputation is still excellent. Karr is recognized as one of the best public high schools in the city. Furthermore, we have one of the best football teams in the state, and our star quarterback (Benton "Munchie" Legaux) has been recruited by Michigan and Oregon to play college football. How cool is that? Go Cougars!

TFM: At Wabash you were a Rhetoric major and a Philosophy minor. Clearly we know that a Wabash education effectively prepares men for a variety of career paths, but explain how you are teaching Science and the training that has been involved in preparing to enter a high school classroom.

GG: Teach for America chooses what subject its members teach based on college transcripts. They tend to place a lot of people in high-need teaching areas, like math, the sciences, and special education. Once I was assigned a science position, I was required to take and pass the Praxis tests in science and chemistry in order to begin gaining complete certification and to be a "Highly Qualified" teacher under No Child Left Behind. Furthermore, I'm enrolled in a weekly 3-hour seminar that improves my content knowledge and helps me build my repertoire of teaching skills. This program allows me to teach with a Practitioner Teaching License, pending my successful completion of all the coursework. Then at the end of the school year, I'll be a fully-licensed teacher in the state of Louisiana.

TFM: What is your day-to-day routine like?

GG:  My day-to-day life is very busy. I'm up at 5:30 a.m., and I arrive at school by 7:00 a.m. every day.  I usually fine-tune and rehearse my lesson again in the morning and chug coffee to prepare for the students. School begins at 8:30. I teach 4 classes of 11th-grade honors chemistry and 2 sections of 9th-grade physical science, plus I have one planning period each day. School ends at 3:48 p.m., and I usually stick around for tutoring, detention, or just to grade papers. I'm usually out the door by 5:30. Once I get home, I finish whatever grading I have left and prepare for the following day's lesson. I’m in bed by 10 p.m. most nights! Teaching is definitely hard, but I love my kids, and it's incredibly rewarding.

TFM: So, you’ve started a debate program?

GG: Yes, I've started a debate team at my school. My principal OK'ed the proposal, and now I'm working on getting funding to join the National Forensics League. I was amazed at how many students are excited about the team--so many that, when it took me 2 weeks to get a meeting going, a few different students came in after school to make sure I hadn't changed my mind! The movie "The Great Debaters" definitely got students excited about the concept of debate. While I'm happy debate is currently "cool," I hope a lot of the interested students stick with the program for the long haul.

TFM: What do you like the most about your job?

GG: I like a lot of elements of my job, but I most enjoy when students really understand the material and come in for extra work or ask me to make things more challenging. Most students wouldn't dare ask such a thing, but I've had a couple kids who LOVE learning, and it's awesome to see that. I got one student reading Plato during the 2nd week of school! 

TFM: At the same time, I’m sure the job is not without its challenges.

GG: Well, I least enjoy that the majority of my students tell me Lil Wayne is the greatest musician of all time on a daily basis. Outside of that, grading is definitely a bummer. I know it's super important, but it eats so many hours each week that it's hard not to call that the worst part of the job.

TFM: How do you think Wabash prepared you for this experience?

GG: Wabash definitely helped me prepare for this. For one thing, getting placed in a discipline I didn't choose to pursue makes me really appreciate that I received a broad, liberal education. The science classes I took in college, though there weren't too many of them, have been crucial in me staying a step ahead of my students when I teach. One other thing Wabash has helped me with is that I really learned to be a better learner while at Wabash, and how to be aware of my own education progress. I've tried to weave this sort of meta-cognitive thinking into my classes, and the students seem to like it. I'm hoping to teach them to be better learners, on top of teaching them about atoms, chemical bonding, and stoichiometry.

TFM: Do you have a favorite Wabash memory?

GG: Guarding the Bell while I was a rhynie during my junior year.

TFM: What do you miss about Wabash?

GG: Something I miss about Wabash: This is intangible, but I really miss the feeling of Wabash in the fall. The weather gets cooler, the leaves start dropping, the trees are all bright. We have homecoming, the Bell game, pledgeship... 1st semester is a really special time at Wabash.

TFM: What sort of academic and extra-curricular advice would you share with current Wabash students?

GG: Grades are important, but there's a lot more to college than your GPA. It’s essential that you get involved on campus.  You're at a liberal arts college--you should expose yourself to as many new clubs and ideas as possible.

Thanks Grant and please keep us updated on your work at Edna Karr.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 08:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For those who study communication, it is an accepted axiom that our language—the words we use—shape and create our reality. Any number of scholars have made such pronouncements: Aristotle, Vico, Kenneth Burke, etc.  The idea they share in common is that the way in which we talk about something—or someone—shapes the way we see it and think about it. In turn, we use these labels and names to both create understanding and to persuade others.

In the political word a label with a long and often powerful lineage is “liberal.”  The connotations of the label have differed by era, but at least since 1988 “liberal” has been appealed to as an accusatory political label.  In choosing 1988 as a significant marker I have in mind the way in which the term was used in that year’s presidential campaign between Republican candidate George H.W. Bush and Democrat candidate Michael Dukakis.  Among other significant elements of that campaign (including the Willie Horton ad, Dukakis's ill fated appearance on an army tank, and Bernard Shaw’s debate question about capital punishment), Bush’s labeling of Dukakis as a “liberal” struck a political chord.  It was such an issue that on the eve of the election Dukakis found himself still trying to explain the label. In subsequent elections, “liberal” has been a favored accusation directed, with varying degrees of success, at candidates such as Bill Clinton and John Kerry.  Further, “conservative” political commentator Ann Coulter has been particularly fond of demonizing the term, using  “liberal” as a means of condemnation in several of her book titles: Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, How to Talk Like a Liberal (if you must), and more.

To be sure, these democrat candidates were more “liberal” than their republican counterparts. But the exact meaning of the term “liberal” is unexplored, and ultimately much less important than the emotional response it is intended to evoke.  It has been appealed to as a devil term, a short hand that substitutes for nuanced policy discussions.  Of course the word “conservative” can be used in the same way, but it rarely seems to have as much political traction; if anything, it has more often been a prized badge.  Candidates have worked to establish their “conservative” credentials, but can we say the same thing about “liberal” credentials?  (The term “conservative” is also much more nuanced than it is often given credit for being, as some Wabash student publications have insightfully explored over the past couple of years).

I share these reflections because of a language-shift that seems to have taken place over the past few months—and my current effort to understand its implications. “Liberal” does not seem to be the term in vogue for criticizing President Obama. Perhaps this is because currently there is more perceived baggage to “conservative” (the presumed counterpart of “liberal”) than there has been in some time.  So, instead, President Obama has more often been called “socialist.”  In fact, several months ago Mark Leibovich of the New York Times made note of this apparent shift, writing that “it seems that ‘socialist’ has supplanted ‘liberal’ as the go-to slur among much of the conservative world.” More recently, the label has been used to voice opposition to President Obama’s speech to school children, which was object to by some as an effort at “indoctrination” and as part of a larger “socialist movement,” as well as to Obama’s views on healthcare, which Republican party chairman Michael Steele calls "socialism."

My point isn’t so much to critique what is “liberal” or “socialist,” but to reflect on the shift in language and its implications.  Why has “socialist” become the more popular attack?  It could be because President Obama’s policy proposals are perceived to be so radically different from his predecessors (Click here for a Socialist's view of Obama's "socialism"). Or it could be that “liberal” has lost some of its sting with the “conservative” movement lacking a defined leader and with the nation coming out of a “conservative” presidency that was much criticized.   The deeper question yet is what these labels—liberal, socialist, or even conservative—really tell us about the policies and ideas under discussion.  Unfortunately the answer is, “very little.” The labels are appealed to because they are easy shorthand for broadly conceived ideologies, not because they are nuanced or insightful. Moreover, their broad use may have additional negative consequences given how they are appealed to in the writings of everyday citizens, which I may comment on in a subsequent posting.

Posted by Todd McDorman at 02:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On the first day of class in the Rhetoric Senior seminar, Rhetoric majors are asked to define rhetoric and discuss its potential for good and ill in society.  Below are the answers from three of sixteen students in the course this fall: Charles Goodman, Gary James, and Victor Nava

Charles Goodman ‘10

Rhetoric, in my opinion, is the art of argumentation and persuasion.  On the one hand, rhetoric enables one to know the proper techniques and skills necessary to be an effective public speaker (delivery, tone, etc.) while it also enables one to learn the most effective way to persuade one's audience (establishing credibility, ethos, logos, pathos, etc.). Rhetoric also teaches one how to analyze a given artifact, break it down, and interpret the meaning and aim of the artifact in addition to stating the effectiveness of one's rhetorical methods.

Rhetoric can unfortunately be manipulated for ill as well as for good in human society.  History has shown us time and time again that rhetoric can and will be used in all aspects for the sole purpose to persuade an audience towards the speaker's point of view.  We have seen genius rhetorical speakers spread positions of peace such as Martin Luther King Jr. and we have also seen rhetoric being used to manipulate followers into evil actions like that of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's.

In my opinion, the only thing that can beat a solid rhetorical argument is a BETTER rhetorical argument.  That is really the only true way to beat someone else's argument.  By finding the holes in one's argument and having a solid and firm refutation, you may be able to open the eyes of those being led astray by the "evil sources.”

Gary James ‘10

To put it simply, rhetoric is the way humans interact with one another with all the tools at their disposal, from spoken and written language to image production and physical activities. This human interaction includes transmitting information, persuading, and advocating, and ceremonial acts. For example, rhetorical theorist Walter Fisher looks at the way stories function as arguments and include bases for reasoning that can inform, persuade, or advocate in a way many people can understand.

Rhetoric also has a powerful capacity for good and ill in society. History is a compilation of epic accounts of how rhetoric can be used to enslave and to liberate, to control and to inspire. Because humans - and the way we understand and respond to messages - are a key concern of rhetoric, people in power - like Hitler - have used it to rally hate for an entire group of people, the Jews, while leaders such as JFK or Ronald Reagan summoned it to uplift a people and convince them they can do things they never thought possible.

To combat the ills of rhetoric, more rhetoric is required. The utility of studying rhetoric is that it trains the mind to recognize how different messages can influence, sometimes deceptively, even well-educated and inquisitive people. So if everyone is exposed to the ways human interactions can influence thought and actions we would all be prepared to recognize and reject the ills of rhetoric. 

Victor Nava ‘10

I would define rhetoric along the same lines that I define literacy: a study of how artifacts function to create meaning. By this, I perceive rhetoric to be a critical form of study which not only examines the presentation of arguments within a given text (written, verbal, visual, etc), but also relates these arguments and hidden meanings to some form of social impact. Especially when living in an age of mass information and communication mediums, the interpretive skill of rhetoric to decode these messages becomes even more important and thus provides a new, contemporary interpretation of the term.

At the same time, especially here at Wabash, I would also contend that our interpretation of rhetoric carries a high emphasis on classical/historical perception; perceptions which lead to the notion of a “perfect orator” and make note of the five canons of rhetoric (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery). Simply put, these historical roots and techniques of public oration seek eloquence as their ultimate end and thus provide the art of public speaking a permanent place in rhetoric’s definition.

Rhetoric appears to be the only medium for any “good” or “ill” imposed upon a society. Without any methods of communication, messages (whether good or ill) will never have the opportunity to reach the number of people necessary to have any form of impact. Rhetoric provides the means of communication and thus acts as the only potential for social change.

As seen throughout history, rhetoric has the ability to spark wars, fuel social movements, impact human emotion, craft education, provide aesthetic oration, and move symbolic mountains composed of human culture.

First, I would default to classical interpretations of the term and argue that “evil rhetoric” isn’t rhetoric at all. Without an ethical orator (or crafter of communication) the basic premise of rhetoric isn’t fulfilled and thus can’t be called as such. Though rhetoric may appear to be vast and transcend any human rules of being, the emphasis on ethics acts as a reign on the widespread use of rhetoric for any means.

However, I understand that this may be the “scapegoat” answer and thus provide a second response to the notion of evil rhetoric: counter it with good rhetoric. Even if it is believed that rhetoric can be “evil,” it must not be forgotten that rhetoric is a human creation and can thus be deconstructed in a similar fashion. Evil rhetoric doesn’t mark the end of society. On the contrary, it invites the creation of more rhetoric which will aim to repair any damage done to society and prevent such evil rhetoric from being used in the future.

Posted by David Timmerman at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)