In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Book Reviews 297 evaluations of the evidence ... vests the privileged few with literal 'ownership' of knowledge claims" (289). The volume demonstrates the value of intellectual conversation on a significant and timely topic by having two scholars provide more sustained analysis of the same discourse. In each case, sensitive initial readings prompt provocative rereadings, better illuminating the role of rhetorical discourse in public affairs in the process. Hogan's conclusion provides a conventional summary of the essays and a call for a return to civilized discourse, again based on the work of James Davison Hunter, that unintentionally evokes Benson's characterization of rhetorical criticism's idealized public sphere. The editor might have extended those insights by moving beyond these conventions to find connections and make distinctions across the three sections of the volume. What, for example, can we learn about the rhetorical strategies of the "outsider" by comparing Church Terrell and Du Bois with scientists and military officers? How do the rhetorical conceptions of community, unity, and fragmentation of the early feminists compare to those of Churchill and those of Guilty by Suspicion7. The rhetoric of dominant versus muted rhetorical communities, the role ofthat "grammar of hostility" as a reasonable reaction to oppression and exclusion , the challenge of making the privileged aware of their privileges as a prerequisite to their understanding of the claims of the marginalized—all are provocative questions worth pursuing based on this volume. Perhaps future volumes might explore these issues, as well as widening the community of scholars addressing them. Kathleen J. Turner Tulane University Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts and Cases. Edited by Kathleen J. Turner. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998; pp. xi + 310. $39.95. Reviews of books are usually epideictic because they offer praise or blame. In the case of Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts and Cases, however, both praising and blaming are fraught with peril: name-calling could ensue. Praising this book could prompt the journal editors Kathleen J. Turner mentions in her introduction to label me a "mere" rhetorical historian (1). Blaming might prompt other academics like those Ronald H. Carpenter mentions in his concluding chapter to label me a "God damned" rhetorical critic (226). Well, a pox on both their houses: This book deserves both praise and blame. I recall viewing a television documentary concerning the trial of Susan B. Anthony on the charge of having voted illegally in the 1872 presidential election. Although technically well done and interesting, the documentary was seriously flawed because it failed even to mention the famous speech that Anthony delivered numerous times prior to the trial to virtually all of the potential jurors in Monroe County, New York, 298 Rhetoric & Public Affairs that prompted the prosecutor to move the trial to neighboring Ontario County where Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage delivered the same speech again to virtually all of the potential jurors there, and that ultimately played a large role in Judge Ward Hunt's directed verdict of "guilty." Other viewers of that documentary, unaware of Anthony's speech, were left with a sadly incomplete and thus potentially distorted understanding of this important event in U.S. history. For me, there is no more clear example of the obvious importance of doing rhetorical history. Thus, by the time I finished reading part one, "Conceptionalizing the Interconnections of Rhetoric and History," devoted in part to justifying and defending rhetorical history as a scholarly endeavor, I found myself wanting to say, in the words of the ad for a popular brand of athletic shoe, "Just Do It!" In addition to the defense of doing rhetorical history, the chapters in part one, written by David Zarefsky, E. Culpepper Clark and Raymie E. McKerrow, Bruce E. Gronbeck, Moya Ann Ball, and James Jasinski, address the theory—perhaps "method" is a better label—of rhetorical historiography. They are well written and provocative and of great value to students and scholars interested not only in distinguishing rhetorical history from other scholarly efforts but also in focusing their own historiographical research. Two other related issues raised by those chapters deserve extended comment, however. In various ways, the authors argue that the aim of rhetorical historiography is not to add to knowledge of rhetorical...

pdf

Share