Summary:
Foss's work provides the foundational introduction to various theories of rhetorical criticism in a practical and useable manner that could be used by both those new to the field and those needing a refresher course. In each section she teaches the theoretical basis for a theory, then outlines the process for performing the specified criticism, how to present the results, and cautions or limitations inherent to the theory. Examples conclude each section to provide insight or potential discussion in a graduate seminar class. Very helpful for preparing works for publication that use rhetorical criticism.
Citation-worthy:
"Rhetoric is defined as the human use of symbols to communicate. This definition includes three primary dimensions: (1) humans as the creators of rhetoric; (2) symbols as the medium for rhetoric; and (3) communication as the purpose for rhetoric" (Foss, 1996, p. 3).
"The standards used in rhetorical criticism to judge analyses of artifacts are rooted in two primary assumptions. One assumption is that objective reality does not exist. As discussed in Chapter 1, those of us who study rhetoric believe that reality is constituted through the rhetoric we use to talk about it; it is a symbolic creation. Thus, the artifact you are analyzing does not constitute a reality that can be known and proved. You cannot know what the artifact "really" means because there are as many realities about the artifact as there are vocabularies from which to conduct inquiry about it. A second assumption on which the standards of rhetorical criticism or built is very much related to the first: a critic can know an artifact only through personal interpretation of it. You cannot be objective, impartial, and removed from the data because you bring to the critical task particular values and experiences that are reflected in how you see and write about an artifact. As a result of these assumptions, your task as a critic is to offer one perspective on an artifact – one possible way of viewing it. You are not concerned with finding the true, correct, or right interpretation of an artifact. Consequently, two critics may analyze the same artifact, ask the same research questions, and come up with different conclusions, and the essays they write both can be excellent essays of criticism" (Foss, 1996, p. 17).
"Wicheln's major contribution to the development of neo-Aristotelianismwas that he listed the topics that should be covered in the study of a speech. A critic, he suggested, should deal with these elements: the speaker's personality, the public character of the speaker or the public's perception of the speaker, the audience, the major ideas presented in the speech, the motives to which the speaker appealed, the nature of the speaker's proofs, the speaker's judgment of human nature in the audience, the arrangement of the speech, the speaker's mode of expression, the speaker's method of speech preparation, the manner of delivery, and the effect of the discourse on the immediate audience and it's long-term effects" (Foss, 1996, pp. 21-22).
"At the same time that artifacts are functioning to provide equipment for living for audiences, they are revealing the world view or what Burke calls deterministic screens of the rhetors who created them" (Foss, 1996, p. 64).
"In cluster criticism, the meanings that key symbols have for a rhetor are discovered by charting the symbols that cluster around those key symbols in an artifact" (Foss, 1996, p. 65).
"The fantasy-theme method of rhetorical criticism, created by Ernest G. Bormann, is designed to provide insights into the shared worldview of groups. Impetus for the method came from the work of Robert Bales and his associates in the study of communication in small groups. Bales discovered the process of group fantasizing or dramatizing as a type of communication that occurs in groups... Bormann extended the notion of fantasizing discovered by Bales into a theory (symbolic convergence theory) and a method (fantasy-theme criticism) that can be applied not only to the study of small groups but also to all kinds of rhetoric in which teams function dramatically to connect audiences with messages.… Symbolic convergence theory is based on two major assumptions. One is that communication creates reality. As Chapter 1 describes, reality is not fixed but changes as our symbols for talking about it change. A second assumption on which symbolic convergence theory is based is that symbols not only create reality for individuals but also individuals' meanings for symbols can converge to create a shared reality or community consciousness" (Foss, 1996, p. 97).
"Generic criticism is rooted in the assumption that certain types of situations provoke similar needs and expectations in audiences and thus call for particular kinds of rhetoric. Rather than seeking to discover how one situation affects one particular rhetorical act, the generic critic seeks to discover commonalities in rhetorical patterns across recurring situations. The purpose of generic criticism is to understand rhetorical practices in different time periods and in different places by discerning the similarities and rhetorical situations and the rhetoric constructed in response to them—to discover "how people create individual instances of meaning and value within structured discursive fields." As rhetors develop messages, genres influence them to shape their materials to create particular emphases, to generate particular ideas, and to adopt particular personae. Similarly, audience members' recognition of a particular artifact as belonging to a specific genre influences their strategies of comprehension and response" (Foss, 1996, p. 137).
"Purpose in generic description is to define a genre and formulate theoretical constructs about its characteristics. Generic description involves four steps: (1) observing similarities in rhetorical responses to particular situations; (2) collecting artifacts that occur in similar situations; (3) analyzing the artifacts to discover if they share characteristics; and (4) formulating the organizing principle of the genre" (Foss, 1996, p. 141).
"Generic participation determines which artifacts participate in which genres. This involves a deductive process in which you test an instance of rhetoric against the characteristics of a genre. Generic participation involves three steps: (1) describing the perceived situational requirements, substantive and stylistic strategies, and organizing principle of a genre; (2) describing the perceived situational requirements, substantive and stylistic strategies, and organizing principle of an artifact; and (3) comparing the characteristics of the artifact with those of the genre to discover if the artifact belongs in that genre" (Foss, 1996, p. 143).
"When rhetorical critics are interested in rhetoric primarily for what it suggests about beliefs and values, their focus is on ideology. In an ideological analysis, the critic looks beyond the surface structure of an artifact to discover the beliefs, values, and assumptions it suggests" (Foss, 1996, p. 209).
"In contrast to the view of metaphor as decoration, metaphor now is seen as a major means for constituting reality. We do not perceive reality and then interpret or give it meaning. Rather, we experience reality through the language by which we describe it; description is the reality we experience. Metaphor is a basic way by which the process of using symbols to construct reality occurs. It serves as a structure in principle, focusing on particular aspects of a phenomenon and hiding others; thus, each metaphor produces a different description of the "same" reality....The metaphors "we select to filter our perceptions and organize our experience" are important because "when you choose a metaphor you are also choosing its rules, along with the roles and scripts that those rules dictate. Metaphors contain implicit assumptions, points of view, and evaluations. They organize attitudes toward whatever they describe and provide motives for acting in certain ways.… The point is that, with the selection of a different metaphor, we would view and experience arguments differently" (Foss, 1996, pp. 268-269).
"Narrative criticism… Narratives can be distinguished from other rhetorical forms before characteristics. Primary defining feature of narrative discourse is that it is comprised of at least two events.… A second characteristic of the narrative is that the events in it are organized by the time order. A narrative is not simply a series of events arranged randomly – it is at least a sequence of events. The order does not have to be chronological and may involve devices like flashbacks and flashforwards, but at least the narrative tells in someway how the events relate temporally to one another....A third requirement for a narrative is that it must include some kind of causal or contributing relationship among events in the story. Narratives depict change of some sort, and this third requirement defines the nature of that change by stipulating the relationship between earlier and later events in the story… A fourth requirement for a narrative is that it must be about a unified subject… Symbols other than narratives, of course, help us structure of the world in very much the same way that stories do. But stories or narratives do so in a unique way. A narrative is substantially different from a set of instructions, an argument with a claim and evidence, definition, or contract, for example. What makes it different is that the narrative creates for both the storyteller and the audience a personal involvement in the narrated world and the active narrative" (Foss, 1996, pp. 307-308).
"Pentandic criticism is rooted in Burke's notion of dramatism, the label Burke gives to the analysis of human motivation through terms derived from the study of drama. Two basic assumptions underlie dramatism. One is a language use constitutes action, not motion. Motion corresponds to the biological or animal aspect of the human being, which is concern with bodily processes such as growth, digestion, respiration, and the requirements for the maintenance of those processes — food, shelter, and rest, for example. The biological level does not involve the use of symbols and thus is nonsymbolic.
In contrast, action corresponds to the neurological aspect of the human being, which Burke defined as the ability of an organism to acquire language or a symbol system. This is the realm of action or the symbolic. Some of our motives are derived from our animality — as when we seek food to sustain our bodies. Others, however, originate in our symbolicity, as when we strive to reach goals in arenas such as education, politics, religion, and finance. Even our desires in such arenas arise from our symbol system" (Foss, 1996, p. 355).
"Burke elaborates on his notion of action at the heart of dramatism by establishing three conditions for action. One is that action must involve freedom or choice. If we cannot make a choice, we are not acting but are behaving mechanically… A second condition necessary for action is purpose. Either consciously or unconsciously, we must select or will a choice – we must choose one option over others. Motion is a third requirement for action. While motion can exist without action (as when an object falls, through the force of gravity, to the ground), action cannot exist without motion. Symbolic activity or action is grounded in the realm of the non-symbolic" (Foss, 1996, pp. 355-356).
"Most seasoned rhetorical critics, however engage in rhetorical criticism using a different process… As useful as the formal methods of criticism are for discovering insights into rhetoric, they do not always allow what is most interesting and significant in an artifact to be captured and explained. In most cases, then, you want to analyze artifacts without following any formal method of criticism. This kind of criticism is generative in that you generate units of analysis on explanation from your artifact rather than from previously developed, formal methods of criticism" (Foss, 1996, p. 387).
