This book is about Freedom of Speech and public discourse in the United States. Freedom of Speech is a major component of the cultural context in which we live, think, work, and write, generally revered as the foundation of true democracy. But the issue has a great deal more to do with social norms rooted in a web of cultural assumptions about the function of rhetoric in social organization generally, and in a democratic society specifically. The dominant, liberal notion of free speech in the United States, assumed to be self-evidently true, is, in fact, a particular historical and cultural formation, rooted in Enlightenment philosophies and dependent on a collection of false narratives about the founding of the country, the role of speech and media in its development, and the relationship between capitalism and democracy. Most importantly, this notion of freedom of speech relies on a warped sense of the function of rhetoric in democratic social organization. By privileging individual expression, at the expense of democratic deliberation, the liberal notion of free speech functions largely to suppress rather than promote meaningful public discussion and debate, and works to sustain unequal relations of power. The presumed democratization of the public sphere, via the Internet, raises more questions than it answers—who has access and who doesn’t, who commands attention and why, and what sorts of effects such expression actually has. We need to think a great deal more carefully about the values subsumed and ignored in an uncritical attachment to a particular version of the public sphere. This book seeks to illuminate the ways in which cultural framing diminishes the complexity of free speech and sublimates a range of value-choices. A more fully democratic society requires a more critical view of freedom of speech.

Claims that students are too sensitive are familiar on and around college campuses. The ideas of cancel culture, safe spaces, and political correctness are used to shut down discussion and prevent students from being recognized as stakeholders in higher education and as advocates for their own interests. Further, universities can claim that student activists threaten academic freedom. In Sensitive Rhetorics, Kendall Gerdes puts these claims and common beliefs into conversation with rhetorical theory to argue that critiques of sensitivity reveal a deep societal discomfort with the idea that language is a form of action. Gerdes poses important questions: What kind of harm can language and representation actually do, and how? What responsibilities do college and university teachers bear toward their students? Sensitive Rhetorics explores the answers by surfacing submerged assumptions about higher education, the role of instructors and faculty, and the needs of an increasingly diverse student body.

From the moment we begin to understand the meanings of words and symbols, we have used rhetoric. It is how we determine perceptions of who we are, those around us, and the social structure in which we operate. Rhetorical Theory, Second Edition introduces a broad selection of classical and contemporary theoretical approaches to understanding and using rhetoric. Historical context reveals why rhetorical theories were created, while present-day examples demonstrate how they relate to the world in which we live. Borchers and Hundley present conceptual topics in a succinct and approachable manner. The text is organized topically rather than chronologically, so similarities and differences are easily detected in central ideas. Each chapter is enhanced by the inclusion of theorist biographies, applications of theory to practice, and Internet exercises. The Second Edition expands coverage on mediated rhetoric, feminist rhetoric, alternative rhetorical theories including Afrocentricity and intersectionality, cultural and critical rhetoric, and postmodern implications of rhetoric.

The Gospel of John and Epicureanism share vocabulary and reject the conventions of Graeco-Roman theology. Would it then have been easy for an Epicurean to become a Christian or vice-versa? Fergus J. King suggests that such claims become unlikely when detailed analyses of the two traditions are set out and compared. The first step in his examination looks at evidence for potential engagement between the two traditions historically and geographically. Both traditions address concerns about the good life, death, and the divine. However, this correspondence soon unravels as their worldviews are far from identical. Shared terms (like Saviour), their respective rituals, and teaching about community life reveal substantial differences in ethos and behaviour.

This book offers a new perspective on selected discourses and texts bearing on the evolution of a distinctively American tradition of free speech. The author’s approach privileges fallacy theory, especially the fallacy of ad socordiam, in a key Congressional debate in 1789 and other forms of verbal manipulation in newspaper editorials during the War of 1812. He argues that in order to understand James Madison’s role in the evolution of a broad conception of freedom of speech, it is imperative to examine the nature of the verbal attacks targeted at him. These attacks are documented, analyzed with the concept of aggravated impoliteness, and used to demonstrate that it was Madison’s toleration of criticism, even in wartime, that provided a foundation for a broad conception of freedom of speech. This book will be of interest to both scholars and lay readers with an interest in the application of discourse analysis and historical pragmatics to political debates, argumentation theory and fallacy theory, and the evolution of the concept of freedom of speech in the early years of the United States.

Contemporary essays address the central problem of power in assent rhetoric.

A history of America's nation-building project told through the voices of its peoples, from the early settlers to its multicultural citizens of the twenty-first century.

In Volume Three of this four-volume series, we examine the rhetorical development that occurred during the first two terms of Vladimir Putin’s tenure as president of the Russian Federation. Initially, Putin appeared to follow in the path set by his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, vowing that Russia was, at heart, a European nation and would be a westward facing democracy going forward. He even mentioned partnering with the EU and NATO. Eight years later, at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, Putin excoriated the West for, in his words, attempting to create a “unipolar world” in which NATO expansion threatened Russia’s security, the United States acted as the world’s sole “hegemon,” and Europe simply followed orders, relinquishing any sense of agency in its own affairs.