Deliberating War Spring 2012
SP12 RHE330D Deliberating War MWF 11-12:00 PAR203
(44225) Trish Roberts-Miller Office Hours: MTW 1:30-3:00 Parlin 21 (471-8378)
redball@mindspring.com http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-miller
To access UT webspace: https://webspace.utexas.edu/xythoswfs/webui
(Note that this course does not have a writing flag. It does have an ethics and leadership flag.)
COURSE GOALS
This course has three main goals: to introduce rhetoric majors to classical rhetorical theory; to help rhetoric majors consider rhetoric as the art of community deliberation; and to explore when and how rhetoric helps a community come to reasonable decisions and when it is a hindrance to good deliberation.
We tend to think of rhetoric as the skill than an individual uses to persuade the audience of his/her point of view–that is s/he targets an audience and tries to get that audience to comply with his/her message. But various theorists of rhetoric suggest something different: they argue that rhetoric is more productively seen as the art that enables a community to deliberate on issues about which even experts are divided. This course uses the history of rhetoric, especially classical rhetorical theory, in order to consider three basic questions:
1) What are ethical ways to persuade people for or against going to war?
2) How can we make rhetoric a method of community deliberation and not just a set of strategies for gaining compliance?
3) What is the relationship between theory and practice? That is, between how scholars of rhetoric theorize ethical and unethical rhetorical practices and the ways that communities actually argue?
Some of the material required for the course is disturbing (such as arguments for genocide) and some is offensive (political positions with which you disagree, scatological and sexually explicit Greek comedy), so be forewarned. You don’t have to like or agree with anything you read, but you do need to understand why someone would, and how it is put together rhetorically. And you will need to read it.
You’ll also need to hear and read criticism of all the major political parties, criticism of how wars have been conducted, and criticism of our current political debate. No matter your political position, you will read and hear things that criticize it. If you are uncomfortable with hearing or reading criticism of your beliefs, you should not take this class.
Books, Required:
Thucydides, Peloponnesian War
Aristophanes, Lysistrata
Euripides, Trojan Women
Aristotle, Rhetoric and Poetics
Plato, Gorgias
McNamara, In Retrospect
Kershaw, Fateful Choices
Coursepack (at Jenn’s)
[If you have another edition of one of these books, you don’t need to purchase a new one—it’s interesting to have different translations. You do, however, have to have a complete and not abridged version, and do NOT use the Cooper translation of Aristotle. I strongly encourage you to purchase books from the Coop—it’s good for the university.]
Recommended Kagan, The Peloponnesian War
COURSE GRADING
If you do not turn in a good faith first version of a paper (1.1) on time, you may not revise the paper. Furthermore, you will receive a 0 (which is below an ‘F’) on that paper, so 20% of your final grade will be 0.
Exams: 30%
Reading Responses, thesis statements, peer reviews, and other in-class: 10% (up to 10.2%)
Paper: 30%
Final Exam: 20%
Quiz: 10%
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
PAPER. The paper requires that you discuss material not covered in class—including the selection from Mary Gentile’s Giving Voice to Values—and apply it to a specific debate. You will have to do substantial research for the paper. Students say that this one cannot be written at the last minute. This paper will be 12-15 pages.
READING RESPONSES The prompts for the reading responses are given in the syllabus. If you’ve taken a class from me before, these are like the microthemes, but somewhat amped up. They should be 250-750 words. They don’t have to be formal essays (if you turn in five paragraph essays I’ll go nuts), and you won’t get a lot of comments on them. They’re intended to make sure that I am clear as to what aspects of the course reading and concepts you’re getting (so neither of us should be surprised when it comes around to the exams). They’re graded on content—not whether I agree with you, but with whether you’ve plausibly and persuasively explored the prompt. They can be very informal, and you’re welcome to talk about whether you liked/understood/found boring the material.
They should be 250-750 words. Do not send them as an attachment; please put “Reading Response” in the subject line. See the “grading” method below. You are not generally expected to consult outside sources for them; if you do, you should cite those sources. Presenting someone else’s words or language as your own in the reading responses will be treated as plagiarism, and may earn an ‘F’ in the course.
You’ll generally not get them back, but simply an email with the “grade” if it is not a check—they’re what’s called “expressive” writing. If you can’t come to class, then email your reading response to me by class time.
The Reading Responses have four major functions. First, they enhance your reading comprehension—research suggests that writing about a reading afterwards improves your understanding of the reading and also helps you identify what you didn’t understand about the reading. Second, they enable you to ask questions about the reading or indicate what concepts were unclear to you. I use them for class preparation (that’s why they’re due when they are), and therefore appreciate when students tell me what aspects of the reading they did or didn’t understand. Third, they can serve as notes for your studying. Fourth, they are the one part of the course that is essentially an effort grade. Notice that simply doing all of them adequately will get you an ‘A’ on that part of the grade.
“Grading” on RR:
10.5 + 102 (see note above) This mark is reserved for an extraordinarily good response, one that puts forward an insightful and excellent argument, on top of thoroughly answering the prompt. These are very rare.
9.5 √+ 102 (see note above) An excellent (that is, excelling) answer to the prompt, with strong close analysis, original insight, and/or excellent questions. Many students (including ones who get good grades in the course) never get one.
8.7 √ 95.7 A response that answers the prompt and poses good questions.
6 √ – 66 A response that is inadequate in some way—too short, only responds to part of the prompt.
4.5 – 49.5 A timely Reading Response that says the student did not do the reading or did not have time to write the response; a Reading Response (that would normally receive a √ received after the cutoff but before class).
0 0 0 No response, or one that is submitted after class.
COURSE POLICIES
LATE PAPERS. Papers and work are due at the beginning of class. They will be dropped one-third grade if they are turned in during class, and a full grade for every day late unless you contact me ahead of time. If you do contact me ahead of time (which includes sending email any time before class starts), then the late paper policy will apply to whatever the extension is. In addition, if you turn a paper in late (even with an extension), chances are that you will not get it back before the next submission is due, and you may not be able to have a student conference.
I have a stringent (even Draconian) late paper policy for two reasons. First, our schedule is packed, and getting thrown off even slightly will make both our lives miserable. Second, in my experience, students have trouble completing the work in a writing class because they’ve mis-defined the task. If I get involved, I can help.
ATTENDANCE. If you miss over six classes, DRW policy is that you will receive an ‘F’ in the course. In addition, coming to class (either lecture or discussion) more than ten minutes late or leaving class more than ten minutes early constitute absences. Sleeping in class or doing work for another class will be counted as ½ absence. Only religious holidays and military service are “excused” absences.
When I first started teaching, I distinguished between excused and unexcused absences, and I found myself getting entangled in all sorts of ways. More important, I discovered that, even with the best of intentions, students just couldn’t make up the work–students who missed a lot of class did poorly. Poor attendance and poor grades are probably associated in this kind of class because one cannot “make up” the class work (in the way that one can with a lecture course).
It is none of my business why you miss class. It is your business to contact me ahead of time if there is any work due on the day you miss (the late paper policy applies whether or not you are present in class), and also your business to find out from other students what happened in class.
If there are medical reasons for your absences, please talk to me so that we can arrange a medical withdrawal. If you miss close to six classes, you can expect that it will negatively affect your grade–not because I will punitively lower your grade, but just because you will have missed the discussions and information that would help you write better papers and exam answers.
If you miss class, please don’t expect that I can go over all the material with you in office hours. I wish I could, but it just isn’t possible for me to do that with every student. Instead, you should try to get notes from another student in class—one of many reasons that having a good cohort correlates strongly to doing well in college.
I don’t want to have a tardy policy, but I will mention that students who continually show up a few minutes late also tend to do poorly in writing courses. My personal crank hypothesis is that students do poorly because important announcements are made in those first few minutes, so those students keep missing important information. It’s also very rude to your classmates to show up late (as there’s always a disruption when someone comes in late). So, please show up on time. If there is some reason that you have trouble getting to class on time (e.g., a physical disability that slows you down, a prof who tends to keep you late), please, please let me know. If you have an issue with getting to class late, or with attendance, I will not write a letter of recommendation for you.
I’m sorry to have to do it, but I have to ban laptops, iphones, smartphones, ipads, and all such devices. I’ve had too many students who spent their class time facebooking, texting, working on things for other classes, or generally not paying attention who then wanted me to make extra time for them outside of class because they were lost in class (or complained in teaching evaluations that I hadn’t explained things).
Also, those technologies distract students behind you (which is one of the ways that teachers know when you’re messing around and not just taking notes). Just as a general piece of advice, don’t underestimate the intelligence of your teachers. If you are really struggling in a class, and you look like you’re paying attention, most teachers will try to work with you as best they can. But you can imagine that it’s a little weird if a student doesn’t pay attention in class and then wants all sorts of extra time outside of class. If you need such a device as part of an accommodation, then please let me know, and you will sit in the front row.
Do not sign in for another student. If you are signed in on the roll sheet and not in class, I’ll send a note to that effect to the Dean. And, of course, I won’t serve as a reference or write a letter of recommendation for you.
If you have health or academic difficulties, do not simply disappear from your courses—you might find yourself responsible for returning grant, loan, or fellowship money.
OFFICE HOURS. Office hours are your time–you can come by just to chat about the class, talk about things only minimally related to the class, go over course material that’s especially interesting or confusing, brainstorm your papers, go over paper comments, or even just shoot the breeze. Students sometimes come to me for help on writing statements of purpose, appeal letters, or papers for other courses–that’s fine (and you’re welcome to do that long after you take a course from me). Some students prefer to get help through email, which is perfectly fine by me (and can be especially convenient on weekends), but I can’t guarantee I’ll get back to you immediately.
PLAGIARISM. Plagiarism is the unattributed borrowing of ideas or language. It does not matter if the original source is a published book or article, something from the web, something written (or told to you) by a student, or even work for another course. Changing a few words here and there does not solve the problem–correctly citing the source does. Any plagiarized coursework will receive a 0 (that is below an ‘F’). Even a single instance of plagiarism may result in an ‘F’ in the course, in addition to the matter being made part of your academic record.
There’s a handout in the coursepack on plagiarism, and most handbooks have good explanations of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it. See this page:
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/rhetoric/firstyearwriting/plagiarismcol…
But, if you ever have any questions about how to cite, or if you are concerned that you have a borderline situation, just put a note in the margin of your paper saying that you are unsure.
Part of what I hope you will learn in this course is that citation of your sources is not something one does to please obsessive teachers, but a basic ethical responsibility of anyone participating in public discourse. You should always try to be clear where you have gotten your information from, and you should always insist that others tell you where they got their information from. And you should know how to judge the basic credibility of those sources.
ACADEMIC HONOR POLICY VIOLATIONS. Any other violation of the Academic Honor Policy (e.g., using notes or prewritten material for the exams) may result in an ‘F’ in the course and the matter being made part of your academic record.
DISABILITY STATEMENT Students With Disabilities: The University of Texas at Austin provides upon request appropriate academic adjustments for qualified students with disabilities. For more information, contact the Office of the Dean of Students at 471-6259, 471-4641 TDD. If you have a disability, please let me know immediately, so that we can make appropriate accommodations.
If you have a disability that is temporary, or not quite in the realm of ADA recognized (e.g., you sprain an ankle, and are having trouble getting to class on time, or you need to be near the board to read it), let me know, and we can easily work something out.
EMAIL NOTIFICATION. The official policy of UT is:
Electronic mail (e-mail), like postal mail, is a mechanism for official University communication to students. The University will exercise the right to send e-mail communications to all students, and the University will expect that e-mail communications will be received and read in a timely manner.
UT uses whatever email you have listed on your UT Direct page, so make sure to keep that updated. Blackboard will send notices to that address, so, if your email address is incorrect, you won’t get notices when I clarify or change assignments. You need to make sure that you check whatever email address you use for UT Direct every couple of days—every day is better.
Whenever you have a question about an assignment, email me. If I hear from several student, I know that my instructions were unclear, and then I’ll send out an explanation via blackboard. So, if blackboard doesn’t have your correct address, you won’t get the mail.
CLASS CALENDAR. Work is due on the day shown on the calendar. Following is the preliminary class calendar–as I learn more about your interests, strengths, and needs, I’ll make some changes to the reading. I need you to look over this calendar and compare the due dates of the papers with the due dates of major projects in your other classes. I don’t want to have papers due on days when several students have exams or projects due in other classes, so please let me know ASAP if there are problems with any of the dates. (As time passes, it will become increasingly difficult for us to make changes.) Also, notice that, even when the information for a particular date goes on to the next page, there is a line, so check the next page!
Calendar PDF
EXAMS. The part in brackets indicates the variable you’ll find out the day of the exam. So, for instance, for the first exam, the exam prompt will say either “What are lines of argument or topoi shared by all the pro-war rhetors in the Spartan and Athenian assemblies?” or What are lines of argument or topoi shared by all the anti-war rhetors in the Spartan and Athenian assemblies?” You won’t know till the day of the exam, so you should prepare for both.
Notice also that the exam questions are what some people call “cumulative,” meaning that they are not just over material learned between two exams—each exam asks that you consider themes and issues from the beginning of the course.
You’ll be given photocopies of the relevant speeches, so that you can (and should) give specific quotes, but don’t expect to be able to invent your argument during the exam. I’m looking for a clear argument with lots of support for your claims. Your exam answers should be clear, and that doesn’t mean they have to be formal—don’t try to sound scholarly. I’m not looking for a specific answer (there are lots of “right” answers) but a plausible interpretation grounded in close readings of the relevant texts. And don’t bs.
First exam: Apply the concepts of case construction and stock issues to the speech. (The speech you’ll be given in class will be from the Athenian deliberations, Spartan deliberations, or the LBJ speech.)
Second exam: What is Socrates’ criticism of rhetoric in Gorgias, and how does it confirm, complicate, or contradict how rhetoric functions in [debate to be selected the day of the exam—it will be one of the ones you’ve read for class]? You’ll be given a handout of the debate, but not of Gorgias.
Third exam: You’ll be given a list of five rhetors with a mix of politically effective and ineffective rhetors (that is, they advocated a prudent or imprudent policy). Is there a pattern to their deliberating that is explained by some specific rhetorical theory (not ethos, pathos, or logos)?
PAPER PROMPT. Gentile describes specific processes for ethical intervention; in this course, there are four specific incidents during which a group of people come to an unethical (and not coincidentally, self-destructive) decision: the Melian Dialogue; the Sicilian Expedition; the battle for Stalingrad; the various deliberations described in In Retrospect. Select one of those incidents (in regard to McNamara, you’d pick a very specific incident) and write a speech that fulfills the conditions (and process) that Gentile describes. You will use footnotes to explain how you think your argument fulfills the conditions she describes.
Students typically have three main problems with this assignment. The first is that they ignore (or minimize) the research step. Second, keep in mind that she does not advocate simply telling someone that what they are doing is unethical; she emphasizes the need to research options and argue for one that will satisfy their concerns. The third problem (which is closely related to the above) is that they make anachronistic arguments. Note that all three of these flaws come from failing to do adequate research.
The paper requires that you do both research and reading not assigned for any specific class meeting. In fact, you must include material not part of the assigned reading. Read the selections from Mary Gentile’s Giving Voice to Values (in the coursepack). Her basic argument (which isn’t hers alone) is that people who effectively give voice to their values in complicated situations tend to follow similar steps. Instead of seeing the situation in starkly binary terms (either I do exactly as I’m told or I quit), they work through a range of responses. And, when they do make their case, they do so by doing more than condemning a course of action as immoral or unethical; instead, they present a carefully researched case as to just what is wrong with the course of action (specifically, how it is imprudent); ideally, they also present alternatives. Their case is rhetorically savvy—attuned to the audience and rhetorical situation. For this paper, you are being asked to make just such a case for one of the (many) situations in this course material in which a community comes to a decision that is both unethical and unwise (those two things go together more than people think).
You will need to do considerable research for this paper, and much of what you need will probably not be available on-line, so you will almost certainly have to go to the library. You are expected to use scholarly sources for this paper—primary sources are appropriate, as are autobiographies and memoirs. Newspaper reports from the era are also good (they are considered primary). The Pentagon Papers is a great source, as it has all the documentation that was available to people at the time. General interest encyclopedias (and that includes Wikipedia) and general interest dictionaries are not appropriate for college papers, including these.
You will have a Works Consulted, as well as a Works Cited. It is fine to have general interest encyclopedias and dictionaries on the Works Consulted.
For this paper, you should pick a specific deliberative moment, and write the kind of researched, thoughtful, audience-savvy argument that Gentile recommends. The paper will probably be 12-15 pages, and will require considerable research in the precise historical conditions (not just what we now know about that moment, but what was known in the moment). You may pick from among:
• The Sicilian Expedition. What is a rhetorically more effective speech that Nikias could have given? Keep in mind that we have one speech he gave—you could choose either the “first” speech (that Thucydides doesn’t include), or to rewrite the one he gives us. You could also write the letter he sends back from Sicily.
• World War I. I’ll list several possibilities of long campaigns—you must pick a specific moment in that long campaign, and argue against a specific action. Gallipoli, any time after the initial naval bombardment has clearly not worked; Somme, any time after July 3, 1915; the Nivelle Offensive.
• Persuading Hitler. Trying to persuade Hitler to do something sensible that he doesn’t want to do is, oddly enough, the most and least likely scenario for you to encounter. Obviously, you’ll never meet Hitler, but you are very likely to find yourself in a deliberative situation with a narcissist who throws temper tantrums if contradicted. To suggest that any of Hitler’s generals would have contradicted him is impossible—by December 1943, he had cleared the room of anyone with a spine—but necessary for this assignment. Pick a specific meeting before Paulus was surrounded, and try to make a speech to Hitler arguing for ordering a retreat. For this paper, you’ll have to think carefully about the details—where should they retreat to, and how?
• If you would like to do a different meeting between Hitler and his generals, but one that is in the Heiber collection, then you need to propose it to me by February 22. Tell me the specific meeting, and why you want to do it (some will work and some won’t).
• In Chapters Seven and Eight of In Retrospect, McNamara describes various memos that he wrote. Rewrite one of them arguing for the position McNamara later came to see as the right course of action.
Notice that for any of these, you don’t really have to want the outcome for which you argue (you might, for instance, be fairly grateful that Hitler stuck with a bad course of action, or not really care whether Athens invaded Sicily). But, in each of these cases, there were people who failed to argue for the course of actions implied by their own values because they didn’t know how to do so. The goal of this assignment is for you to go through the process of figuring out how to do it, not for you to come to the truth about Athenian policies.
Your paper will have two parts—the speech (or memo) that you write, and your argument as to why and how that speech is giving voice to values, as well as whether it would be effective. You can put that metadiscursive argument in the footnotes, or as a separate section. If you decide that there is no argument that would have been effective, for instance, you write the best you can, argue that it is the best that could have been done, and argue why there was nothing more effective.
Recurrent comments on these papers from previous semesters:
• Think about genre. For some of the prompts, it’s appropriate to write a letter (or memo). For others, it must be a speech. Keep in mind the characteristics of which genre you choose—a memo is very different from a speech.
• Think about who is giving the speech, writing the letter, etc. What are the rhetorical constraints s/he faces? How would those constraints affect the arguments s/he could make and how s/he could make them?
• Pose the problem early on, and show it’s an interesting one. Posing the problem effectively means acknowledging the reasons your opposition has for advocating their policy.
• Don’t use CMS; MLA will work better for you—use explanatory footnotes. You don’t have to use CMS; I have a pretty strong preference for MLA citation methods for this kind of paper. You’re less likely to lose citations, and it’s easier on the reader
• Be careful of “argumentum ad ignorantium”—it tends not to work with people who are committed to a policy. (They can respond with their own argument from ignorance.)
• “The opposition is better than we are” topos tends not to work very well.
• Presentation—give a full header on the first page; lots of teachers like a running header of your last name and the page number. (I don’t care.) Have fun with titles—your title has a disproportionate impact on your reader’s experience.
• Avoid hanging quotes. This is good advice for most papers.
• The arguments can be hard to follow, and lots of visual cues can help your reader a lot. Using a different font for the speech/memo/letter, or (at least) separating it with an extra line, indenting long quotes, using bullet points when it would be helpful, having sub-headings for different sections of the paper. If you keep material from the original text, then putting it in a different font will help your reader know you’re doing that.
• Make sure to give the opposition argument a fair hearing in your paper—it’s often most effective to begin with that argument.
PAPER PROPOSAL. Your paper proposal will be approximately 200-500 words (not including sources). It might be longer, but I have trouble imagining it being any shorter. Your proposal will have (not necessarily in this order):
• A brief description of the situation, including an explanation (using Gentile’s terms) as to why your opposition is committed to their position.
• A brief summary of what you think is a better course of action.
• Some ideas as to how you might go about persuading your opposition to adopt your course of action.
• Four or five sources (with full citation) you will use for background.
FINAL EXAM: The final exam question will be one of the following. (I haven’t decided which one.)
1) How are the concerns of [Aristotle, Plato, Thucydides, Kershaw] about the ethics of rhetoric similar or dissimilar to the recommendations in Giving Voice to Values? To what extent do they make similar recommendations about exactly how one should go about giving voice to your values? Use an example from the course reading to make your point.
2) To what extent do the notions of case construction help foster ethical, effective, and/or prudent deliberation? Give examples from the course reading.
QUIZ. On April 21, you’ll get a quiz with the following terms. You will receive two points for every good definition (which can be a quote) and two points for an apt example (which should be your own).
bargaining v. deliberating (total of eight possible points)
the “canons” of rhetoric (all five, with examples of at least one, for a total of four possible points)
charismatic leadership
doxa
enthymeme
epideictic
epistemology
case construction
stock issue: solvency
stock issue: feasibility
phronesis
skepticism
sunk costs
paired terms
cunning projection
naïve realism
argumentum ad ignorantium
strong father morality
ultimate terms
ingroup
outgroup
fallacy of the false dilemma
stasis
lines of argument
SOME RULES OF THUMB ABOUT THE THESIS QUESTION As I keep saying in class (and in the course material), I don’t want you to put your thesis statement in your introduction. But you need something to communicate clearly with the reader what your paper will be about, and why it will be interesting. In other words, your introduction should set up the question. There are a few rules of thumb about the question:
• It doesn’t have to be a question per se. An introduction that describes an interpretive problem might have a “contract” that says something like, “Thus, one might wonder why Chester Burnette spends half his speech talking about something that might appear irrelevant.”
• On the days when you should turn in a thesis question, however, it would be easier on all of us if you did word it as a question. Your question should be more specific than the prompt—it needs to be specific enough that you can answer it in the relatively short space you have. So, for instance, “What rhetorical strategies does Chester Burnette use?” is too broad a question.
• Introductions are most interesting if they set up a contradiction, puzzle, or paradox. If, for instance, something about a text surprised or puzzled you, it would probably surprise or puzzle your classmates. So, try to describe that puzzle.
• Sometimes the puzzle is provided by the historical situation. In this class, for instance, interlocutors are puzzled by what they should do. Your question should be a specific way of formulating that puzzle: “Should we execute all the Mytileneans?” is a good question, but it would be even better to pose, “How will our other allies respond to our following the policy that Kleon advocates?” There may have been a controversy in class, or you may find that there is a controversy among scholars—some people argue for one interpretation, and others for a different one. In that case, the puzzle is pretty straightforward: which group is right? (Or are they both wrong?)
• When I encourage students to write a thesis question, they have a tendency to formulate a false dilemma—“Was Chester using antimetabole in order to persuade dogs to attack squirrels, or was he an ineffective rhetor?” “Is this speech epideictic, or do bunnies eat steak?” It’s quite possible that the answer is, “Neither.” Anytime your thesis question has an “or” in it, make sure you don’t have a false dilemma.
• Because you are so trained to put your thesis in your introduction, students have a tendency to answer the question before they pose it.
On January 3, 1996, Chester Burnette gave his famous speech “Little Dogs are Evil.” Hubert Sumlin, whose tendency to befriend little dogs was notorious among Chesterians, was sitting on the platform with Chester, listening to Chester say things like, “Anyone who likes little dogs is providing aid and comfort to squirrels.” Obviously, Chester was trying to provoke Hubert. He explicitly and implicitly called him a traitor. Was he trying to provoke Hubert?
That last question, “Was he trying to provoke Hubert,” isn’t really a question—it was already asserted that Chester was doing exactly that.