RHE 306 Spring 2010

Rhetoric and Writing

This course is grounded in the rhetorical analysis of "controversies," broadly defined. "Controversies," for our purposes, need neither be huge nor particularly public: whether or not to put a family pet to sleep could work as well as whether or not same-sex partners should get insurance benefits in Texas—though the former would require a different approach to research.

We will brainstorm controversies about the politics of food, prompted by Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food, supplemental articles, and films. Students will select a controversy from that list. Controversy topics must be substantial, not trivial.

The course is divided into three units, each one requiring some sort of outside research. The first two units are devoted to rhetorical analysis and so are mostly descriptive analyses. In these units, your own positions are beside the point, and that will be a difficult concept for some to grasp—you might feel compelled to argue rather than analyze, or to argue while you analyze. But your primary purpose during these first two units is analysis. The third unit is devoted to advocacy and so requires, for the first time, that you take a position within the controversy and produce an informed argument for that position.

Required Texts:
Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food
Crowley, Sharon and Michael Stancliff. Critical Situations: A Rhetoric for Writing in Communities
Lundsford, Andrea. Easy Writer.(if you do not own a grammar/usage and citation handbook, this book is required)