Rhetoric and Writing (Spring 2010)

Photograph by Stephanie Foley.

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.

In keeping with this year’s First Year Forum text, Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food, we will brainstorm possible controversies from readings and films about the politics of food. Each student will select a controversy to investigate and write about for the semester. 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, therefore, focus mostly on descriptive analysis. In these units, the students' own positions are beside the point, and that will be a difficult concept for some to grasp—you may 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 students take a position within the controversy and produce an informed argument for that position.