• SCoR Hompage
• SCoR Organizes
• Details for Sept meeting
• Past Events
• The Agora
• Contact SCoR

SCoR: Description and purpose

The southern United States, while always a strong region for rhetorical studies, has, in recent years, seen a tremendous influx of rhetorical talent. The Southern Colloquium on Rhetoric was created as an informal forum for rhetorical scholars in the South to gather together periodically for intensive seminars on topics of interest, to have opportunities to get to know some of our many distinguished colleagues from institutions in the region, to provide opportunities for networking and collaborative projects, and to provide opportunities to interact socially with colleagues outside of the usual convention venues. Our half-day gatherings are hosted at schools around the South and are designed so that they can be day trips for many, providing a high-level intellectual experience for a very modest expenditure.

SCoR's first priority is to create an opportunity for faculty to explore literatures and issues in a collaborative setting, but advanced graduate students may be included.

SCoR's informal steering committee includes Barbara Biesecker (U Georgia), Jason Edward Black (U Alabama), David Cheshier (Georgia State), Celeste Condit (U Georgia), James Darsey (Georgia State), Antonio de Velasco (U Memphis), Pat Gehrke (U South Carolina), Brian McGee (College of Charleston), Mary Stuckey (Georgia State), and Marilyn Young (Florida State U, emerita).

In our first two years, we have sponsored seminars on rhetoric and affect (University of Georgia, Feb, 2009), a panel on the rhetoric of economic calamity (Southern States Communication Association, April, 2009), a seminar on rhetoric and psychoanalysis (Georgia State University, July, 2009), a seminar on rhetoric and narcissism (College of Charleston, Sept, 2009), a panel on Ranciere and dissensus (SSCA, April, 2010). More details on some of those events can be found on this site under “Past Seminars.”

Rhetoric in a Rancorous Republic: Toward an American Controversia

A good deal of recent commentary calls attention to a decline in our public discourse, to our failure to debate political questions in constructive and meaningful ways. Over the last several years several speakers at the center of our civic life have addressed (or failed to address) this problem – to college and university audiences, and in the midst of considerable controversy. For this meeting of the Southern Colloquium on Rhetoric, we propose to examine these speeches and the issues they raise for our discipline and its contributions to our civic life.
The four texts at the center of our discussion are:
John McCain’s commencement address at the New School (2006)
George Bush’s commencement address at Furman University (2008)
Barack Obama’s commencement address at the University of Notre Dame (2009)
Barack Obama’s commencement address at the University of Michigan (2010)
One set of questions these speeches raise concerns notions of civility, decorum, and prudence. After all, colleges are important spaces of protest, educating citizens to lead and reinvigorate a healthy democracy. Although only a pale shadow of the student movements of the 1960s and 1970s, dissent leveled toward commencement speakers has shown a new wave of protest speech that might be labeled “indecorous” and “uncivil.” In several of the recent situations, faculty members have supported student incivility, have led movements despite student apathy, or have at least taken a middle position that tries to moderate and foster a culture of responsible public argument. In several instances faculty have been the targets of student attacks. Most often, faculty and students have been outnumbered by other advocates – alumni, concerned citizens, and the Visigoths of the airwaves. Questions arise for scholars of rhetoric and public address. Are speakers “marginalized” or “disciplined” to the extent that indecorous speech is their sole option? Do charges of “incivility” function rhetorically to marginalize or discipline speech that is clearly not uncivil? How and when does unruly, carnivalesque speech contribute to healthy, robust democratic argument? By accepting or encouraging such behavior, are we advancing speech that leads to shouting and polarization in the larger culture? Where faculty protest and students respond with charges of incivility and impropriety, how and to what extent do such charges distract from or distort the substance of the protest? What is the worth of “civility” as a normative ethic for argumentative exchange?

Our strong hope, however, is that our discussion can move beyond (or perhaps through) the question of civility to other, perhaps more insistent issues. Toward that end, we would hope to spend more than half of our time on additional questions:

1. What is the climate of civic discourse and public argument today? What are its most salient features and how do they influence the quality of our public argument?

2. What constitutes “good” rhetoric, “healthy” debate, “constructive” argument, and “meaningful” disagreement and deliberation? That is, if Cicero’s notion of “controversia,” is the art of arguing pro and contra, of seeing and understanding issues in utramque partem, how might we constitute an American controversia? Put another way, what are the familial characteristics of “good” debate? What are the norms or ideals of civic discourse? How might they be refashioned for today’s climate of public deliberation? To what extent can they be cultivated in university classrooms and scholarship?

3. What is the role of rhetorical studies in this refashioning? To what extent are we contributing to or taking away from a revisioning of American controversia?

By highlighting this controversial dynamic at rhetorical encounters on college campuses, we hope this discussion will lead to better theorization and approaches to civic practices in the classroom and beyond. Scholars and teachers of public address, argumentation, rhetorical theory, and communication ethics, among others, are invited to participate on September 10, 2010 at the historic Cherrydale House atop Furman’s campus. The SCoR meeting will be ideally situated to discuss dissent, given Furman University’s interesting case study, the controversy over the Bush Commencement Address in 2008.

For a complete list of readings and logistics, see the details page.

To be added to the e-mail list for SCoR, contact Teresa Morales. If you would like to host a SCoR seminar, contact James Darsey.