Scan barcode
k8s's review against another edition
3.0
One-word reaction: Conflicted
Elaboration
I'm not comfortable with the way Crowley uses the terms "fundamentalists" and "apocalyptics" - while she briefly discusses the differences early in the book, she later uses them seemingly interchangeably.
However, I love chapter two "Speaking of Rhetoric" and chapter three "Belief and Passionate Commitment." As you might expect, Crowley's discussion of rhetoric as grounded in invention appeals to this mls bearer who understands research and inquiry as rhetorical processes connected to the art of invention. She argues that the inability of discursants to find stasis has left us with the inability to find the means to discuss arguments. Specifically, Crowley focuses on the theoretical differences in the approach of modes of liberal argumentation and Christian fundamentalist argumentation. Liberal argumentation is based on reason and rationality, and does not provide the tools for dealing with emotion or faith/values. Modes of argumentation that rely on faith/values operate in ways that are contrary to pure rationality. This conflict leaves debaters at a standstill. An example of her description of the differences between these two approaches can be seen in the following quotations:
"Hegemonic discourses construct and inform community experience to such an extent that their assumptions seem natural, 'just the way things are.' The very inarticulateness of hegemonic belief is a source of power" (12).
"Liberal rhetorical theory assumes that all members of a democratic polity will be willing to examine and weigh contending positions in a rational fashion, aiming for compromise where this is possible and settling for tolerance where it is not. Clearly, apocalypticism is a direct challenge to this belief" (21).
I'm still digesting her discussion of argumentation between these groups.
More things that bother me:
I wish that when Crowley discussed the texts of apocalyptics that she had focused more on those texts than the ways others analyzed those texts. What can I say, I'm a primary source sort of gal.
Also, Crowley focused on those who are the loudest - LaHaye, Focus on the Family folks, Christian Coalition, Falwell, etc. I would love to hear more about those who aren't on tv and talk radio. Granted, that would be a whole 'nother project, but I really would like to hear more about them.
Elaboration
I'm not comfortable with the way Crowley uses the terms "fundamentalists" and "apocalyptics" - while she briefly discusses the differences early in the book, she later uses them seemingly interchangeably.
However, I love chapter two "Speaking of Rhetoric" and chapter three "Belief and Passionate Commitment." As you might expect, Crowley's discussion of rhetoric as grounded in invention appeals to this mls bearer who understands research and inquiry as rhetorical processes connected to the art of invention. She argues that the inability of discursants to find stasis has left us with the inability to find the means to discuss arguments. Specifically, Crowley focuses on the theoretical differences in the approach of modes of liberal argumentation and Christian fundamentalist argumentation. Liberal argumentation is based on reason and rationality, and does not provide the tools for dealing with emotion or faith/values. Modes of argumentation that rely on faith/values operate in ways that are contrary to pure rationality. This conflict leaves debaters at a standstill. An example of her description of the differences between these two approaches can be seen in the following quotations:
"Hegemonic discourses construct and inform community experience to such an extent that their assumptions seem natural, 'just the way things are.' The very inarticulateness of hegemonic belief is a source of power" (12).
"Liberal rhetorical theory assumes that all members of a democratic polity will be willing to examine and weigh contending positions in a rational fashion, aiming for compromise where this is possible and settling for tolerance where it is not. Clearly, apocalypticism is a direct challenge to this belief" (21).
I'm still digesting her discussion of argumentation between these groups.
More things that bother me:
I wish that when Crowley discussed the texts of apocalyptics that she had focused more on those texts than the ways others analyzed those texts. What can I say, I'm a primary source sort of gal.
Also, Crowley focused on those who are the loudest - LaHaye, Focus on the Family folks, Christian Coalition, Falwell, etc. I would love to hear more about those who aren't on tv and talk radio. Granted, that would be a whole 'nother project, but I really would like to hear more about them.
More...