For your second exploratory assignment, I invite you to work in pairs to create a schema of rhetorical argumentation from the point of view of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca—as reflected in this week’s texts, primarily, but you may absolutely enhance that schema with other texts to which you have access. A “schema” is more commonly known as a formal structure, which shows how things are organized in relation to one another or are arranged in relation to the world. Your goal in creating one is to try to reveal the intertextual nuances and theoretical or philosophical contours that you think undergird their work, as well as the extra-textual influences a theory like this could have on rhetoric, composition, and communication more broadly. (Note that I attribute Perelman’s later New Rhetoric to his earlier collaboration with Olbrechts-Tyteca, which is why I am assuming her influence in both works.)
Since we do not have access to the whole of their book, I encourage you to think of your schema not as an outline, but as an intellectual map. This means it is more generative than demonstrative. In other words, consider how you might present their hierarchy of concerns. How do they organize their theory (i.e., by historical moments, by schools of thought, by disciplinary problems, by rhetorical questions, by theoretical approaches, by philosophical figures, or something else) and what are the factors that might have led them to do so? But also, what are the various and potential outcomes of their theory (i.e., how it overlaps with other issues in rhetorical theory and practice, other texts, other fields, or even other disciplines)? What could be the nature of ideas or types of questions inspired by this work? If you are a meta-thinker, you might even consider how your schema re/places argumentation and rhetorical reasoning in the world more broadly, but only go there if you feel ready.
Most schemas combine the visual and the textual, and sometimes they look like trees, database structures, venn diagrams, charts, or architectural drawings. You have absolute creative license in terms of how you will compose your schema. In fact, you may make it as layered as you would like—topographic, even!—if you think a multi-dimensional map would better demonstrate the depth of their work. Your schema will likely need some prose explanation (perhaps even selective quoting), as well as a symbol key or a guide. As such, please include the MLA citation and use in-text (parenthetical) citations where needed.
Finally, feel free to draw on any resource available to you, including our online glossaries and easy reference guides. You may well find great articles on Wikipedia that define argumentation theories, or other sources that explain Cartesian logic and rational thinking. Texts from other classes or disciplines are absolutely welcome. In sum, though you are not required to draw on other sources, whatever you do find to help you enhance your schema is fair game, as long as they are trustworthy (e.g., robust, creative commons, or peer-reviewed), and as long as you report the sources and share how you came about them.
I'll arbitrarily suggest the following working teams:
- Abe, Ashley, and Jessica
- Megan R. and Sarah
- Jennifer and Megan K.
- Kendall and Kyle
- Erin and Jason
Please upload your completed schema to our shared Google Drive space by the beginning of class time on Tuesday, September 10, and bring a hard copy to class for our discussion (just in case).
For your follow-up critical blog post (which you will do individually), please reflect on the schema assignment and how some aspect of the task illumined/complicated/addressed/extended your reading of our texts for this week. As before, this critical blog post is somewhat formal, rather than a simple reflection. It should be a minimum of 2-3 well developed paragraphs in length (a couple of screens), and my great desire is to see you engage expertly with both task and texts, at times speaking through or alongside what we read, and speaking with some sophistication about what we read (citing where necessary and embedding links where relevant). Be sure to define terms and unpack assumptions for us, using your posts as occasions to teach. Because the blog is somewhat performative, I'll ask you to title your posts creatively (or insightfully). Feel free to compose your post as a response to someone else’s, if you see an interesting conversation starting on the blog.
To take the edge off of next week, let's make the critical blog post due by 2:00 p.m. Thursday, September 12 -- giving you an additional 48 hours to reflect.
This is work, but have fun with it!
