Week 4

M ~,LPvl C-•1'cis~.
f:_J.. .)\ ~'1 fUS . : p(.,/µ$1:1(} >
2oo 5 · CHAPTER TWO

·····-------------------------------
THE ART OF CRITICISM
JIM A. KUYPERS

The previous chapter provided a working definition of rhetoric. The goal of this
chapter is to introduce you to another concept: the art of rhetorical criticism. In
short, the purpose of this chapter is to show you how you can be a critic of
rhetoric, how you can engage in the critical act.
Recall the working definition of rhetoric provided in Chapter One: the strate-
gic useof communication,oralor written,to achievespecifiablegoals.Rhetoric is strategic
in the sense that it is intentional; it is employed only when words can make a dif-
ference. That is, rhetoric is persuasive.It seeks to influence our personal and col-
lective behaviors by having us voluntarily agree with the speaker that a certain
action or policy is better than another option. It is contingent in that we can
choose among several alternative courses of action. The speaker is ultimately try-
ing to make one course of action seem the best: thus, our decision is contingent
upon the words we hear.
There is no scientific certainty in the realm of human affairs: that is, we do
not know for certain which course of action will produce the absolute best results.
Therefore, rhetoric attempts to persuade listeners that one policy will probablybe
better than another. Thus, rhetoric works toward a goal-the enacting of one pol-
icy over another.
When we criticise instances of rhetoric, often called rhetoricalartifads,we are
allowing ourselves to take a closer, critical look at these efforts to persuade and in-
fluence us. Criticism has many broad applications, but in general it is a humanizing
activity. That is to say, it explores those qualities that make us human. As An-
drews, Leff, and Terrill have written, criticism is "the systematic process of illumi-
nating and evaluating products of human activity. [C]riticism presents and
supports one possible interpretation and judgment. This interpretation, in turn,
may become the basis for other interpretations and judgments." 1 For our purposes,
we are interested specifically in the analysis and evaluation of rhetorical acts. We
are looking at how humans strategically communicate to bring about a certain
state of affairs.

13
14 CHAPTER TWO

T. S. Eliot is reputed to have said, "We do criticism to open the work tooth-
ers." This is exactly what we are about when we perform rhetorical criticism. Why
one critic performs criticism may well be different from the reasons another per-
forms criticism, but in general we perform criticism for two broad reasons: greater
understanding and increased knowledge. Simply put, we wish to enhance both
our own and others' understanding of the rhetorical act; we wish to share our in-
sights with others, and to enhance their appreciation of the rhetorical act. We also
produce knowledge about human communication which in theory should help us
to better govern our interactions with others. On this point Wayne Brockriede
wrote, "By 'criticism' I mean the act of evaluating or analyzing experience. A per-
son can function as critic either by passing judgment on the experience or by an-
alyzing it for the sake of a better understanding of that experience or of some more
general concept of theory about such experiences. "2

CRITICISM AS METHOD

In its most basic form, a method may be understood as a particular manner or

process for accomplishing a task. The researcher's task, both humanist and scien-
tist, is to generate knowledge. How they go about this task, the method they use,
is quite different. The use of rhetoric is an art, and as such it does not lend itself
well to scientific methods of analysis. Criticism is an art as well, and as such is par-
ticularly well suited for examining rhetorical creations. Numerous critics have
commented upon the Humanistic nature of the study of rhetoric. Marie
Hochmuth Nichols wrote that humane studies, of which the study of rhetoric fits
prominently, are "concerned with the formation of judgment and choice." They
teach us that "technical efficiency is not enough, that somewhere beyond that lies
an area in which answers are not formulary and methods not routine." Beyond
"the area of the formula lies an area where understanding, imagination, knowl-
edge of alternatives, and a sense of purpose operate. "3 That area is criticism.
Of course, various methods exist for studying phenomena which surround
us, and these methods differ greatly in the amount of personality allowed to in-
fluence the results of the study. For example, in the sciences researchers purpose-
fully adhere to a strictmethod (the scientific method). All researchers are to use
this same basic method, and successful experiments must be replicable by others.
Generally speaking, the researcher's personality, likes and dislikes, religious and
political preferences are supposed to be as far removed as possible from the actual
study. Even the language scientists employ to describe the results of their studies
distances them from the results of those studies. For example, in scientific essays
one normally finds a detached language use, with researchers forcing themselves
into the background by highlighting the working of the study itself: "This study
found ... "
In sharp contrast, criticism (one of many Humanistic methods of generating
knowledge) actively involves the personality of the researcher. The very choices of
what to study, and how and why to study a rhetorical artifact, are heavily influ-
 THE ART OF CRmCISM 15

enced by the personal qualities of the researcher. In the sciences, the application
of the scientific method may take numerous forms, but the overall method re-
mains the same-and the personality of the researcher is excised from the study.
In the humanities, methods of research may also take many forms-criticism,
ethnography, for example-but the personality of the researcher is an integral
component of the study. Further personalizing criticism, we find that rhetorical
critics use a variety of ways when examining a particular rhetorical artifact, with
some critics even developing their own unique perspective to better examine a
rhetorical artifact. 4 Even the manner in which many critics express themselves in
their writing brings the personal to the fore: "I found" instead of "This study
found .... " This distinction was not lost on Edwin Black, who eloquently wrote:

Methods, then, admit of varying degrees of personality. And criticism, on the

whole, is near the indeterminate, contingent, personal end of the methodological
scale. In consequence of this placement, it is neither possible nor desirable for crit-
icism to be fixed into a system, for critical techniques to be objectified, for critics to
be interchangeable for purposes of [scientific] replication, or for rhetorical criticism
to serve as the handmaiden of quasi-scientific theory. [The] idea is that critical
method is too personally expressive to be systematized. 5

In short, criticism is not a science, but an art. It is not a scientific method; it uses
subjective methods of argument; it exists on its own, not in conjunction with
other methods of generating knowledge (i.e., social). As Marie Hochmuth Nichols
articulated so well, "It is reason and judgment, not a [computer], that makes a
man a critic. "6 Put another way, insight and imagination top statistical applications
when studying human action.

THREE STAGES OF THE CRITICAL ACT

Superior criticism is not mechanistic in its application. Even though an art, criti-
cism does, however, possess certain norms that critics follow when producing crit-
icism. After all, good critics are trying to generate knowledge and insight; they are
not simply flashing their opinions about. In general, there are three stages in -
valved in producing criticism: conceptual, communication, and counter-commu-
nication.

The Conceptual Stage

The.conceptual stage takes place in the mind of the critic; it is an act of cerebration.
It is a private act, and its purpose is to generate some type of insight concerning the
rhetorical artifact. Since this is a very personal act-that is, not mechanistic-
there is no standardized way critics go about flexing their cerebral muscles. Gen-
erally, however, insight is generated in one of two ways. The first is a type of
spontaneous inception. Think of the Eureka! of Archimedes, or of the proverbial
16 CHAPTER TWO

light bulb popping on inside your head. Critics often generate involuntary, almost
instinctive reactions to rhetorical artifacts. This involves more than a simple reac-
tion to an artifact, however, because critics are trained to observe: additionally,
their training has a bearing upon what they see in an artifact. In a sense, the ex-
perienced critic has assimilated particular ways of viewing rhetoric; these modes of
seeing are part and parcel of the critic's personality. Some critics may even come
to see rhetorical artifacts in such a way that others recognize it as characteristic of
that particular critic.
The .other way a critic might generate insight is through a somewhat sys-
tematic examination of the rhetorical artifact. With this approach, the critic uses
some type of guide, formal or informal, that allows for an orderly progression
through the rhetorical artifact. Often these guides take the form of perspectiveson
rhetoric, which is discussed below. Often, too, the search for insight is started
with a question the critic has about the workings of the world (often called a re-
search question). Simply put, the critic starts with a question or two in mind and
then examines various rhetorical artifacts looking for answers to that question. For
example, the authors of Chapter Eleven, Fantasy Theme Analysis, state in their
critical essay that they were guided by questions, such as, "What do we expect
from our universities?" and "Why do we go to college?" With those questions in
mind, they decided that Fantasy Theme Analysis would be a fruitful perspective to
use when looking at different rhetorical artifacts. In this way, the authors were
quided by their initial research questions in both the decision about what approach
to use as well as in what to look for in the rhetorial artifacts they examined.
Whether a critic spontaneously generates an insight or systematically
searches a rhetorical artifact for information, it should be the critic, not the
method or perspective, that is in control of the insights and knowledge generated.
As Black wrote, "The critic's procedures are, when at their best, original; they
grow ad hoc from the critic's engagement with the [rhetorical] artifact. "7 Of
course, not all insights generated prove sound; some ideas are never meant to
move beyond mere personal musing. A minority of ideas, however, are birthed
alive and well, waiting to grow. These ideas move to the next stage of the critical
act: communication.

The Communication Stage

The second stage of the critical act is a quasipublic act of writing out the criticism
in preparation for sharing it with others. Your reasons for writing criticism will
help to determine the particular audience for whom you will write. For example,
you could be writing a letter to the editor of your local paper concerning the
rhetorical efforts of a ,politician running for office; you could be writing a term
paper for your professor; or you could be writing with a specific scholarly journal
in mind. This stage of the critical act encompasses the private act of writing, shar-
ing initial ideas with trusted friends and colleagues, and ultimately sharing with a
wider audience.
THE ART OF CRffiCISM 17

When sharing your criticism with others, it is not simply a matter of provid-
ing a detailed picture of your opinions. You are instead sharing propositionswith
those who will be reading your work. Propositions are only naked assertions,
however, until you provide a very basic step: giving supporting evidence with
which to back up those assertions. Craig R. Smith wrote that critics must hold
themselves to "standards of argumentation" when writing criticism. Specifically,
he suggested that "when we write criticism ... we ought to confine ourselves to
solid argumentation inclusive of valid arguments built on sufficient and high qual-
ity evidence produced from close textual readings and masterings of context. "8 In
short, critics must invitetheir audiences to agree with them. This is accomplished
through stating their case and then providing evidence for the audience to accept
or reject.
When writing you must always keep in mind the audience that will be read-
ing your criticism. Recall that part of the purpose of criticism is to enhance the un-
derstanding of others concerning the rhetorical artifact. On this point Black wrote:
"The critic proceeds in part by translating the object of his criticism into the terms
of his audience and in part by educating his audience to the terms of the object.
This dual task is not an ancillary function of criticism; it is an essential part of crit-
icism. "9 For example, consider the speeches given by presidential candidates
George Bush and Al Gore on December 13, 2000. I can honestly say that both of
these speeches were rhetorical "home runs" and that I liked them. So far we have
only my opinion. I might go one step further, however, and make specific asser-
tions concerning the speeches. I could say that Al Gore's speech worked well be-
cause it attempted to achieve several objectives: heal wounds, keep the door open
for a presidential run in 2004, and remove a possible "sore loser" stigma. I could
then say that the Bush speech worked well since it, too, attempted to achieve sev-
eral objectives: reach out to Democrats: to have Bush perceived as a gracious, not
arrogant, winner: and to assure the nation of the proper transfer·of power.
At this point you would find yourself with additional information, but still I
have only provided you with unsupportedassertions.I have merely given you my
opinion about the speeches. I move into the realm of criticism when I provide the
support for these assertions of mine, when I provide you with evidence that asks
you to agree with me or that makes you aware of some aspect of the speeches that
you had previously overlooked (the sharing of insights). For instance, I could pro-
vide specific sentences from both speeches that I feel support my assertions. In
terms of Vice President Gore's attempt to keep the door open for a 2004 presi-
dential race, I could highlight this statement: "I do have one regret: that I didn't get
the chance to stay and fight for the American people over the next four years, es-
pecially those who need burdens lifted and barriers removed, especially for those
wbo feel their voices have not been heard. I heard you and I will not forget." 10 In
terms of then-Governor Bush's attempt to reach out to partisan Democrats, I could
highlight this statement: "Our nation must rise above a house divided. Americans
share hopes and goals and values far more important than any political disagree-
ments. Republicans want the best for our nation, and so do Democrats. Our votes
18 CHAPTER TWO

may differ, but not our hopes." 11 From these examples I would then share my rea-
soning about the connection I see between the examples and my assertions.
The main point to be remembered from this is that critics are trying to argue
for a certain understanding of the rhetorical transaction. In this sense they are ac-
tually using rhetoric to try to gain acceptance of their ideas. The best critics simply
do not make a judgment without supplying good reasons for others to agree with
them. On this point Bernard L. Brock, Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro
wrote, "[S]tatements of tastes and preference do not qualify as criticism. [Criticism
is] an art of evaluating with knowledge and propriety. Criticism is a reason-giving
activity; it not only posits a judgment, the judgment is explained, reasons are
given for the judgment, and known information is marshalled to support the rea-
sons for the judgment." 12
The idea of rhetorical criticism being a form of argument is not new. Wayne
Brockriede wrote in I 97 4 that useful rhetorical criticism must function as an ar-
gument to be effective criticism. 13 In his landmark essay, Brockreide advanced five
interanimated characteristics of an argument:

( 1) an inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption of a new belief or the
reinforcement of an old one; (2) a perceived rationale to justify that leap; (3) a
choice among two or more competing claims; (4) a regulation of uncertainty in re-
lation to the selected claim-since someone has made an inferential leap, certainty
can be neither zero nor total; and (5) a willingness to risk a confrontation of that
claim with one's peers. 14

More significant arguments will have a greater number and strength of the above
five characteristics than less significant arguments. This is to say, the five qualities
of arguments given above are on a sliding scale of sorts. The fewer of the five, or
in weaker form, the less the criticism is effective argument. The greater the num-
ber of the five, or in stronger form, the more likelihood the criticism is effective ar-
gument. As Brockriede wrote,

When a critic only appreciates the rhetoric or objects to it, without reporting any
reason for his like or dislike, he puts his criticismnear the nonargument end of the
continuum. On the other hand, when an evaluating critic states clearly the criteria
he has used in arriving at his judgment, together with the philosophic or theoretic
foundations on which they rest, and when he has offered some data to show that
the rhetorical experience meets or fails to meet those criteria, then he has argued. 15

The propositions and claims used by a critic are generally advanced through
the use of differerrt perspectiveson criticism. Because a rhetorical artifact is a multi-
dimensional, complex, a,nd nuanced event, there exists no one best way of view-
•.ing it. Moreover, no one effort to describe or to evaluate it will yield all the
knowledge that there is to know about that artifact. Academic criticism usually
takes its structure from a particular perspective. Perspectives allow critics to
view the rhetorical artifact from different angles. Later in this book you will be ex-
posed to twelve different perspectives designed for generating insight and under-
THE ART OF CRITICISM 19

standing about a rhetorical artifact. There are more, and some critics even blend
perspectives.
Using an established perspective to produce criticism has both strengths and
weaknesses. One particular strength is that adopting a perspective allows critics to
see an artifact differently than if no perspective had been adopted. In a sense, the
critic is allowed to see the world in a particular way. A perspective will highlight
certain features of a rhetorical artifact that will not be featured by another per-
spective. Adopting a particular perspective will also allow you to stay focused be-
cause, when properly used, the perspective guides rather than dictates your
analysis.
On the opposite side of the coin, adopting a particular perspective will intro-
duce certain biases into the criticism. A perspective is partial, and it encourages
critics to view the world in a certain manner. So while some aspects of a rhetori-
cal artifact are highlighted, others are screened out. Moreover, as Lawrence
Rosenfield wrote, "A critic who comes upon a critical object in a state of mind such
that he has a 'set of values' handy (or, indeed, any other system of categories) does
not engage in a critical encounter so much as he processes perceptual data." 16 Thus
a critic who follows too closely the dictates of a particular perspective runs the risk
of producing stale and lifeless criticism. In short, improperly used, a perspective
would be allowed to dictaterather than guide what a critic does in the analysis.
The different number of perspectives available to a critic is staggering. This
book presents some of the more popular, as well as a few less well known but
rather interesting perspectives. As you become familiar with the different per-
spectives presented in this book, you will see how they differ in the type of mate-
rial they allow the critic to focus on, as well as the type of material they exclude.
A central question remains, however: How does one choose which perspective to
use? A critic's choice will be guided by several factors. First, the critic's personal in-
terest will play a crucial role in determining which perspective to adopt. As you
study the perspectives detailed in this book, you will find that some appeal to you
and others do not. This attraction or aversion is natural, so your first clue to which
perspective to use should be your personal interest in using that perspective. Sec-
ond, and just as important, a critic must consider the type of rhetorical artifact
being examined. As already mentioned, perspectives focus a critic's attention upon
certain aspects of a rhetorical artifact. A critic should take this into consideration
when choosing a particular perspective to use. Of course, more experienced crit-
ics may well choose to combine perspectives, modify perspectives, or develop a
completely novel perspective. As a critic, the choice is yours to make. The greater
your knowledge of the nuances of different perspectives, the greater your ability
to discern the intricacies of individual rhetorical texts-thus, the greater the like-
lihoqd of producing productive criticism.
Advancing your propositions through different perspectives also makes an
important contribution to the development of a critical vocabulary for both you
and other critics to use. You will be contributing to both the understanding of
human communication and the development of rhetorical theory. In one sense,
you will be accumulating knowledge for others to draw upon. Ultimately, though,
20 CHAPTER TWO

I am inclined to believe Stephen E. Lucas hit dead center when he wrote, "In the
last analysis, our scholarship will be judged, not by the perspectives from which it
proceeds, but by the quality of the insight it produces." 17

The Countercommunication Stage

Once the criticism is actually performed the final stage of the critical act, counter-
communication, can be entered. This is a public act, and at this stage the critic
shares openly with others. For instance, your criticism could take the form of a let-
ter to the editor. If published, it will allow others the opportunity to share your
thoughts and possibly to respond. In more academic settings, you will submit your
term paper and receive feedback from your professor and possibly your class-
mates. You could even have written your paper for a conference presentation or
submission to a scholarly journal. The idea is to share your criticism with some
segment of the public with the hope that it will provoke some type of feedback.
The best criticism does just this.
Feedback can take many forms, as can the public exchanges about the critic's
ideas. A problem critics often encounter is the charge of de gustibus non est dis-
putandum, there is no disputing taste. In other words, you might hear from others
that your point of view is simply subjective, and that their points of view are
equally valid. However, if you paid attention to providing the good reasons men-
tioned above, then the exchange does not necessarily boil down to "I'm right,
you're wrong," but arguing who can see better. As Brockriede wrote, "Critics who
argue are more useful than critics who do not." 18 Along these same lines Black
wrote: "The critic can only induce us, and therefore it is we, the readers of criti-
cism, who demand the critic's compliance with certain of our expectations. We ex-
pect the critic to see things for us that we are unlikely to see for ourselves until the
critic has called them to our attention." 19
What we are about at this stage of the critical act is none other than enter-
ing into dialogue about matters of importance. The exchange and discussion of
ideas is crucial to criticism. Only the best criticism provokes this. Actually, the cry
of many critics might well be, "Love me, hate me, but don't ignore me." Remem-
ber that good criticism is an act of rhetoric.

KEY ISSUES IN CRITICISM

When you begin to write your criticism, it will be helpful to know beforehand
apout several issues that all critics must wrestle with at some time or another.
These issues are longstanding and have various "solutions," although one also
finds that different critics seem to apply different solutions to the same issue.
One important issue involves the most basic question in criticism: what to in-
clude in your writing. Generally speaking your essay should contain three compo-
nents: a description, an analysis, and an evaluation. Every critical essay should
THE ART OF CRffiCISM 21

have these components, but each essay will present them in a slightly different
manner (as you will see in the critical essays included in the chapters that follow).
Description refers to both a description of the rhetorical artifact and, in more
academic settings, a description of the.theoretical background you intend to use in
the essay. A description of the artifact is crucial if your readers are to be able to fol-
low you. The way you describe the artifact may well be the only exposure they
have to it, so you must take care in presenting as accurate a picture as possible. In
more formal instances of criticism-term papers, conference presentations-de-
scription refers also to a discussion of the theory being used to perform the criti-
cism. This allows others to learn from your examples, and it also adds to the
theoretical body of knowledge.
When you describe the artifact and the method used to examine it, you will
also want to relay the importance of the artifact, the study itself, or both. In short,
at some point you will want to justify what you are doing. Given the countless ap-
peals for our attention each day, readers may well ask, "Why is this important for
me to know?" Although you might think what you are doing is important, not
everyone else will think the same way. It is up to you to share with others the rea-
sons why they should invest their time and energy to read what you have written.
After you share with your readers what you will be examining (the rhetori-
cal artifact), how you will be going about that examination (rhetorical theory),
and the importance of what you are doing, you move on to the actual analysis of
the rhetorical artifact. This section of your essay will generally consume the most
space. In this section, you share your insight and understanding of the artifact and
you actively make a case for your conclusion. This leads to the final component of
a criticism essay: evaluation.
Evaluation of the rhetorical artifact boils down to the judgments you make
about it. Judgments may certainly be made, and appreciation or disdain expressed,
but they must be made after two conditions are met: one, the fair minded de-
scription of the inner workings of the rhetorical artifact has been presented for the
world to see; and two, the standards of judgments used by the critic are provided
for all to see. In this way readers may themselves judge whether or not the critic
imposed his ideology upon the artifact. The types of judgments made will differ de-
pending upon the type of perspective used and also upon the critic's personality.
Another important issue facing critics is the seemingly easy decision con-
cerning which perspectiveto use in their criticalendeavour.Simply put, how will a
critic go about producing criticism? As you read additional chapters in this book,
you may well find that a certain perspective appeals to you. You may not be cer-
tain why it does, but you seem to gravitate toward it. The perspective seems nat-
ural for you to use. As you use it, you become increasingly familiar with its
nuaqces and potentials. Some critics are well known for producing insightful and
nuanced work using a particular perspective. For example, Bill Benoit is well
known for using genre theory in his criticism; Marilyn Young's work using the sit-
uational perspective is another such example; mythic criticism and the names
Rushing and Frentz are no strangers.
22 CHAPTER TWO

Perspectives are not to be used as formulas, however. Although they do sug-

gest a particular way of viewing the world, as the critic you must direct the criti-
cism. When critics first begin to use a perspective, they often apply it rigidlyto the
rhetorical artifact. As critics become more knowledgeable about the perspective
they use they often become more flexiblein its application, allowing for personal
insight and interests to guide the criticism. In the best criticism, the personality of
the critic begins to blend with the perspective used. As Michael Leff has written,
"Interpretation is not a scientific endeavor. Systematic principles are useful in at-
tempting to validate interpretations, but the actual process of interpretation de-
pends on conjectures and insights particular to the object [rhetorical artifiact] at
hand." 20
Regardless of the perspective chosen, a critic must be cautious in its applica-
tion. Perspectives are to help a critic, not direct the criticism; a successful critic's
ideas blend in with those of the perspective. Perspectives are not molds to be
forced upon a rhetorical artifact-mechanistic and rigid criticism. Black puts this
idea, and the consequences, in proper perspective:

Because only the critic is the instrument of criticism, the critic's relationship to
other instruments will profoundly affect the value of critical inquiry. And in criti-
cism, every instrument has to be assimilated to the critic, to have become an inte-
gral part of the critic's mode of perception. A critic who is influenced by, for
example, [Burkean Dramatism] and who, in consequence of that influence, comes
to see some things in a characteristically dramatistic way-that critic is still able to
function in his own person as the critical instrument, and so the possibility of sig-
nificant disclosure remains open to him. But the would-be critic who has not in-
ternalized the pentad, who undertakes to "use" it as a mathematician would use a
formula-such a critic is certain (yes, certain!) to produce work that is sterile. An act
of criticism conducted on mechanistic assumptions will, not surprisingly, yield
mechanistic criticism.21

A minority of critics, myself included, take the process of assimilation one step
further by blending and developing their own framework from which to proceed
with criticism. This type of criticism is often called eclecticcriticism: "Eclecticism is
the selection of the best standards and principles from various systems of ideas. It
requires more orderliness to be a pluralist than to apply a single theory .... Criti-
cism is exciting because you must use everything you are and everything you
know that is relevant. "22 From my own work, let me give you an example:
Several years ago I came across a letter written by James Dobson, president
of Focus on the Family. The letter intrigued me on several levels and I wanted to
study it further.lAs I pondered how to go about this, I discovered that no single
perspective wop.Id do justice to the rich intellectual and moral cultures embedded
' within the letter. In the end I approached the letter combining judgmental analy-
sis and Burkean theoI}' (namely, semantic-moral poetic analysis, and a motiva-
tional analysis). 23 The end result was a method of analysis (criticism) that blended
perspectives(judgmental analsysis and Burkean dramatism). This flexible combina-
tion allowed me to study the letter on three different levels, thereby more fully ex-
 THE ART OF CRITICISM 23

plaining the inner and outer workings of the letter better than if I had used any
one perspective alone.
Yet another issue involves how one should approacha rhetoricalartifact (what
Ed Black calls rhetorical transactions). This is to say, should one begin with a the-
oretical orientation or should one begin with the artifact itself? 24 Black described
this distinction as etic and emic orientations. One using an etic orientation "ap-
proaches a rhetorical transaction from outside of that transaction and interprets
the transaction in terms of pre-existing theory." In contrast, one using an emic ori-
entation "approaches a rhetorical transaction in what is hoped to be its own terms,
without conscious expectations drawn from any sources other than the rhetorical
transaction itself." 25 A pure etic or emic orientation is, of course, impossible. One
should think of them on a sliding scale of more or less. The more one adopts an
etic orientation, the less of an emic orientation is used: and the opposite holds true
as well.
Both orientations have strengths and weaknesses. An etic orientation allows
for a fuller development of rhetorical theory. The major end of criticism would be
to develop and to advance rhetorical theory, thus adding to our overall knowledge
concerning human communication. Anemic orientation allows for a more nu-
anced description of the rhetorical artifact, and it also provides more room for the
critic's personality and intuition to play a part in the criticism. A weakness with
the etic orientation is that critics may very well find exactly what they expect to
find. A weakness with the emic orientation can arise because critics may "aspire
to so sympathetic an account [during the descriptive and interpretive phases of
criticism] that the critic's audience will understand that object as, in some sense,
inevitable."26 The problem is with the "good faith" of the critic. After so sympathetic
an account of the rhetorical artifact, the critic will be hard pressed to return to a
more objective role during the evaluative phase of criticism. 27
Yet another concern involves the notionof criticismas an objectiveor a subjective
endeavour.It is clear that criticism is not a scientific act; the very best criticism in-
volves the personality, insights, and imagination of a critic. Yet for all that, there
are critics-I among them-who maintain that a certain degree of objectivity is
necessary for honest, productive criticism. When I use the term "objective," I do
not mean that critics ought to possess or are capable of possessing a scientific de-
tachment from the object of criticism. This would surely produce a sterile criticism
devoid of its lifeblood: the critic's intermingled intuition, insight, and personality.
What I am suggesting is that the critic may approach the artifact under consider-
ation with a fair and open mind. In this sense the critic sets aside personal politics
or ideological "truths" and approaches the artifact with a sense of curiosity. The ar-
tifact under consideration ought not to be altered to fit the prejudgments of the
critic, but be allowed to voice its inner workings to the world. The work of the
'critic is to make certain that this voice is intelligible to and approachable by the
public.
1 This in no way detracts from the critic bringing to bear an individual stamp
upon the criticism produced. Nor is it the antiseptic application of a method upon
an unsuspecting rhetorical artifact. What it does suggest is that the critic must
24 CHAPTER TWO

learn how to appreciate the inner workings of a text, even if personally the critic
finds that text to be repugnant or wishes it to be other than it is. In this sense, the
critic is being "objective," or disinterested, when approaching and describing a
text. 28
Although I agree heartily with Rosenfield that, "Partisan involvement may
be a civic virtue, but insight derived therefrom must be continually suspect, "29
other critics disagree with me, as you will find while reading some of the chapters
that follow. For these critics, the act of criticism involves a more active attempt at
persuasion in all three phases of criticism-description, analysis, and evaluation.
Very often the direction of this persuasion takes its form from the political ideol-
ogy of the critic. For example, Robert Ivie defined productive criticism as "a de-
tailed and partisan critique. . . ."30 According to Ivie, a critic "intentionally
produces a strategic interpretation, or structure of meaning, that privileges selec-
tive interests .... in specific circumstances. "31 The purpose of criticism is made
clear. Those who engage in rhetorical criticism are, or should be, advocates: "crit-
icism, as a specific performance of general rhetorical knowledge, yields a form of
scholarship that obtains social relevance by strategically reconstructing the inter-
pretive design of civic discourse in order to diminish, bolster, or redirect its signif-
icance. [Criticism] is a form of advocacy grounded in the language of a particular
rhetorical situation .... "32
Often some attempt at political fairness is made, although the result is the
same, the politicization of the critical act. For example, Michael McGee wrote:

"When interpellating 'the critic' and 'criticism,' the first thing a rhetorician should
do is to identify her political orientation. Her syllabus should contain a paragraph
describing the trajectory of her course. Her book should have a chapter that aligns
her politics with that politics practiced in the workaday world by political parties
competing for control of the State. She must be fair, describingthe politics of those
who disagree with her in a light that leans more toward portraiture than
caricature."33

However, regardless of the attempt, I am inclined to agree with Rosenfield when

he asserts that a difficulty with ideological criticism is that the "very notion of com-
mitment to an ideology, no matter what its value system, implies a kind of im-
munity to those experiences of the world which in any way contradict the
ideology. "34 In the same article as cited above, McGee stated, "That which [ideo-
logically driven] critics do today is proactive, openly political in its acknowledg-
ment of its bias and its agenda to produce practical theories of culture and of social
relations (inclutfing political relations)," and thus appears to embrace the very ac-
tion Rosenfield described above. 35
Althoug#i summarizing a much larger conversation on this topic, the posi-
tions advanced are clear. On the one hand we have critics striving to keep personal
politics and feelings ffom the initial stages of the criticism-most notably, during
the description and analysis phases of the critical act. This position presupposes
that part of the purpose of criticism is to produce knowledge that disputants can
 THE ART OF CRITICISM 25

draw upon when making decisions about how to live-academic critics should not
be partisan agents of social change. On the other hand we have critics allowing
their politics and personal feelings to guide them during all three stages of criti-
cism. This position presupposes that critics begin by seeing the world differently
than the public they seek to persuade, and that the job of the critic is to produce
partisan social change in the direction of that critic's chosing. 36 A good example of
this contrast is found when looking at the chapters on framing analysis and femi-
nist criticism.
The chapters that follow will give you a sense of the variety and artistry of
rhetorical criticism. As you move through each chapter, you will find that the way
in which the authors practice criticism both modifies and moves beyond the defi-
nition I give here. This is as it should be. Take note of how the the authors change
the nature and scope of criticism. Criticism is not a sterile endeavour, and you will
find that some of the chapters resonate more strongly with you than do others.
Criticism is, as is rhetoric, nuanced, and may by understood on many different lev-
els. Each chapter that follows underscores this idea and will present a point of
view that will add rich variety to the definition I have presented.

SUGGESTED READINGS
Black, Edwin, RhetoricalCriticism:A Study in Method Rosenfield, Lawrence W., "The Experience of Criti-
(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, cism," QuarterlyJournal of Speech 60.4 (1974):
1978), ix-xv, 1-9. 489-496.
Brockriede, Wayne, URhetorical Criticism as Argu- Sillars, Malcolm 0., uPersistent Problems in Rhetor-
ment,• Quarterly Journal of Speech 60 (April ical Criticism,• Rhetoricand Communication:Stud-
1974): 165-174. ies in the University of Illinois Tradition, Jane
Kuypers, Jim A., "Must We All Be Political Ac- Blankenship and Herman G. Steimer, Eds. (Ur-
tivists?" TheAmericanCommunicationJournal4.1 bana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1976), 69-
(2000). <http: II acjournal.org/holdings/ 88.
vol4/iss l /special/kuypers.htm>.

NOTES
l. James Andrews, Michael C. Leff, and Robert eth-Century Perspective,3rd ed. (Detroit, MI:
Terrill, "The Nature of Criticism: An Overview,• Wayne State University Press, 1989), 85-169.
Reading RhetoricalTexts:An Introductionto Criti- 5. Edwin Black, Rhetorical Criticism:A Study in
cism (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, Method (Madison: University of Wisconsin
1998), 6. Press, 1978), x-xi.
2. Wayne Brockriede, "Rhetorical Criticism as Ar- 6. Marie Kathryn Hochmuth, UThe Criticism of
r gument, • QuarterlyJournal of Speech 60 (April Rhetoric,· A History and Criticismof American
1974): 165. Public Address, vol. 3, Marie Kathryn Hoch-
3. Marie Hochmuth Nichols, Rhetoricand Criticism, muth, ed. (New York: Russell & Russell, 1954),
(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 13.
1963),7. 7. Edwin Black, •on Objectivity and Politics in
4. See "The Experiential Perspective,· in Bernard Criticism,· American CommunicationJournal 4.1
L. Brock, Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chese- (2000) <http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol4/issl/
bro, eds. Methodsof RhetoricalCriticism:A Twenti- special/black.htm>.
26 CHAl'I'ER TWO

8. Craig R. Smith, "Criticism of Political Rhetoric in Rhetorical Criticism,· Western Journal of

and Disciplinary Integrity,• AmericanCommuni- SpeechCommunication44 ( 1980): 334.
cation Journal 4.1 (2000) <http://www.acjour- 27. For a different take on the etic/emic orienta-
nal.org/holdings/vol4/issl /special/smith.htm> tion that includes a methodological suggestion
9. Black, RhetoricalCritidsm,6. for emic criticism, see W. Charles Redding, "Ex-
10. Al Gore, •concession Speech," Campaign 2000, trinsic and Intrinsic Criticism," Essayson Rhetor-
C-Span. <www.c-span.org/campaign ical CriticismThomas R. Nilsen, ed. (New York:
2000/gorespeech.asp>. Of course, we now Random House, 1968), 98-125.
know that Al Gore declined to run again for 28. The preceeding two paragraphs can be found in
president. That does not preclude, however, Jim A. Kuypers, "Must We All Be Political Ac-
that he kept that option open. If one takes into tivists?" TheAmericanCommunicationJournal4.1
account the massive amount of speculation (2000) <http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol4/issl/
concerning the potential for Gore to run again, index.htm>. My notion of objectivity is in some
one sees that Gore actually succeeded in leav- ways similar to the notion of ·appreciation" put
ing that door open. forth by Lawrence W. Rosenfield in "The Expe-
11. George W. Bush, "George W. Bush Speech, De- rience of Criticism,• 494. In the above article, I
cember 13, 2000," Campaign 2000, C-Span. define "objective" criticism and position it be-
<www .c-span.org/ campaign2000/bushspeech. tween a politically partisan criticism and de-
asp>. tached scientific objectivity. Rosenfield defines
12. Brock, Scott, and Chesebro, 13. •appreciation," and positions it between ideo-
13. Wayne Brockriede, "Rhetorical Criticism as Ar- logically driven criticism and scientific objectiv-
gument,• QuarterlyJournal of Speech 60 (April ity. For Rosenfield, appreciation is •founded on
1974): 165-174. an inherent love of the world, while [scientific]
14. Brockriede, 166. objectivity, the effort to establish distance on
15. Brockriede, 167. the world (for whatever laudable ends) some-
16. Lawrence W. Rosenfield, "The Experience of times betrays an essential distrust of the world,
Criticism,• Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.4 a fear that one will be contaminated in some
(1974): 491. manner if one is open to its unconcealment. •
17. Stephen E. Lucas, "Renaissance of American 29. Rosenfield, "The Experience of Criticism," 492.
Public Address: Text and Context in Rhetorical 30. Robert L. Ivie, •A Question of Significance,•
Criticism,• Landmark Essayson American Public Quarterly Journal of Speech 80.4 (1994).
Address, Martin J. Medhurst, ed. (Davis, CA: 31. Robert L. Ivie, "Productive Criticism," Quar-
Hermagoras Press, 1993), 199. terly Journal of Speech 81.l (1995).
18. Brockriede, 173. 32. Robert L. Ivie, "The Social Relevance of Rhetor-
19. Black, ·on Objectivity.• ical Scholarship," Quarterly Journal of Speech
20. Michael Leff, "Interpretation and the Art of 81.2 (1994).
Rhetorical Criticism,· WesternJournal of Speech 33. Michael Calvin McGee, •on Objectivity and
Communication44 (1980): 343-344. Politics in Rhetoric," American Communication
21. Black, RhetoricalCritidsm,xii. Journal 4.3 (2001) http://acjournal.org/
22. Pauline Kael, I LostIt at the Movies(Boston: Lit-·· holdings/vol4/iss3/special/mcgee.htm.
tie, Brown, 1964), 309. 34. Rosenfield, "The Experience of Criticism," 494.
23. Jim A. Kuypers, "From Science, Moral Poetics: 35. McGee, ·on Objectivity and Politics in
Dr. James Dobson's Response to the Fetal Tis- Rhetoric,"
sue Research Initiative,• Quarterly Journal of 36. How and why we practice rhetorical criticism is
Speech86.2 (200b): 146-167. an ongoing conversation. Those seeking to bet-
24. This is not a new probleII\ in rhetorical theory. ter understand the changing nature of our crit-
See Mich<!elLeff, "Interpritation and the Art of ical practices have a wonderful resource in the
Rhetorical Criticism,· vttstern Journal of Speech following special collection of essays published
Communication44 (1980"): 337-349. in 1957, 1980, 1990, and 2001, respectively.
25. Edwin Black, • A Note on Theo!'¥ and Practice Taken together they present a wonderful op-
in Rhetorical Criticism," Western Journal of portunity for students of rhetoric to better un-
SpeechCommunication44 (1980): 331-332. derstand criticism's changing nature. See,
26. Edwin Black, • A Note on Theory and Practice •symposium: Criticism and Public Address,·
 THE ART OF CRffiCISM 27

edited by Ernest Wrage, in WesternSpeech 2 l A critical exchange worthy of notice has been pub-
(l 957). These essays were later reprinted along lished by the American CommunicationJournal:
with five others in Thomas R. Nilsen, ed., Essays #Criticism, Politics, and Objectivity," edited
on Rhetorical Criticism (New York: Random by Jim A. Kuypers 4.1 (2000) <http://www.
House, l 968). See also, #SpecialReport:Rhetori- acjournal.org/holdings/vol4/issl /index.htm>;
cal Criticism: The State of the Art," edited by #Rhetoric, Politics, and Critique," edited
Michael C. Leff. WesternJournal of SpeechCom- by Mark Huglen, 4.3 (2001) <http://www.
munication 44.4 ( 1980); "Special Issue on acjournal.org/holdings/vol4/iss3/index.htm>;
Rhetorical Criticism," edited by John Angus and the final essay in the exchange, Jim A.
Campbell, WesternJournal of SpeechCommunica- Kuypers, #Criticism, Politics, and Objectivity:
tion 54.3 ( 1990); and #SpecialIssue: Rhetorical Redivivus," 5.1 (2001) <http://www.acjournal.
Criticism: The State of the Art Revisited," org/holdings/vol5/iss l /special/kuypersresponse.
Western Journal of Speech Communication65.3 htm>.
(2001).