Opening with an overview of the renewal of interest in rhetoric for inquiries of all kinds, this volume addresses rhetoric in individual disciplines - mathematics, anthropology, psychology, economics, sociology, political science and history. Drawing from recent literary theory, it suggests the contribution of the humanities to the rhetoric of inquiry and explores communications beyond the academy, particulary in women's issues, religion and law. The final essays speak from the field of communication studies, where the study of rhetoric usually makes its home.

The author (speech communication, Indiana U.) divides the subject into six chapters on the rhetorical ecology of science; philosophical perspectives--of propositions, procedures and politics; historical and social studies of science; demarcating science rhetorically; science and creation science; and cold fusion. In his discussion of cold fusion, he describes it not as a case study in how "nonscientific behavior sullied the public ethos of real science," but rather as a case that serves to "alert us to the inescapably human dimensions of real science so that we might appreciate its strengths without wishing away its imperfections." The bibliography is extensive. For scholars in the field. Paper edition (unseen), $22.95. Annotation copyright by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

Responding to skeptics within higher education and critics without, James Crosswhite argues powerfully that the core of a college education should be learning to write a reasoned argument. A trained philosopher and director of a university-wide composition program, Crosswhite challenges his readers—teachers of writing and communication, philosophers, critical theorists, and educational administrators—to reestablish the traditional role of rhetoric in education. To those who have lost faith in the abilities of people to reach reasoned mutual agreements, and to others who have attacked the right-or-wrong model of formal logic, this book offers the reminder that the rhetorical tradition has always viewed argumentation as a dialogue, a response to changing situations, an exchange of persuading, listening, and understanding. Crosswhite’s aim is to give new purpose to writing instruction and to students’ writing, to reinvest both with the deep ethical interests of the rhetorical tradition. In laying out the elements of argumentation, for example, he shows that claiming, questioning, and giving reasons are not simple elements of formal logic, but communicative acts with complicated ethical features. Students must learn not only how to construct an argument, but the purposes, responsibilities, and consequences of engaging in one. Crosswhite supports his aims through a rhetorical reconstruction of reason, offering new interpretations of Plato and Aristotle and of the concepts of reflection and dialogue from early modernity through Hegel to Gadamer. And, in his conclusion, he ties these theoretical and historical underpinnings to current problems of higher education, the definition of the liberal arts, and, especially, the teaching of written communication.

Rhetoric has traditionally studied acts of persuasion in the affairs of government and men, but this work investigates the language of other, non-traditional rhetors, including immigrants, women, urban children and others who have long been on the margins of civic life and political forums.

Scholars of every sort inevitably make stylistic choices, name and frame issues, appeal to communal values, adapt arguments to ends, audiences and circumstances. Yet the myth persists that `good' scholarship consists of hard fact and cold logic, devoid of all rhetoric; that the assent given to scholarly claims is somehow independent of the language used to communicate and defend them. Rhetoric in the Human Sciences demonstrates that the rhetorical dimensions of scholarly discourse can no longer be ignored. The authors illustrate the usefulness of rhetorical theory, bringing its tools and perspectives to bear on such diverse subjects as language acquisition, television viewing, ethnographic writing, psychotherapy, jur

In a series of stimulating essays, William E. Connolly explores the element of ambiguity in politics. He argues that democratic politics in a modern society requires, if it is to flourish, an appreciation of the ambiguous character of the standards and principles we cherish the most. Connolly's work, lucidly, presented and intellectually challenging, will be of interest to students and scholars of political science, philosophy, rhetoric, and law, and to all whose interests include the connections between contemporary epistemological arguments and politics and, more broadly, between thought and language. Connolly criticizes the ways in which contemporary politics extends normalization into various areas of modern existence. He argues, against this trend, for an approach that would provide relief from the rigid identity formations that result from normalization. In supporting his thesis, Connolly shows how the imperative for growth must be relaxed if normalizing pressures are to be obviated. His, however, is not the familiar antigrowth argument; rather, he ties his thesis to his general antinormalization argument, asking how one could create an ethic that would sustain itself when the growth imperatives are relaxed. Connolly's chapters on the work of other thinkers (including Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas, Richard Rorty, and Charles Taylor) are linked with his main theme, as he shows how various tendencies in the philosophy of the social sciences and in political theory aid and abed the normalizing tendency. His analyses of Rorty and Taylor are especially important. Connolly shows the significance of antifoundationalism (Rorty's contribution to the debate on epistemology), while providing a compelling critique both of Rorty's stance and Taylor's alternative to it. Especially important to Connolly's thesis is the ontology on which it rests. He shows how the endorsement of an ontology of discordance within concord--a view that all systems of meaning impose order on that which was not designed to fit neatly within them--can support a more democratizing process. His final chapter, "Where the Word Breaks Off," vindicates the ontology of discordance, which has governed the argument throughout the text. Throughout these essays, Connolly builds a consistent argument for the politicalization of normalization, disclosing forms of normalization where others have seen unproblematic modes of communication and problem solving. Original in concept and bold in presentation, Connolly's work will form the basis for considerable debate in the several disciplines it serves.

The Meanings of the Gene is a compelling look at societal hopes and fears about genetics in the course of the twentieth century. The work of scientists and doctors in advancing genetic research and its applications has been accompanied by plenty of discussion in the popular press—from Good Housekeeping and Forbes to Ms. and the Congressional Record—about such topics as eugenics, sterilization, DNA, genetic counseling, and sex selection. By demonstrating the role of rhetoric and ideology in public discussions about genetics, Condit raises the controversial question, Who shapes decisions about genetic research and its consequences for humans—scientists, or the public? Analyzing hundreds of stories from American magazines—and, later, television news—from the 1910s to the 1990s, Condit identifies three central and enduring public worries about genetics: that genes are deterministic arbiters of human fate; that genetics research can be used for discriminatory ends; and that advances in genetics encourage perfectionistic thinking about our children. Other key public concerns that Condit highlights are the complexity of genetic decision-making and potential for invasion of privacy; conflict over the human genetic code and experimentation with DNA; and family genetics and reproductive decisions. Her analysis reveals a persistent debate in the popular media between themes of genetic determinism (such as eugenics) and more egalitarian views that place genes within the complexity of biological and social life. The Meanings of the Gene offers an insightful view of our continuing efforts to grapple with our biological natures and to define what it means, and will mean in the future, to be human.

Studies one scientific essay - The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme, by evolutionary theorists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin - as an example, to demonstrate and test new analytical approaches to scientific rhetoric.