Triennial Conference of the Kenneth Burke Society
|
 |
|
Read or download a print-friendly version of this page in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format. Web-based Seminar Registration Form Mailable PDF Seminar Registration Form Seminars Periods, Canons, and Consequences September 11, 2001: Burkean Readings Inform the Aftermath Recalcitrance and Ecocriticism The Rhetoric of Science and Kenneth Burke Kenneth Burke and Visual Culture Contact Info |
Seminars at KBS 2002All conference participants are strongly encouraged to nominate themselves for a seminar by filling out this Web-based Seminar Registration Form or by printing and mailing the Acrobat version of the form (PDF format; requires free Acrobat Reader Plug-In). Space in seminars is limited, so hurry. If you have questions, contact David Blakesley at blakesle@purdue.edu or the respective seminar leader. 1. Periods, Canons, and Consequences In an early issue of the Kenneth Burke Society Newsletter, Burke threatened to resign as eponymous founder unless the membership got down to some serious co-haggling. The potential for such co-haggling appears most distinctly in disagreements about the relations between Dramatism and Logology. Can KB's late work be predicted from the earlier work? Is the late work compatible with the earlier work? Are there watershed moments, conversions? Through what contests in Burke's life did Dramatism and Logology emerge? Which is Burke's epistemology; which his ontology; or does Burke transcend/evade those categories? Which of Burke's texts establish the relations between Dramatism and Logology? Is Burke's rank among twentieth-century writers different if we take Burke's substance to be Dramatism, Logology, or some combination of the two? Contact Information: Michael Feehan, 5505 Sullivan Rd., Little Rock, AR 72210. Home: 501 821-3911. Work: (501) 682-1937. Email: michael@arkleg.state.ar.us READ: "Curriculum Criticum" in Counter-Statement; "Biology, Psychology, Words" in Dramatism and Development; "Afterwords" to Permanence and Change and Attitudes Toward History; "Dramatism and Logology," Communication Quarterly (Spring 1985); and "Symposium" Communication Quarterly (Winter 1985). BRING: a SINGLE sheet providing: (1) chronology of key moments/texts/events, (2) a SHORT statement of the relations between Dramatism and Logology. The sheet should present conclusions only; we'll argue at length in the Big Easy.
|
|
2. September 11, 2001: Burkean Readings Inform the Aftermath The object of this seminar is to bring Burkean criticism to bear on the cultural, social, diplomatic, religious, and political implications of September 11. Each participant will be expected to do some common readings and to produce a criticism. No restriction is intended on potential objects of criticism or theses for that criticism. Critics might examine Presidential leadership, media treatments either in news programming or in entertainment content, terrorist discourse, statements by victims or their families, statements of other opinion leaders, actions in response, or whatever they desire. The objective of the seminar is twofold. First, we seek to understand humans coming to terms with a situation of dramatic intensity. Second, we seek to develop skills and perspectives as Burkean critics. Preparation prior to the conference should primarily concentrate on authoring a criticism focusing on responses to the events of September 11. Discourse may be drawn from any source including, but not limited to, media, the speeches of leaders, internet chat rooms, or other respondents. Discourse may characterize the events, call for war, oppose war, defend the attackers, explore their motivation, or whatever other topics strike the critic’s fancy. Criticisms may be coauthored, should be less than 2500 words, formatted in WordPerfect, Word, or pdf files, and be submitted to the seminar leader by May 1, 2002. Criticisms These will be posted to a website. Reading for all seminarists prior to the conference will include these papers and relevant passages from the writings of Burke, or others exploring his ideas. To stimulate some thoughts on possible projects, the following readings are recommended: Burke, Kenneth. Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of CA Press, 1969. Original printing, 19. xx. 328-40. 391-98. ---. Philosophy of Literary Form. 3rd ed. Berkeley: U of CA Press, 1973. Original edition, 1941. 1-3. ---. “War and Cultural Life.” American Journal of Sociology 48 (1942): 404-10. ---. “Where are We Now?” Direction 4.6 (December 1941): 3-5. ---. “War, Response, and Contradiction.” Philosophy of Literary Form. 234-57.45 Discussion at the seminar will include the substance of the criticisms and the philosophy of techniques of Burkean criticism in the projects. In short, we will attempt to answer the question: What can Burkean perspectives tell us about September 11, terrorism, and the responses of our society and culture to it. Contact Information: James F. Klumpp, Department of Communication, 2130 Skinner Bldg, University of Maryland, College Park MD 20742-7635. Email: jklumpp@umd.edu. Voice: 301.405.6520
|
Seminar 2September 11, 2001: Burkean Readings Inform the AftermathJames F. Klumpp
|
Seminar 3Exploring Pentadic CriticismClarke Rountree and Mari Boor Tonn
|
3. Exploring Pentadic Criticism Rhetorical critics have published essays using Kenneth Burke's pentad more than two dozen times since David Ling's short analysis of Ted Kennedy's Chappaqquiddick address in 1970. In this day of ad hoc approaches to rhetorical analysis, this makes pentadic criticism one of the most frequently used approaches to rhetorical criticism of the last quarter century. Nonetheless, rhetorical theorists and critics frequently misunderstand this well known tool from Kenneth Burke's critical corpus. Burkeian scholars cannot even agree about what the pentad is—a useful dramatic metaphor or a universal grammar of motives. Thirteen years ago Caroll Arnold warned Clarke about using this "cookie cutter." At the last Kenneth Burke conference, a well known postmodern rhetorical critic publicly scoffed at the idea of using the pentad for any serious analysis. With such criticism coming from both the old guard and the new guard, something must be amiss. This seminar seeks to come to grips with these differing opinions of the pentad. It will consider the following topics: 1. Is the pentad a dramatic metaphor that is useful for shedding light on human motives or is it a fundamental, universal grammar that distinguishes the categories of necessary talk about motives? In answering this question we will return to the Communication Quarterly symposium of 1985 between Kenneth Burke and several leading Burkeians. 2. What are the appropriate (or most amenable) objects of rhetorical criticism using the pentad? Should the pentad ever be used for "external" criticism (looking at nonverbal components of a rhetorical situation)? What are its proper ends? Its limitations? 3. Are there new directions that pentadic criticism might take? Can Burke's method be modified or extended usefully? Seminar participants should read the following essays, stake out positions on these issues (in a position paper or just through informal notes), and come prepared to discuss both. Contact Information: Clarke Rountree, Dept. of Communication Arts, Morton Hall, Rm 342, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899. Phone: 256-890-6645; email: RountrJ@email.uah.edu. Theoretical Background Burke, Kenneth. "Dramatism." Drama in Life: The Uses of Communication in Society. Eds. James E. Combs and Michael W. Mansfield. New York: Hastings House, 1976. 7-17. (Also available in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.) Kenneth Burke's seminal essay defining dramatism, it discusses the pentad in his most succinct writing on the subject. ---. A Grammar of Motives. 1945. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Kenneth Burke's fundamental work defining the pentad. The early definitional sections are most important here. Burke, Kenneth, Bernard L. Brock, Parke G. Burgess, and Herbert W. Simons. “Dramatism as Ontology or Epistemology: A Symposium.” Communication Quarterly 33 (1985): 17-33. A symposium between Burke and leading Burkeians on the nature of dramatism. Curiously, Burke ends up urging that dramatism is literal and based in ontology, while two prominent Burkeians insist it is metaphoric and epistemological. Rountree, Clarke. “Coming to Terms with Kenneth Burke’s Pentad.” The American Communication Journal 1, no. 3 (May 1998). (Online journal at http://www.americancomm.org/~aca/acj/acj.html) I include my brief essay because it is short, readily available, and speaks directly to the issue of dramatism's status, arguing against the position of the Burkeians in the CQ Symposium above. Selected Pentadic Analyses Ling, David A. “A Pentadic Analysis of Senator Edward Kennedy’s Address to the People of Massachusetts, July 25, 1969,” Central States Speech Journal 21 (1970): 80-86. Ling's analysis of Kennedy's speech was a first in the communication field, paving the way for others to follow. In addition to its classic application of the pentad, Ling also points toward what Rountree will call a multidimensional approach to pentadic analysis. Birdsell, below, critiques Ling's findings. Tonn, Mari Boor, Valerie A. Endress, and John N. Diamond. “Hunting and Heritage on Trial: A Dramatistic Debate Over Tragedy, Tradition, and Territory.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 79 (1993): 165-81. Tonn and her colleagues provide a classic, straightforward pentadic analysis that demonstrates the utility of the pentadic approach. Brummett, Barry. “A Pentadic Analysis of Ideologies in Two Gay Rights Controversies.” Central States Speech Journal 30 (1979): 250-61. Brummett's brief essay shows the rhetorical power of competing pentadic ratios, though one might argue with his choice of dramatistic terms. Blankenship, Jane, Marlene G. Fine, and Leslie K. Davis. “The 1980 Republican Primary Debates: The Transformation of Actor to Scene.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 69 (1983): 25-36. Blankenship and her colleagues apply the pentad to more than words here, discussing how Reagan verbally and visually was made part of the scene. Fisher, Jeanne Y. “A Burkean Analysis of the Rhetorical Dimensions of a Multiple Murder and Suicide.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 60 (1974): 175-89. Fisher's unusual analysis looks at more than words as well, and applies the pentad to an analysis of the psychology of a mass murderer who committed suicide. Birdsell, David S. “Ronald Reagan on Lebanon and Grenada: Flexibility and Interpretation in the Application of Kenneth Burke’s Pentad.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 (1987): 267-79. Birdsell looks at more than one pentadic set, showing how they interrelate; additionally, he defends a unique conception of Burke's pentad. Peterson, Tarla Rai. “The Will to Conservation: A Burkeian Analysis of Dust Bowl Rhetoric and American Farming Motives.” Southern Communication Journal 52 (1986): 1-21. Peterson has published more pentadic criticism than anyone. Her application of the pentad to broad cultural phenomena make her analyses interesting and innovative. Rountree, Clarke. “Instantiating 'The Law' and Its Dissents in Korematsu V. United States: A Dramatistic Analysis of Judicial Discourse. ” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 87 (February 2001): 1-24. This recent work systematically describes and applies an extension of pentadic criticism to include multiple pentadic sets and their strategic interactions.
|
|
4. Recalcitrance and Ecocriticism
--Burke, Attitudes toward History, 150 "Recalcitrance" is a familiar Burkean term. If a "chart is too far out of accord with the nature of the situation, the `unanswerable opponent,' the objective recalcitrance of the situation itself, will put forth its irrefutable rejoinder" (The Philosophy of Literary Form 131). "Ecocriticism" also has Burkean credentials insofar as William Rueckert invented this term, which is now becoming increasingly visible in literary studies, as evidenced by a number of signs, including a recent issue of New Literary History devoted to it (Summer 1999). "Ecocriticism" may be said to be building itself around the "recalcitrance" of the ecological crisis. Using the situation-strategy pair from The Philosophy of Literary Form, one could say (1) that our situation is the ecological crisis, the recalcitrance forcing us to reevaluate our "charts," and (2) that ecocriticism encompasses strategies for new "charts" that "size" our situation up better, "name [its] structure and outstanding ingredients, and name [it] in a way that contains an attitude toward [it]" (The Philosophy of Literary Form 1). The seminar's purpose would be to draw on Burke's work to discuss ecocritical strategies and to pose issues for further research in this emerging area of inquiry. Position papers are encouraged. Seminar participants will aim to define together ways that Burke can help to forge viable ecocritical strategies. Burke, of course, takes up ecology in various texts. Equally important, however, are texts that, while not explicitly ecological themselves, can nonetheless be applied to ecological issues or from which one can extrapolate ecocritical strategies. Rather than start with a prescribed reading list of Burke texts, therefore, the seminar will include among its aims arriving at a suggested reading list for Burkeans interested in pursuing research in this area. Prior to the seminar, participants may want to use email to call attention to Burke texts that they particularly wish to discuss. Below is a bibliography of texts using Burke to address ecological issues. These may serve as a starting point for the seminar's "conversation." Participants wishing to offer a position paper should notify the coordinator no later than May 9 (two weeks before the conference) to allow time for seminar planning. Contact information: Robert Wess. Department of English, Moreland Hall 238, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR 97331-5302. Fax: 541-737-3589. Messages: 541-737-1661. Email: rwess@orst.edu. Suggested Readings Blankenship, Jane. "Kenneth Burke on Ecology: A Synthesis." Extensions of the Burkeian System. Ed. James W. Chesebro. Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama P, 1993. 251-68. Meister, Mark and Phyllis M. Japp. "Sustainable Development and the Global Economy: Rhetorical Implications for Improving the Quality of Life." Communication Research 25.4 (August 1998): 399-421. Muir, Star A. "Toward an Ecology of Language." Kenneth Burke and the 21st Century. Ed. Bernard L. Brock. Albany: SUNY P, 1999. 35-69. ---. "Ecology, Technology and Critical Practice." Kenneth Burke Society Newsletter 9.1 (Dec 1993): 19. Roorda, Randall. "KB in Green: Ecology, Critical Theory, and Kenneth Burke." ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 4.2 (Fall 1997): 39-52. Rueckert, William. "Literature and Ecology: Experiment in Ecocriticism." The Iowa Review 9 (1978): 71-86. Wess, Robert. "Geocentrism and Ecocriticism." Under submission. 25 pp. Wolfe, Cary. "Nature as a Critical Concept: Kenneth Burke, the Frankfurt School, and `Metabiology.'" Cultural Critique 18 (1991): 65-96. Wright, Will. "The Ecology of Language." Chapter 9 in Wild Knowledge: Science, Language, and Social Life in a Fragile Environment. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1992. 193-219.
|
Seminar 4Recalcitrance and EcocriticismRobert Wess |
Seminar 5The Rhetoric of Science and Kenneth BurkeDavid Tietge
|
5. The Rhetoric of Science and Kenneth Burke Burke’s view on science and scientific discourse as a rhetorical apparatus was influenced by a paradoxical awe for and suspicion of science as a favored language structure that represented to him some of the best and the worst that humankind had to offer. As he says in Permanence and Change, “We do not here aim to discredit the accomplishments of science, which are mainly converted into menaces by the inadequacies of present political institutions” (101-02), suggesting that science itself was a noble enterprise corrupted by those who would disfigure and misrepresent its discoveries and methods. He also implies elsewhere in his work (see particularly his distinction between dramatism and scientism in A Rhetoric of Religion, pp. 38-41) that science, if properly tempered with humanistic, rhetorical, and dramatistic scrutiny, has offered and can continue to offer civilization much. But for Burke, it is the agencies that wrest control of science from its more carefully controlled contexts that are truly implicated in its diabolical uses. These agencies–political, corporate, and institutional–often illicitly seize upon the accomplishments of science for clearly a-scientific (and often self-serving) ends, and as a consequence create a mythos surrounding science in the public eye that is neither accurate nor ultimately in the best interest of humanity. As with any language structure Burke examined, he deemed scientific discourse a symbolic enterprise, one that provides us with meaning but also with distortion–“equipment for living” like any language system but by no means applicable to every human endeavor. In Burke’s mind, it is in part because science has been such a favored discourse in the last two centuries that it is vulnerable to corruption and demands more careful attention if it is to be used responsibly. The Rhetoric of Science and Kenneth Burke seminar invites scholars and students to examine Burke’s intellectual attitudes toward science during the several days that the seminar will run. The seminar itself will offer presentations and discussions that will help shed light on the rhetorical nature of science in the eyes of Burke. Because science and technology has a stronger impact on society today than ever, using Burke to help us understand the complexities of scientific discourse can aid us in any intellectual path we may pursue. It is in this spirit that we welcome fresh insights and innovative scholarship to this ongoing conversation. Contact information: David Tietge, 379 Sairs Ave., Long Branch, NJ 07740. Phone: 732-483-9764 (H); 718-488-1050 (W); Email: david.tietge@verizon.net. Fax: 732-483-9764 Suggested Readings Kenneth Burke. Counter-Statement. Science and aesthetic judgment, pp. 31-36; on the causation doctrine, pp. 81-89; the religious/scientific ideology, pp. 161-163. —. A Grammar of Motives. See especially “The Four Master Tropes,” pp. 503-517; Santayana and the five major aspects of science (part of the chapter “Agent in General”), pp. 214-426; the applied, purposive agents of science, pp. 286-287; the section on contemporary scientific realism, pp. 251-252; and scientists and the belief in God, pp. 98-99. —. Language As Symbolic Action. See discussion of scientism, pp. 10 and 421. See also “Terministic Screens” for a discussion of the distinction between scientism and dramatism, pp. 44-63; computers, pp. 65-66. —. Permanence and Change. Psychoanalytic rationalization, pp. 17-18; technological psychosis, pp. 44-47; technological influence on poetic style, pp. 55-58; All of Part I, Chapter Five, “Magic, Religion, and Science, pp. 55-66; piety as a system builder, pp. 74-79; “Perspective as Metaphor,” (especially section on perspective by incongruity in science, pp. 89-102; psychoanalysis as an impious rationalization, pp. 125-136; ethics of machinery, pp. 204-207. —. Philosophy of Literary Form. The charitable attitude of science, pp. 391 and 408; the conquests of science, pp. 390-391; the ironic distinction between pure and applied science, pp. 419-20. —. A Rhetoric of Motives. Autonomy of science, pp. 28-30; possibilities of science, pp. 32-35; redemption in science, pp. 31-32. —. The Rhetoric of Religion. The sections on science and scientism, pp. 15, 34, 38, 139, 170, 299, 301, 20, and 39-40. [Note: This is by no means an exhaustive list of discussion about science in Burke. Please supplement this with any readings you find relevant and consider sharing other sections/passages with the group prior to the seminar.] Crusius, Timothy. Kenneth Burke and the Conversation After Philosophy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999. Discussions of Burke’s view on science occur throughout the book, though such discussions are not its primary focus. Dyck, Joachim. "Rhetoric and Psychoanalysis." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 19.2 (Spr. 1989): 95‑104. A good source to compare against Burke’s view of psychoanalysis. Fuller, Steve. "'Rhetoric of Science': A Doubly Vexed Expression." Southern Communication Journal 58.4 (Sum. 1993): 306‑311. Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar. "The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science." Southern Communication Journal 58.4 (Sum. 1993): 258‑295. Gross, Alan G. "Does Rhetoric of Science Matter? The Case of the Floppy‑Eared Rabbits." College English 53.8 (Dec. 01, 1991): 933‑941. —. “On the Shoulders of Giants: Seventeenth-Century Optics as an Argument Field.” Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Randy Allen Harris, ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Hermagoras Press, 1997. —. "Rhetoric of Science Is Epistemic Rhetoric." Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (1990): 304‑306. —. "Rhetoric of Science without Constraints." Rhetorica 9.4 (Fall 1991): 283‑299. —. "What if We're Not Producing Knowledge? Critical Reflections on the Rhetorical Criticism of Science." Southern Communication Journal 58.4 (Sum. 1993): 301‑305. Klotz, Irving M. “Postmodernist Rhetoric Does Not Change Fundamental Scientific Facts.” The Scientist. 10.15 (July 22, 1992): 9-12. Kurzman, Charles. "The Rhetoric of Science: Strategies for Logical Leaping." Berkeley Journal of Sociology 33 (1988): 131‑158. Lyne, John and Henry F. Howe. “‘Punctuated Equilibria: Rhetorical Dynamics of a Scientific Controversy. Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Randy Allen Harris, ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Hermagoras Press, 1997. McGuire, J.E. and Trevor Melia. "The Rhetoric of the Radical Rhetoric of Science." Rhetorica 9.4 (Fall 1991): 301‑316. —. "Some Cautionary Strictures on the Writing of the Rhetoric of Science." Rhetorica 7.1 (Win. 1989): 206-215. Nelson, John S. et al. The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. A generalize collection of essays on scientific rhetoric, featuring such figure in the field as John Angus Campbell, Donald McCloskey, and Allan Megill. Prelli, Lawrence J. “The Rhetorical Construction of Scientific Ethos.” Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Randy Allen Harris, ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Hermagoras Press, 1997. —. "Rhetorical Logic and the Integration of Rhetoric and Science." Communication Monographs 57.4 (Dec. 01, 1990): 315‑321. Reeves, Carol. “The Rhetoric of Scientific Discovery Accounts.” Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Randy Allen Harris, ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Hermagoras Press, 1997. Russell, Bertrand. The Impact of Science on Society. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953. Simons, Herbert W. and Trevor Melia eds. The Legacy of Kenneth Burke. Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin P, 1989. Tietge, David J. “The Role of Burke’s Four Master Tropes in Scientific Expression.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 28.4 (1998): 317-324.
|
|
6. Kenneth Burke and Visual Culture
Beginning in the twenties with his work at The Dial, which often contained photographs of modernist art, and his debates with Cowley and others over Dadaism and the Surrealists, Burke showed more than casual interest in the products of visual culture and the function of art and other media in society. In the 1940s and later, he was an avid film goer (and, according to Charlie Mann, deeply enamored of Rita Hayworth). By the 1960s, he had taken a liking to soap operas and frequently took day trips to Carbondale, Illinois, to watch them with his student and benefactor, Hugh Duncan, who was also an architect. He draws on visual metaphors frequently to explain key concepts (e.g., identification, representative anecdotes, the pentad, terministic screens). And yet these interests never resulted in sustained treatment of the visual arts and other visual media in his published work. This seminar will focus on (at least) three critical questions: 1) To what extent can Burke help us better understand visual media and its cultural impact in the midst of the visual turn in the human sciences? 2) How can we use this understanding to explain the presence of the visual in the communicative acts of reading, writing, and speaking? and 3) What was Burke’s relationship to the visual arts (e.g., painting and photography, but also film and television) and how might they have influenced his work? Contact Information: David Blakesley, Department of English, Purdue University, West Lafayette IN, 47909; phone: 765.494.3772; fax: 765.494.3780; email: blakesle@purdue.edu. Suggested Readings Primary (Selected letters and excerpts to be made available in digital format.) Burke, Kenneth. "Art--and the First Rough Draft of Living." Modern Age 8 (Spring 1964): 155-65. ---. "Growth among the Ruins" Review of Peter Blume’s surrealist portrait of Mussolini, "The Eternal City." 1937. The Philosophy of Literary Form. Berkeley: U of California P, 1973. 435-38. See Blume’s painting: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Jardin/3041/blume1.jpg ---. "The Esthetic Instinct." Review. Herbert Read's Art and Society. New Republic 90 (April 1937): 363-64. ---. “Flowerishes” (selections) ---. “Introduction: The Five Key Terms of Dramatism.” A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California Press, 1969. ---. "The Nature of Art under Capitalism." The Nation 137 (December 1933): 675-67. "Toward a New Romanticism, Proportion Is Better Than Efficiency." Films in Review 1 (December 1950): 25-27. ---. “Terministic Screens.” Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966. 44-62. ---. “War and Cultural Life.” The American Journal of Sociology 48 (November 1942): 404-410. Secondary (In addition to Suggestions/Contributions from Seminar Participants) Blakesley, David. “The Image and the Word.” The Elements of Dramatism. New York: Longman, 2002. 109-18. ---. “Road to Victory”: The Basis for Dramatism” The Elements of Dramatism. New York: Longman, 2002. 18-19. See also http://www.sla.purdue.edu/dblakesley/burke/victory.html ---, ed. Selections from The Terministic Screen: Rhetorical Perspectives on Film. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, Forthcoming. (Excerpts will be made available to seminar participants.) “Visual Rhetoric.” Spec. Issue of Enculturation. 2002. <http://www.uta.edu/huma/enculturation/>. Barry, Ann Marie Seward. “Fallacies of Rationality.” Visual Intelligence. Albany: SUNY P, 1997. 23-28. Mitchell, W. J. T. “The Pictorial Turn.” Picture Theory. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994. (Chapter 1).
|
Seminar 6Kenneth Burke and Visual CultureDavid Blakesley |
Inquiries should be directed to the relevant conference planner:
Awards |
Andrew King, Chair, Department of Speech Communication, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; phone: 225.578.6681; fax: 225.578.4828; e-Mail: andyk@lsu.edu |
Local Arrangements |
James Mackin, Department of Communication, 219 Newcomb Hall, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118; phone: 504.865.5730; fax: 504.865.3040; e-mail: mackin@tulane.edu |
Program Planning |
Ellen Quandahl, Department of Rhetoric and Writing Studies, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, CA 92182-4452; phone: 619.594.6515; fax: 619.594.6530; e-mail: equandah@mail.sdsu.edu. Ann George, Department of English, TCU Box 297270, TCU, Fort Worth, TX 76129; phone: 817.257.62470; fax: 817.257.6247; e-mail: A.George@tcu.edu |
Chief Conference Planner |
David Blakesley, Burke Conference Planner, Department of English, Purdue University, West Lafayette IN, 47909; phone: 765.494.3772; fax: 765.494.3780; e-mail: blakesle@purdue.edu. |
Check this website regularly for updates.
 |
Last Updated:
--David Blakesley |
