Project and content management for Contemporary Authors volumes
WORK TITLE: The Scientific Sublime
WORK NOTES:
PSEUDONYM(S):
BIRTHDATE: 6/2/1936
WEBSITE:
CITY:
STATE: MN
COUNTRY: United States
NATIONALITY: American
https://cla.umn.edu/about/directory/profile/agross 612-625-2020
RESEARCHER NOTES:
PERSONAL
Born June 2, 1936.
EDUCATION:Princeton University, Ph.D. 1962.
ADDRESS
CAREER
University of Minnesota, professor emeritus of rhetoric and communication studies.
WRITINGS
SIDELIGHTS
Born in 1936, Alan G. Gross is an expert on science writing and communication. He earned a Ph.D. from Princeton in 1962 and is professor emeritus of rhetoric and communication studies at the University of Minnesota. He has written numerous books on the science of rhetoric, rhetorical hermeneutics, writing composition, and communicating scientific principles throughout history and into the digital age.
The Rhetoric of Science and Rhetorical Hermeneutics
In 1990, Gross published The Rhetoric of Science, in which he argues that rather than abject objectivity, scientists must learn to write about their work in such a way as to convince contemporaries, control them with peer review, develop consensus, and educate the masses. He contends that science is like any other field for which rhetorical communication is necessary, especially in times of new scientific discoveries. Even choosing specific problems and communicating their solutions are important. Writing online at Technology & Society, Curtis D. Frye commented: “Rhetorical analysis of science writing is a valid and valuable academic field; as technological change continues to influence society, how those changes are reported, [and] argued about” are important.
Gross and William M. Keith edited a collection of essays on the definition, strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and achievements of the “rhetoric of science” movement for Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. How to interpret and communicate scientific concepts and practices has been a long debate. The book discusses speech communication, literary theory, hermeneutics, and science studies in relation to rhetorical theory and its philosophical foundations. Science communication today is influenced by the function of language, interpretation, assumption, evidence, and audience. The authors of the essays discuss whether a globalization of rhetoric is justifiable and useful. On the H-Net Reviews website, J. D. H. Amador noted that in the book, “We walk into a forum and are witness to a lively debate where the participants respond to each other, posture at one another, are forced to clarify their positions, hone their critiques, offer constructive models. The result is exciting.”
Chaim Perelman and Science from Sight to Insight
Gross collaborated with Ray D. Dearing to published Chaim Perelman, a biography of the Polish-born philosopher of law and professor who taught and lived in Brussels. Focusing on the philosophical foundations of Perelman’s (1912-84) rhetorical theory and his thoughts on the elucidation of texts, the book delves into his concern for the ways in which the details of texts realize philosophical commitments. Perelman analyzed the meaning of texts at the level of individual words, phrases, arrangement, and structure of arguments.
In 2014, Gross and cowriter Joseph E. Harmon published Science from Sight to Insight: How Scientists Illustrate Meaning. Not only must scientists explain their discoveries and theories in words, but also in pictures that are factual but also compelling. Watson and Crick’s double helix DNA illustration is an example of an elegant visual for an important scientific concept. Gross and Harmon explore scientific illustration from drawings to PowerPoint and ways to provide visual as well as textual information for academic journals and scientific communication. They discuss graphs, diagrams, maps, drawings, and photographs. In Choice, reviewer S. E. Wiegand remarked: “This entry in the history of science, while idealistic … is an intriguing exploration of ideas.”
The Internet Revolution in the Sciences and Humanities, Science and the Internet, and The Scientific Sublime
Gross and Joseph E. Harmon also collaborated on the 2016 book, The Internet Revolution in the Sciences and Humanities, which examines how the Internet has transformed the sciences and humanities, and how each discipline can learn from the other in the areas of generating, evaluating, and communicating knowledge on the Internet. The authors discuss communication of information in journal articles, websites, peer review, and post-publication review. They also describe obstacles scientific and academy organizations face in utilizing the Internet, such as open access and copyright law. They contend that incremental change is necessary.
The 2016 Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age is edited by Gross and Jonathan Buehl of Ohio State University. Scientists and those involved in scientific communication should take advantage of the vast multimedia environment of the Internet. Through case studies, the book explores recent developments in scientific communication, such as journal articles, blogs, open access notebooks, data visualization tools, online peer review, wikis, podcasts, and tweets as methods of dispersing information. In Reviewer’s Bookwatch, Carl Logan called the book “A seminal work of collective scholarship,” that is “useful as a central or supplementary text.”
In The Scientific Sublime, Gross explores how the great popular scientists of our time evoke the sublime in their scientific discourse. For example, he chooses physicists like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman, and evolutionary scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, and explores how they adapt the literary sublime to science as they disclose complex scientific information to a lay audience. Unfortunately, “Gross doesn’t have the knack for clearly and simply summarizing thorny concepts that he attributes to his subjects,” according to a writer in Publishers Weekly, resulting in a discussion of scientific concepts that are even more abstruse.
BIOCRIT
PERIODICALS
Choice, May 2014, S. E. Wiegand, review of Science from Sight to Insight: How Scientists Illustrate Meaning, p. 1614.
Publishers Weekly, May 7, 2018, review of The Scientific Sublime: Popular Science Unravels the Mysteries of the Universe, p. 58.
Reviewer’s Bookwatch, August 2016, Carl Logan, review of Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age.
ONLINE
H-Net Review, https://www.h-net.org/ (April 1, 1997), J.D.H. Amador, review of Rhetorical Hermeneutics.
Technology & Society, http://www.techsoc.com/ (November 1, 2018), Curtis D. Frye, review of The Rhetoric of Science.
Alan G. Gross
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alan G. Gross (born 1936) is a Professor of Rhetoric and Communication Studies at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. He has written a number of books, perhaps most well-known being The Rhetoric of Science (Harvard University Press, 1990 and 1996).[1] This book was reviewed by the historian and philosopher of science Joseph Agassi.[2][3] Gross received his Ph.D. in 1962 from Princeton University.
Contents
1 Selected publications
2 See also
3 References
4 External links
Selected publications
The Rhetoric of Science, (1990 and 1996)
Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science, (1997) (co-author: William M. Keith) SUNY. ISBN 0-7914-3109-6 (hardcover), ISBN 0-7914-3110-X (paperback)
Rereading Aristotle's Rhetoric, (co-editor Arthur E. Walzer) Southern Illinois University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-8093-2267-6
Chaim Perelman, (co-author Ray D. Dearin) SUNY, 2003.
Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present, Joseph E. Harmon; Michael Reidy, Oxford University Press, 2002.
Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies, Southern Illinois, 2006.
The Scientific Literature: A Guided Tour, (co-editor Joseph E. Harmon) Chicago, 2007.
In 1990 Harvard published Rhetoric of Science, a book that was noticed, nationally and internationally. It created a productive controversy over the limits of classical rhetoric, one that issued, eventually, in my SUNY collection, Rhetorical Hermeneutics. Since that time, Oxford has published Communicating Science, written with Argonne National Laboratory's Joseph Harmon. It is now the standard work in its field. With Joe Harmon, I have since written two other books generated by the same research program, both published by Chicago: The Scientific Literature, for general audiences, and The Craft of Scientific Communication, for scientists who want to write and to speak more effectively. Chicago just published Science from Sight to Insight: How Scientists Illustrate Meaning. It addresses a problem virtually unremarked and certainly under-researched: science communication is not just about words; it is about words and pictures. The partnership has just completed a Prospectus for their next book, "The Internet Revolution and the Two Cultures:Science and Scholarship Reconsidered," a study of the effect of the internet on scientific and scholarly communication.
Over the years, by myself and in productive partnership with others, I have produced a coherent body of work, anchored in classical and modern rhetoric--witness my co-edited collection Rereading Aristotle, and my co-authored Chaim Perelman. At the same time, I recognize the necessity of incorporating into my theoretical point of view such additional components as the hermeneutics of Heidegger, Habermas and Ricoeur and the findings of cognitive psychology.
Alan G Gross
Photo of Alan G Gross
Contact Me
agross@umn.edu
Affiliations
Communication Studies
Links
For more about Alan Gross
My research has centered around three areas: scientific communication, rhetorical theory and, most recently, visual communication. Currently, I am completing a manuscript on scientific communication and putting the finishing touches on prospectus for a book on visual conmmunication the sciences.
Educational Background & Specialties
Publications
The Rhetoric of Science. Gross, Alan, Harvard, Author, 1996.
Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. Gross, Alan, William M. Keith, SUNY, Co-Editor, 1997.
Rereading Aristotle's Rhetoric. Gross, Alan, Arthur E. Walzer, Southern Illinois Press, Co-Editor, 2000.
Chaim Perelman. Gross, Alan, Ray D. Dearin, SUNY, Co-Author, 2003.
Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Gross, Alan, Joseph E. Harmon; Michael Reidy, Oxford, Co-Author, 2002.
Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies. Gross, Alan, Southern Illinois, Author, 2006.
The Scientific Literature: A Guided Tour. Gross, Alan, Joseph E. Harmon, Chicago, Co-Editor, 2007.
The Scientific Sublime: Popular Science Unravels the Mysteries of the Universe
Publishers Weekly. 265.19 (May 7, 2018): p58.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2018 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Full Text:
The Scientific Sublime: Popular Science Unravels the Mysteries of the Universe
Alan G. Gross. Oxford Univ., $29.95 (328p) ISBN 978-0-19-063777-4
Gross (The Rhetoric of Science), a University of Minnesota--Twin Cities professor emeritus of communication studies, tackles the question of how successful popular science writers transmit complex ideas to a general audience, but his own work lacks a self-evident audience among either professional or lay readers. For examples, Gross chooses the writings of five physicists, Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Lisa Randall, and Steven Weinberg, and of five scientists involved with evolutionary theory, Rachel Carson, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Steven Pinker, and E.O. Wilson. Unfortunately, Gross doesn't have the knack for clearly and simply summarizing thorny concepts that he attributes to his subjects, so their ideas become ever more abstruse as he attempts to discuss them. Although mostly adulatory, he does takes aim at Pinker's hypotheses, but with abbreviated and generally unconvincing criticisms, such as that Pinker's statistical argument for the historical decline of violence excludes automotive deaths. He concludes with an out-of-place chapter arguing that those who conclude that science must replace God are mistaken, an argument perhaps germane to Dawkins but less so to the other writers discussed. This frustrating book does little to advance the understanding of the nature of science or of science writing. (July)
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"The Scientific Sublime: Popular Science Unravels the Mysteries of the Universe." Publishers Weekly, 7 May 2018, p. 58. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A538858715/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=1f3debb3. Accessed 21 Sept. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A538858715
Gross, Alan G.: Science from sight to insight: how scientists illustrate meaning
S.E. Wiegand
CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. 51.9 (May 2014): p1614.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2014 American Library Association CHOICE
http://www.ala.org/acrl/choice/about
Full Text:
Gross, Alan G. Science from sight to insight: how scientists illustrate meaning, by Alan G. Gross and Joseph E. Harmon. Chicago, 2014. 332p bibl index afp ISBN 9780226068206, $90.00; ISBN 9780226068480 pbk, $30.00
51-4984
Q223
2013-5918 C I P
Beyond aesthetics, scientific illustration must effectively communicate factual information in a clear and visually compelling way. Gross (communication studies, Univ. of Minnesota, Twin Cities) and Harmon (science writer/editor, Argonne National Laboratory) present their extended insight that scientific images have epistemic importance, using well-supported reasoning, illustrations, and examples ranging from Socrates, da Vinci, and Shakespeare to Heidegger and McLuhan. By interweaving the visual with the verbal, scientists uniquely present data to generate dual meanings. Technology has progressed to ever more transformative illustrative depictions as methods have improved, from woodcuts and engravings to photography. More recent technology-PowerPoint--is analyzed for examples of productive interactions of words, tables, and images. The future is in online videos, with the possibilities inherent in the Internet and digital technology for development beyond demonstrations to allow visual reasoning and dynamic argument construction. Technology will continue to change pictorial scientific research results from "islands in a sea of print" to interactive portals enhancing understanding and engagement. This entry in the history of science, while idealistic (the authors note "ever-loosening restrictions on copyright by publishers" in reference to open access), is an intriguing exploration of ideas. Summing Up: Recommended. ** Upper-division undergraduates and above.--S. E. Wiegand, Saint Marys College
Wiegand, S.E.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Wiegand, S.E. "Gross, Alan G.: Science from sight to insight: how scientists illustrate meaning." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, May 2014, p. 1614. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A366728728/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=9425b906. Accessed 21 Sept. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A366728728
Science and the Internet
Willis M. Buhle
Reviewer's Bookwatch. (May 2016):
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 Midwest Book Review
http://www.midwestbookreview.com
Full Text:
Science and the Internet
Alan G. Gross & Jonathan Buehl, editors
Baywood Publishing
26 Austin Avenue, Box 337, Amityville, NY 11701
9780895038975, $78.95, 328pp, http://baywood.com
Synopsis: The twelve essays and an afterword (Social Changes in Science Communication: Rattling the Information Chain' by Charles Bazerman) comprising "Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age" consider the effects of digital technologies on scientific argumentation and the circulation of scientific knowledge. In Communicating Science, Gross, Harmon, and Reidy argued that the fundamental interaction between verbal and visual elements that defines scientific argumentation will not change significantly as technology changes: While the computer revolution will undoubtedly continue to facilitate this interaction, we do not think this heart will look, or beat, very differently at the end of the twenty-first century. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Internet has transformed how science is practiced, and it is accelerating the pace of scientific communication both among peers and to the public. Among peers, the Internet promotes wider and more fruitful collaborative networks. Fully evolved, the scientific article is becoming a portal through which knowledge flows. The scope of peer review is being expanded by the full documentation and immediate scrutiny that the Internet permits. But the Internet's influence extends beyond peer-to-peer communication to the communication of science to wider publics. Institutions must adapt to the just-in-time behaviors of information seekers, and the participatory features of Web 2.0 allow non-experts to comment on scientific research in unprecedented ways. The contributors to "Science and the Internet" analyze digital developments in science communication from open notebooks and live-blogged experiments to podcasts and citizen-science projects to assess their rhetorical implications.
Critique: Informed and informative, thoughtful and thought-provoking, insightful and astute, "Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age" is especially commended to the attention of teachers of technical and scientific communication, professors of science studies, and academics, and non-specialist general readers with an interest in the Internet. An ideal choice as a central or supplementary text for courses in technical and scientific communication or in digital media studies, "Science and the Internet" is very highly recommended for community and academic library Information Science reference collections and supplemental studies curriculums. For personal reading lists it should be noted that "Science and the Internet" is also available in a paperback edition (9780895038982, $63.95), and in a Kindle format (9780895038999, $51.16).
Willis M. Buhle
Reviewer
Buhle, Willis M.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Buhle, Willis M. "Science and the Internet." Reviewer's Bookwatch, May 2016. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A455284394/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=f408e07a. Accessed 21 Sept. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A455284394
Science and the Internet
Carl Logan
Reviewer's Bookwatch. (Aug. 2016):
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 Midwest Book Review
http://www.midwestbookreview.com
Full Text:
Science and the Internet
Alan G. Gross & Jonathan Buehl, editors
Baywood Publishing
26 Austin Avenue, Box 337, Amityville, NY 11701
http://baywood.com
9780895038975, $78.95, HC, 328pp, www.amazon.com
Synopsis: Collaboratively compiled and co-edited by the team of academicians Alan Gross (Emeritus Professor, University of Minnesota--Twin Cities) and Jonathan Buehl (Associate Professor and Director of Business and Technical Writing in the Department of English at The Ohio State University) the thirteen essays comprising "Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age" consider the effects of digital technologies on scientific argumentation and the circulation of scientific knowledge.
The Internet has transformed how science is practiced, and it is accelerating the pace of scientific communication both among peers and to the public. Among peers, the Internet promotes wider and more fruitful collaborative networks. Fully evolved, the scientific article is becoming a portal through which knowledge flows. The scope of peer review is being expanded by the full documentation and immediate scrutiny that the Internet permits. But the Internet's influence extends beyond peer-to-peer communication to the communication of science to wider publics. Institutions must adapt to the just-in-time behaviors of information seekers, and the participatory features of Web 2.0 allow non-experts to comment on scientific research in unprecedented ways.
The contributors to "Science and the Internet" analyze digital developments in science communication from open notebooks and live-blogged experiments to podcasts and citizen-science projects to assess their rhetorical implications.
Critique: A seminal work of collective scholarship, "Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age" has special relevance for teachers of technical and scientific communication, professors of science studies, and academics and others with an interest in the Internet; also useful as a central or supplementary text for courses in technical and scientific communication or in digital media studies. While unreservedly recommended for community, college, and academic library collections, it should be noted for the personal reading lists of students and non-specialist general readers with an interest in the subject that "Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age" is also available in a paperback edition (9780895038982, $63.95) and in a Kindle format ($9780895038999, $51.16).
Carl Logan
Reviewer
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Logan, Carl. "Science and the Internet." Reviewer's Bookwatch, Aug. 2016. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A462046365/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=f1c8041a. Accessed 21 Sept. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A462046365
Title: The Rhetoric of Science
Author: Alan G. Gross
Publisher: Harvard University Press
Copyright: 1996
ISBN: 0- 674-76876-0
Pages: 248
Price: $17.95
Rating: 94%
Creating a New Discipline
Why would you want to analyze how scientists write...don’t they just report their hypotheses and experimental results? Not at all, argues Alan Gross in The Rhetoric of Science; beneath the veneer of objectivity resides a fierce struggle to gain followers for a particular viewpoint or to claim precedence for a discovery. How scientists go about convincing their contemporaries, and controlling them via peer review, is an integral part of developing consensus.
Yet there are many scientists, including Nobel Prize winner Max Perutz, who argue that a rhetoric of science is “humbug”, an attempt to analyze scientific writings by individuals who don’t understand the underlying science in the first place. Gross counters that science is no different from any other rhetorical venue, citing Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of how scientific paradigms change as new formulations of the problem space and what counts as evidence within that space occur. Perutz’s resistance typifies the reaction Gross attempted to overcome with Rhetoric, which Gross characterizes as a “manifesto” for his proposed intellectual discipline.
The Underlying Premise
One element of Gross’s argument is particularly hard for empiricists to swallow:
“the ‘brute facts’ themselves mean nothing; only statements have meaning, and of the truth of those statements we must be persuaded. These processes, by which problems are chosen and results interpreted, are essentially rhetorical: only through persuasion are importance and meaning established.” (p. 4)
To ensure there is no misunderstanding, Gross adds in a new preface to the second printing of the book that “objects are meaningless” and that “meaning does reside entirely in language”. (p. xii)
Gross’s Sophistic relativism is squarely at odds with the Aristotelian realism of most scientists, which holds that objects exist independently of an individual’s perception of them. (The classic confrontation between these views is the famous philosophy final exam question of “Prove this chair either does or does not exist” and the possibly apocryphal answer “What chair?”) Gross goes to significant lengths to illustrate why various formulations of realism are philosophically invalid, but the basic criticism is that anyone who claims to know, unequivocally, that something exists or does not exist relies on unverifiable knowledge. In other words, everyone in a room might agree there is a chair in a particular spot, but no one can say with certainty that “everyone” is right. What’s left is relativism, which relies on statements to produce meaning.
Is Relativism Necessary?
Gross argues that Aristotle’s conception of rhetoric limits the field’s scope to the political and juridicial venues, where “fact” is a direct outcome of persuasion. Science writing, as a reflection of the “brute facts”, was excluded from rhetoric’s scope. While the author’s efforts to bring science writing into the fold by espousing relativism are laudable, they are also unnecessary.
The Rhetoric of Science ventures one level too deep for the task at hand in that the “reality” of what scientists write about is immaterial to analyzing how they persuade their peers that a particular interpretation is correct or incorrect. Gross’s analysis of the DNA discovery, Darwin’s formulation of his theory of evolution, and Newton’s two efforts to have his Opticks accepted by the scientific community illustrate how science writing, beyond the bare presentation of procedures and “factual” results, is both a political and juridicial process. To recast the argument in Kuhnian terms, the political argument is over which paradigm should be followed and the juridicial over what evidence should be accepted and how it should be weighed within the framework. That scientists agree to discuss scientific "facts"” makes the nature of those facts moot.
Conclusion
Rhetorical analysis of science writing is a valid and valuable academic field; as technological change continues to influence society, how those changes are reported, argued about, and decided upon within and without the scientific community will increase in importance. It goes farther than it needs to epistemically, but The Rhetoric of Science is a manifesto to be followed.
Curtis D. Frye (cfrye@teleport.com) is the editor and chief reviewer of Technology and Society Book Reviews. He worked for four years as a defense industry analyst at The MITRE Corporation in McLean, VA, and is the author of Privacy-Enhanced Business, from Quorum Books.
lan G. Gross, William M. Keith, eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. $19.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-7914-3110-8.
Reviewed by J. D. H. Amador (Santa Rosa Junior College)
Published on H-Rhetor (April, 1997)
Rhetorical Hermeneutics is a fascinating collection of essays assessing the theoretical foundations, critical strengths and weaknesses, achievements of and challenges facing the movement known as the "rhetoric of science." The volume is presented as a debate-in-print, an on-going conversation among participants who are asked to address key theoretical issues at work in their rhetorical interpretations of scientific texts and practices.
"Rhetoric of science" is a movement within rhetorical studies aspiring to a disciplinary equivalent of "history of science" and "philosophy of science." Its contributors are conversant with issues in the fields of speech communication, literary theory and hermeneutics, and science studies. Its origins are recent, its contours and practices taking shape over only the last twenty-five years or so. Indeed, its beginnings can be traced to two interdisciplinary conferences sponsored by the Speech Communication Association in 1970 which resulted in an appeal for the constitution of "a theory of rhetoric suitable to twentieth-century concepts and needs" (p. 3). As the editors of this current volume suggest, this conference anticipated a number of important issues now facing rhetorical theory, particularly regarding its scope and philosophical foundations.
What has happened in the intervening years is a transformation of rhetoric from a technique of composition to a universal hermeneutic. In other words, rhetoric, by taking seriously its Aristotelian definition as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion," has come to understand the function of language, indeed knowledge itself, as governed by concerns of interpretation and selection evidence and warrants, adaptation to norms of inquiry and audience, presumptions regarding the nature and function not only of presentation of ideas, but indeed of the universe.
What this extension has effectively done is to question objectivist epistemological foundations of inquiry. Appeal to logical positivism, Cartesian epistemology of subject-object split, effacement of the role of observer, are now seen as rhetorical discursive practices that function within systems of power and pursue inquiry within accepted values and under a particular construct of Truth. This critique does not lead to a radical relativism, but instead exposes the underlying, understated and often overlooked norms and values governing the field of inquiry. It makes us aware of the function of analogy and metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, the importance of an assumed world-view, the 'usefulness' of both the inquiry itself and its results to others, in all strategies and productivities of knowledge. The 'rhetoric of science' works within such a view to make us aware of these strategies not just within the human or social sciences, but even within the soft (biology) and hard (physics) sciences.
The question which this volume squarely faces is whether this 'globalization' of rhetoric is both justifiable and useful in its resulting critical practices, taking as its test case the 'extreme' position of the 'rhetoric of science.'
Gaonkar, in his introductory essay (a revision and elaboration of "The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science" first published by the Southern Communication Journal in Summer, 1993) fires the first volley, a broadside condemnation of rhetoric as a hermeneutical enterprise. This essay is thick, difficult at times to understand, and is complex enough to warrant the large and diverse number of responses it generates. If it can be summarized, which I fear to do, the argument seems to make at least the following points: 1) The traditional formation of rhetoric as a productive discipline meant to help in the generation of performances makes it problematic as an interpretive hermeneutic. 2) As a consequence of its productive basis, its terminology and theory are "thin," i.e., its central terms (topic, enthymeme, persuasion, genre) are far too vague, and can be used with far too few restraints, enabling it to 'go global.' 3) This 'globalization' occasions a disciplinary anxiety, since, as a hermeneutic, this new rhetorical understanding is essentially parasitic, dependent upon other discourse domains for its operation. 4) Its origins as a productive art directed toward specific civic fora bring with it an outmoded and inappropriate ideology of human agency incapable of confronting other forces at work in the generation of discourse, such as economics, subconscious, politics, material forms communication distribution, etc... (cf., pp. 6-7).
He offers as examples of the kinds of difficulties encountered by this 'ill-conceived' rhetorical hermeneutics the works of John Campbell, Alan Gross and Lawrence Prelli: Campbell is accused of focusing far too much upon the model of 'Darwin as hero' (ideology of human agency), Gross is accused of not identifying the particularly rhetorical aspects of his critical analysis of Narratio Prima (terminological and theoretical 'thinness'), and Prelli is accused of causing the text to disappear beneath rhetorical taxonomy (and, actually, of being 'laborious'). He concludes by asserting that "globalization severely undermines rhetoric's self-representation as a situated practical art [emphasis his]," a warning he has voiced in a number of other works ("Object and method in rhetorical criticism: From Wichelns to Leff and McGee," Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54 (1990), p. 290-316, and "Rhetoric and its double," in: H. Simons, ed., The Rhetorical Turn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
To speak frankly, it would behoove the reader to skip this first, dense essay: Not only does the response by Michael Leff do a good job of summarizing its significant points, but the introductory essay by Gross and Keith sets the stage and describes the proceedings nicely. It is also the case that in the final essay of this volume where he responds to his critics, Gaonkar does an excellent job of clarifying the major points he wishes to make, points easily lost in his initial attempt to do too much with the introductory essay.
What next ensues is a brilliant series of responses, both 'dissensions' and 'extensions.' Leff's essay "The Idea of Rhetoric: A Humanist's Response to Gaonkar," suggests that the distinction between production and interpretation which Gaonkar claims exists in the practices of the ancients simply does not bare up under scrutiny. Campbell, in "Strategic Reading: Rhetoric, Intention, and Interpretation," is gracious to a fault, submitting that he indeed is guilty of embracing far too fully an 'ideology of human agency,' but suggests that his recent works (of which Gaonkar is fully aware and to which he makes reference) are more balanced in their view of intertextuality and the impact of earlier discourses upon Darwin's work. Furthermore, he simply thinks it important that we continue to recognize the significant impact and influence which individuals can have upon history. Gross, in "What If We're Not Producing Knowledge? Critical Reflections on the Rhetorical Criticism of Science," counters that he is indeed indebted to classical rhetoric and its insights, and that classical rhetoric is not nearly as limiting as Gaonkar suggests.
Carolyn Miller, "Classical Rhetoric without Nostalgia: A Response to Gaonkar," takes Gaonkar to task for not being clear with his own terms: just what does he mean when he suggests that the classical rhetorical vocabulary cannot be 'translated' effectively from a vocabulary arising from practical and productive interests into a vocabulary for critical analytical interpretation? 'Translation' is indeed possible, and what's more, justifiable.
To the editors' credit, a number of works follow which, while not perhaps explicitly responding to these criticisms, nevertheless derive value from some of Gaonkar's ideas and want to extend them further. James Jasinski, "Instrumentalism, Contextualism and Interpretation in Rhetorical Criticism," accepts Gaonkar's critique of the interpretive closure of 'ideology of human agency' and argues for the necessity of a 'thicker' theoretical and analytical vocabulary which considers a greater complex of contextual features ('performative traditions') of discourse practices. William Keith, in "Engineering Rhetoric," offers an analogy to 'reverse engineering' which, as a pragmatic discipline interested in reconstructing the means by which an object was designed, may have important implications for the critical practices of rhetoric. David Kaufer, interestingly, also views rhetoric as a design art, similar to architecture, and in "From Tekhne to Technique: Rhetoric As a Design Art" offers a model which seeks to redress the failings of rhetorical-critical practices as Gaonkar sees them. Finally, Steve Fuller suggests that, according to Gaonkar, the "Rhetoric of Science" as is currently practiced either becomes too rhetorical and therefore less accessible to science, or more provocative and critical but then less 'unique' as rhetoric. In the face of this, perhaps the rhetoric of science should conceive of itself less as a theoretical means of interpretation and more as an agent of change in the way science is practiced.
The book's final section is introduced with "An Elliptical Postscript" by Thomas Farrell which tries to note the value of the contributions made by all parties, but also notes some of the limitations which have been uncovered through this discussion, and which need to be overcome. Finally, Gaonkar himself addresses his critiques, and as a result, I believe I can adventure what it all comes down to by extracting a quotation. For Gaonkar:
"First, a certain ideology of human agency is operative in rhetorical studies; and, that ideology underwrites the intentionalist reading strategy in rhetorical criticism. Second, Campbell's early essays show in a paradigmatic fashion how the intentionalist reading strategy can lead to the deferral of the text. Third, the privileging of the text is a taken-for-granted background assumption shared by many contemporary rhetorical critics ... [T]o insist on individual consciousness and its contents as the originary site of public discourse (including the discourse of science), when that discourse is produced and populated with significations within a matrix of technologies--literary, social and material--that elude the reach and imprint of the subject, is surely to cripple the critical enterprise before it gets off the ground."
It is only when one gets through to the end of the book that I suggest one then turn to the criticisms of Dierdre McCloskey ("Big Rhetoric, Little Rhetoric: Gaonkar on the Rhetoric of Science") and Charles Willard ("Rhetoric's Lot"). The former is a scathing, withering, and utterly accurate critique of Gaonkar's introductory article in which, as McCloskey points out: Gaonkar through definitional caveat excludes a plethora of works as not 'truly' rhetorical (therein also begging the question), and then condemns rhetoric of science as having few participants; his condemnation of the movement is comprised primarily of generalized, opinionated assertion with no evidence offered in support; he faults one critic (Prelli) for doing exactly what he explicitly desires (thick rhetorical readings); he rejects globalization on the basis of "if something means everything, it means nothing," a thoroughly fallacious argument; he accuses rhetoric's 'thinness' of not being falsifiable, not only an ideological appeal implying the superiority of science, but a standard of evaluation which the philosophy of science itself has rejected; he himself participates in the 'intentionalist' fallacy of the 'ideology of human agency' when he critiques the critics he condemns; and many others. Willard's critique focuses upon the broad condemnation of the "politics of recognition" which Gaonkar accuses the rhetoric of science of perpetuating in its attempt to legitimate its 'globalized.' The two of these essays, in my view, effectively undermine Gaonkar's introductory essay, leaving the reader with the appropriate question: Why bother with Gaonkar at all, and why read any further?
If for no other reason, the answer is simply: because the total reading experience is breathtaking. Gaonkar's supporters offer some interesting and important correctives to rhetorical analytical practices, correctives which should be addressed and adopted, particularly with respect to the impact of extra-textual factors governing the context of the production of any discourse. But even more, the fascinating aspect about this volume is that, because all of the contributors appear to be aware of the essays of their counterparts in this volume, the discussion becomes dynamic, invigorating, challenging, as each contributor impacts upon the work of the others around her/him. This is no (typical) slap-dash hodge-podge of essays loosely centered around a general concept and whose relationship to one another must spelled out by the editor's introductory overview. Rather, we walk into a forum and are witness to a lively debate where the participants respond to each other, posture at one another, are forced to clarify their positions, hone their critiques, offer constructive models. The result is exciting, because what we find happening is the transformation of a critical praxis brought about through a sometimes wrenching assessment of its own failures and blind spots, but also through an inspiring celebration of the profound insights, impacts and challenges it has contributed through its efforts. This, alone, guarantees the current and future strength and promise of "rhetoric of science."
This volume should be of particular interest to members of H-Nexa and H-Rhetor lists, practitioners of the general movement of the 'rhetoric of inquiry,' as well as historians and philosophers of science. But I would suggest that such an obvious identification of audience is not enough: The fascinating experience brought about by the public discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a new and promising discipline, the honesty of the debate and transformation of the participants through it, is something that will be of benefit to anyone who is wondering what the current and future promise of interdisciplinarity, the humanities, and higher education is and will look like.
Copyright (c) 1997 by H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact h-net@h-net.msu.edu.