Skip Navigation
UT wordmark
College of Liberal Arts wordmark
rhetoric masthead rhetoric masthead
Jeffrey Walker, Chair PAR 3, Mailcode B5500, Austin, TX 78712 • 512-471-6109

Diane Davis

Professor

Professor of Rhetoric & Writing; Director of Digital Writing & Research Lab
Diane Davis

Contact

Biography

I hold the Kenneth Burke Chair of Rhetoric & Critical Media Philosophy at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, and my research and teaching interests include rhetorical theory, critical theory, digital culture, and continental philosophy. I am the author of Breaking Up [at] Totality: A Rhetoric of Laughter (Southern Illinois UP, 2000) and Inessential Solidarity: Rhetoric and Foreigner Relations (University of Pittsburgh, 2010), co-author of Women’s Ways of Making It in Rhetoric and Composition (with Michelle Ballif and Roxanne Mountford, Routledge, 2008), and editor of The ÜberReader: Selected Works of Avital Ronell (U of Illinois P, 2008) and Reading Ronell (U of Illinois P, 2009).

Interests

My work is situated at the intersection of rhetorical theory and continental philosophy.

RHE 321 • Principles Of Rhetoric

44815 • Fall 2013
Meets TTH 1230pm-200pm FAC 9
show description

 "What then is truth? A moveable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms"

–Friedrich Nietzsche

The study of rhetoric, one of the original seven Liberal Arts (along with logic, grammar, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music), has a long and proud history, stretching back to the 5th century BCE and up to the present day. Both a productive and interpretive art, it is decidedly trans-disciplinary: the principles of rhetoric are consistently employed not only in literary analyses but in linguistics, philosophy, history, law, anthropology, political science, education, and religion—as well as in all of the so called "natural sciences." There is no body of knowledge, and this includes scientific knowledge, that is not already a product of rhetorical transactions. Throughout the semester, we will examine, among other things, the gigantic implications of this revelation.

Aims of the course: The primary objective of this course is to develop a rhetorical perspective through which to compose, interpret, and present “texts”—oral, print, and/or electronic. To that end, we will learn to identify and make use of common rhetorical principles (audience, context, kairos, exigency, ethos, pathos, logos, etc.) as well as the standard rhetorical figures (metaphor, metonomy, synecdoche, etc.) and the five rhetorical canons (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery). We will read a handful of canonical and non-canonical works from “the rhetorical tradition” in order to spotlight the ancient and contemporary dispute between philosophy and rhetoric—a dispute which philosophers tend to describe as a choice between logic and persuasion, existence and representation, science and magic. We will be interested not only in what happens to the terms of this dispute when it is examined and described from a rhetorical perspective but also in what happens to our understanding of “reality” itself when logic, existence, and even science turn out to be effects of language rather than the other way around. Whereas philosophers seek the truth, in this class we rhetoricians will examine the way language is working to produce what functions as truth.

Assignments and Grades. This course has a "substantial writing component," and each major assignment is designed to help you improve your effectiveness as a writer and a rhetor. Informal assignments will include active participation in an online discussion forum or listserv and semi-weekly "talking points" that summarize and explore key issues in the readings (10%). Your three major assignments, each of which will go through multiple drafts and at least one peer review, will include a rhetorical analysis of a current event/issue of your choice presented orally (30%), and two other substantial writing projects designed either for a print or an electronic medium (30% each). Grades for all assignments will be tied to explicit criteria, which will be discussed at length before the fact.

Probable Texts. We'll use Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee's Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students as our textbook in this class, plus we'll have a coursepack of selected readings from Plato to Nietzsche to Bush.

RHE 330E • Pathos

44870 • Fall 2013
Meets TTH 1100am-1230pm FAC 9
show description

Aristotle held that there were three basic appeals by which to persuade an audience: appeals to reason (logos), to the speaker’s character (ethos), and to the audience’s emotions (pathos). In contemporary western society, however, the latter is often considered to be a bit unsavory, a slimy way to move an audience to action or attitude—appeals to fear, anger, pity, or shame, it is presumed, line up on the side of seduction and ruse rather than on the side of reason and truth. This prejudice enjoys a long and proud history that is associated with the classical definition of man as a rational animal (animale rationale). The capacity for reason is considered by many to be unique to human animals; indeed, it is considered the means by which humans transcend their animality. Emotional appeals, which shoot for the less lofty realms of sensual reaction, are therefore considered superficial and dangerous, manipulative tactics that lead audiences away from a more objective truth. But Aristotle situated the pathé (the passions or emotions) within the realm of reason, considering them crucial not only to sound judgment but to thinking itself. And contemporary thought in such diverse disciplines as rhetoric, philosophy, neuroscience, and affect theory backs Aristotle on this one: all suggest that emotions fundamentally orient one’s existence in the world, and that there is no disinterested or dispassionate reason—indeed, that thinking itself depends upon the passions.

In this course, we will follow Aristotle’s lead and study the ways in which thinking and judgment are intricately tied up with passion. We will read a broad spectrum of texts on emotional life in order to better understand both how we, as people, are moved to action or attitude through our affective engagement, and how we, as rhetors, might use that understanding to craft successful appeals.

Texts:

Readings (available online and on reserve in the library) will include:

  • Aristotle. Rhetoric. Book II.
  • Cicero. De Oratore. Book 2, sect 185-216.
  • Quintilian. Institutes of Oratory. Book 6.
  • Gorgias. “Encomium of Helen.”
  • Amélie Oksenberg Rorty. “Structuring Rhetoric.” (on the pathé)
  • Crowley and Hawhee. “Pathetic Proofs”
  • Leighton, Steven. “Aristotle and the Emotions.”
  • Smith, Craig, and Michael Hyde. “Rethinking ‘the Public’: The Role of Emotion in Being-with-Others.”
  • Striker, Gisela. “Emotions in Context: Aristotle’s Treatment of the Passions in the Rhetoric and His Moral Psychology.”
  • Nussbaum, Martha. “Aristotle on Emotions and Rational Persuasion.”
  • ---. Selections from Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions.
  • Katule, Richard. “Quintilian on the Art of Emotional Appeal.”
  • Ahmed, Sara. “Affective Economies.”
  • Damasio, Anthony. Selections from Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain.
  • Massumi, Brian. Selections from Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation.
  • Brennan, Theresa. Selections from The Transmission of Affect.
  • Helmers, Marguerite. The Elements of Visual Analysis.

Assignments and Grading: 

Analysis of a photograph: 5% 

Written enargeia (vivid description): 10%

Analysis of an ad: 10%

Analysis of a visual text: 15% 

Semi-weekly reading notes: 15%

Written pathetic appeal: 20%

Visual pathetic appeal (written explication): 25%

RHE 321 • Principles Of Rhetoric

44370 • Spring 2013
Meets TTH 1100am-1230pm FAC 9
show description

"What then is truth? A moveable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms"

–Friedrich Nietzsche

The study of rhetoric, one of the original seven Liberal Arts (along with logic, grammar, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music), has a long and proud history, stretching back to the 5th century BCE and up to the present day. Both a productive and interpretive art, it is decidedly trans-disciplinary: the principles of rhetoric are consistently employed not only in literary analyses but in linguistics, philosophy, history, law, anthropology, political science, education, and religion—as well as in all of the so called "natural sciences." There is no body of knowledge, and this includes scientific knowledge, that is not already a product of rhetorical transactions. Throughout the semester, we will examine, among other things, the gigantic implications of this revelation.

Aims of the course: The primary objective of this course is to develop a rhetorical perspective through which to compose, interpret, and present “texts”—oral, print, and/or electronic. To that end, we will learn to identify and make use of common rhetorical principles (audience, context, kairos, exigency, ethos, pathos, logos, etc.) as well as the standard rhetorical figures (metaphor, metonomy, synecdoche, etc.) and the five rhetorical canons (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery). We will read a handful of canonical and non-canonical works from “the rhetorical tradition” in order to spotlight the ancient and contemporary dispute between philosophy and rhetoric—a dispute which philosophers tend to describe as a choice between logic and persuasion, existence and representation, science and magic. We will be interested not only in what happens to the terms of this dispute when it is examined and described from a rhetorical perspective but also in what happens to our understanding of “reality” itself when logic, existence, and even science turn out to be effects of language rather than the other way around. Whereas philosophers seek the truth, in this class we rhetoricians will examine the way language is working to produce what functions as truth.

Assignments and Grades. This course has a "substantial writing component," and each major assignment is designed to help you improve your effectiveness as a writer and a rhetor. Informal assignments will include active participation in an online discussion forum or listserv and semi-weekly "talking points" that summarize and explore key issues in the readings (10%). Your three major assignments, each of which will go through multiple drafts and at least one peer review, will include a rhetorical analysis of a current event/issue of your choice presented orally (30%), and two other substantial writing projects designed either for a print or an electronic medium (30% each). Grades for all assignments will be tied to explicit criteria, which will be discussed at length before the fact.

Probable Texts. We'll use Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee's Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students as our textbook in this class, plus we'll have a coursepack of selected readings from Plato to Nietzsche to Bush.

RHE 330E • Modern Rhetorical Criticism

44425 • Spring 2013
Meets TTH 1230pm-200pm FAC 9
show description

Rhetorical criticism involves the investigation, interpretation, and explanation of rhetorical acts and artifacts for the purpose of grasping the means by which they affect attitudes and behavior.  Whereas the literary critic sticks to specifically literary texts, the rhetorical critic may zero in on any rhetorical “text,” from a political speech or journal article to a billboard image, a Facebook status, a rock concert, or a video game. The rhetorical critic finds these “texts” worthy of analysis not because they are beautifully written or particularly enduring, but because they reveal cultural values, social trends, and a diversity of persuasive appeals—verbal, aural, and visual.

 This course will introduce you to a range of contemporary critical methods. We will begin by defining fundamental terms, interpreting and evaluating texts according to their basic rhetorical features (ideas, arguments, form, and style), and focusing in on the most traditional critical approach to rhetorical analysis, neo-Aristotelian criticism. We will, however, move very quickly into the investigation and application of more flexible, contemporary critical approaches that embrace the inherent “rhetoricality” of language, including, for example, dramatistic types of criticism associated with Kenneth Burke (cluster, fantasy-theme, genre, narrative, pentadic) and socio-political/psychosocial types of criticism associated with social movements and twentieth century intellectual developments (Marxist, feminist, deconstructive, post-colonial). This course will involve both theory and application. First, we’ll strive to understand the methodology of each critical approach and what is at stake in it, interrogating the ways in which an act of rhetorical criticism reproduces and institutionalizes as well as challenges and transforms cultural values. And second, we’ll practice rhetorical criticism ourselves, applying diverse critical approaches to various rhetorical artifacts throughout the semester.

Probable Texts

Sonja K. Foss. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 4th Edition. Waveland press, 2009.

Jennifer Richards. Rhetoric. Routledge, 2008.

Probable Assignments

This is a writing flag course, which means that we will attend carefully to writing. Informal assignments will include semi-weekly reading notes posted to the class wiki in which you will consider ways to apply the critical approach we’re currently addressing to a rhetorical artifact; you will also be expected to respond to your classmates’ readings. Formal assignments will include three papers and a presentation: two 5-6 page papers in which you will summarize as tightly as possible two critical approaches we’ve studied in class and then read one “across” the other to assess the focus, value, and stakes of each; one 7-8 page application paper in which you will apply one of the critical approaches we’ve discussed to an approved rhetorical artifact; and a Prezi presentation of the major insights and discoveries you detail in your application paper. Each paper will go through multiple drafts and a formal peer review.

Probable Grade Breakdown

  • Semi-Weekly Reading Notes: 20%
  • Comparison papers (2 x 20pts): 40%
  • Application paper: 30%
  • Prezi presentation: 10%

RHE 321 • Principles Of Rhetoric

44185 • Spring 2012
Meets TTH 1100am-1230pm FAC 9
show description

"What then is truth? A moveable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms" –Friedrich Nietzsche

The study of rhetoric, one of the original seven Liberal Arts (along with logic, grammar, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music), has a long and proud history, stretching back to the 5th century BCE and up to the present day. Both a productive and interpretive art, it is decidedly trans-disciplinary: the principles of rhetoric are consistently employed not only in literary analyses but in linguistics, philosophy, history, law, anthropology, political science, education, and religion—as well as in all of the so called "natural sciences." There is no body of knowledge, and this includes scientific knowledge, that is not already a product of rhetorical transactions. Throughout the semester, we will examine, among other things, the gigantic implications of this revelation.

Aims of the course: The primary objective of this course is to develop a rhetorical perspective through which to compose, interpret, and present “texts”—oral, print, and/or electronic. To that end, we will learn to identify and make use of common rhetorical principles (audience, context, kairos, exigency, ethos, pathos, logos, etc.) as well as the standard rhetorical figures (metaphor, metonomy, synecdoche, etc.) and the five rhetorical canons (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery). We will read a handful of canonical and non-canonical works from “the rhetorical tradition” in order to spotlight the ancient and contemporary dispute between philosophy and rhetoric—a dispute which philosophers tend to describe as a choice between logic and persuasion, existence and representation, science and magic. We will be interested not only in what happens to the terms of this dispute when it is examined and described from a rhetorical perspective but also in what happens to our understanding of “reality” itself when logic, existence, and even science turn out to be effects of language rather than the other way around. Whereas philosophers seek the truth, in this class we rhetoricians will examine the way language is working to produce what functions as truth.

Assignments and Grades

This course has a "writing flag," and each major assignment is designed to help you improve your effectiveness as a writer and a rhetor. Informal assignments will include active participation in an online discussion forum or listserv and semi-weekly "talking points" that summarize and explore key issues in the readings (10%). Your three major assignments, each of which will go through multiple drafts and at least one peer review, will include a rhetorical analysis of a current event/issue of your choice presented orally (30%), and two other substantial writing projects designed either for a print or an electronic medium (30% each). Grades for all assignments will be tied to explicit criteria, which will be discussed at length before the fact.

Probable Texts

We'll use Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee's Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students as our textbook in this class, plus we'll have a coursepack of selected readings from Plato to Nietzsche to Bush.

RHE 330E • Modern Rhetorical Criticism

44240 • Spring 2012
Meets TTH 1230pm-200pm FAC 9
show description

Rhetorical criticism involves the investigation, interpretation, and explanation of rhetorical acts and artifacts for the purpose of grasping the means by which they affect attitudes and behavior.  Whereas the literary critic sticks to specifically literary texts, the rhetorical critic may zero in on any rhetorical “text,” from a political speech or journal article to a billboard image, a Facebook status, a rock concert, or a video game. The rhetorical critic finds these “texts” worthy of analysis not because they are beautifully written or particularly enduring, but because they reveal cultural values, social trends, and a diversity of persuasive appeals—verbal, aural, and visual.

This course will introduce you to a range of contemporary critical methods. We will begin by defining fundamental terms, interpreting and evaluating texts according to their basic rhetorical features (ideas, arguments, form, and style), and focusing in on the most traditional critical approach to rhetorical analysis, neo-Aristotelian criticism. We will, however, move very quickly into the investigation and application of more flexible, contemporary critical approaches that embrace the inherent “rhetoricality” of language, including, for example, dramatistic types of criticism associated with Kenneth Burke (cluster, fantasy-theme, genre, narrative, pentadic) and socio-political/psychosocial types of criticism associated with social movements and twentieth century intellectual developments (Marxist, feminist, deconstructive, post-colonial). This course will involve both theory and application. First, we’ll strive to understand the methodology of each critical approach and what is at stake in it, interrogating the ways in which an act of rhetorical criticism reproduces and institutionalizes as well as challenges and transforms cultural values. And second, we’ll practice rhetorical criticism ourselves, applying diverse critical approaches to various rhetorical artifacts throughout the semester.

Probable Texts

Sonja K. Foss. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 4th Edition. Waveland press, 2009.

Jennifer Richards. Rhetoric. Routledge, 2008.

Probable Assignments

This is a writing flag course, which means that we will attend carefully to writing. Informal assignments will include semi-weekly reading notes posted to the class wiki in which you will consider ways to apply the critical approach we’re currently addressing to a rhetorical artifact; you will also be expected to respond to your classmates’ readings. Formal assignments will include three papers and a presentation: two 5-6 page papers in which you will summarize as tightly as possible two critical approaches we’ve studied in class and then read one “across” the other to assess the focus, value, and stakes of each; one 7-8 page application paper in which you will apply one of the critical approaches we’ve discussed to an approved rhetorical artifact; and a Prezi presentation of the major insights and discoveries you detail in your application paper. Each paper will go through multiple drafts and a formal peer review.

Probable Grade Breakdown

•    Semi-Weekly Reading Notes: 20%

•    Comparison papers (2 x 20pts): 40%

•    Application paper: 30%

•    Prezi presentation: 10%

RHE 330C • Rhetorics Of Cyberculture

44785 • Spring 2011
Meets TTH 1100am-1230pm FAC 7
show description

In this course we will listen carefully to the rhetorics both on and in cyberspace, and we will attempt to assess some of the social, ethical, and political implications of this technocultural construct. Specifically, we will look at the ways cyburbia is currently being represented, experienced, critiqued, and employed by exploring several genres of cyberdiscourse: science fiction novels, hypertexts, and films; ethnographies of cybercultures; materialist critiques of high tech society, and activist appropriations of the cybersphere. Because it’ll be important to check things for ourselves, we will meet in a computer classroom and devote part of our class time to hands-on activities. We will spend some time in cyberspace evaluating the potential promise and risks of “computer society” and producing our own cybercultural representations for the web. Three interrelated issues/topics will guide our both inquiry and our productions:

1.    Identity and the Body. Is virtual identity “fake” identity? Do politics associated with bodily “markers” such as race, sex, gender, etc., evaporate in cyberspace or do they show up there, too? What’s up with the this drive to “escape” the material body, to download consciousness and/or acquire prosthetic everything? And what happens to the very notion of "the human" when the borders between meat and metal (body and machine) disappear?

2.    Social Relations and the Public Sphere. Online, there is no real way to verify whom (or even what) you’re talking to: how does this effect your relations there? And do online activities/relations affect your offline relationships? Does electronic culture signal the end of “privacy” and “individual freedom?” What kind of activism does cyburbia make possible? What are the connections between 60s drug culture and contemporary cyberculture? What are the connections between the “war on drugs,” the war on “art,” and technophobia?

3.    Literacy and Intellectual Property. What are the "literacy" requirements in various online communities? How do they differ from typical offline literacy requirements? How do hypertextual writing/reading spaces alter print-centric understandings of the relations between the writer, the reader, language, and reality?  

Potential Texts
David Bell, An Introduction to Cyberculture; William Gibson, Neuromancer; Shelley Jackson, Patchwork Girl (hypertext); online hypertexts and essays; Films: eXistenZ; The Thirteenth Floor

Assignments and Grading
This course has a "substantial writing component." Assignments will include semi-weekly participation in an online discussion forum or listserv, an individual presentation on a cybercultural news item, 3 one-page reading response papers shared orally with peers, and two substantial writing projects, both of which will go through multiple drafts and peer review.

3 S/R Papers (graded as a whole): 30%
Cybersubculture Report: 30%
Individual Presentation: 10%
Final Project: 30%

RHE 330E • Pathos

44810 • Spring 2011
Meets TTH 1230pm-200pm FAC 7
show description

Aristotle held that there were three basic appeals by which to persuade an audience: appeals to reason (logos), to the speaker’s or writer’s character (ethos), and to the audience’s emotions (pathos). In contemporary western society, however, the latter is often considered to be a bit unsavory, a slimy-smarmy way to move an audience to action or attitude. Appeals to fear, anger, pity, or shame, it is presumed, line up on the side of seduction and ruse rather than on the side of reason and truth—that is to say, they line up on the side of the body rather than the mind. The mind is putatively the arena of pure rational thought, diametrically opposed to unruly bodily spasms, such as blood-boiling anger or self-shattering shame. The prejudice against all things “body” enjoys a long and proud history that is associated with the classical definition of man as a rational animal (animale rationale). The capacity for reason is considered by many to be unique to human animals; indeed, it is considered the means by which humans transcend their animality. Emotional appeals, which shoot for the less lofty realms of sensual reaction, are therefore considered superficial and dangerous, manipulative tactics that lead audiences away from a more objective truth. But Aristotle situated the pathé (the passions or emotions) within the realm of reason, considering them crucial not only to sound judgment but to thinking itself. And contemporary thought in such diverse arenas as rhetoric, philosophy, neuroscience, and affect theory backs Aristotle on this one: all suggest that emotions fundamentally orient one’s existence in the world, and that there is no disinterested or dispassionate reason—indeed, that thinking itself depends upon the passions.

In this course, we will follow Aristotle’s lead and study the ways in which thinking and judgment are intricately tied up with passion. We will read a broad spectrum of texts on emotional life in order to better understand both how we, as people, are moved to action or attitude through our affective engagement, and how we, as rhetors, might use that understanding to craft successful appeals.

Some Potential Texts, many available online or on reserve in the library:

•    Plato. Selections from The Republic.
•    Aristotle. Rhetoric. Book II
•    ---. Selections from the Politics
•    Cicero. De Oratore. Book 2, sect 185-216
•    Quintilian. Institutes of Oratory. Book 6
•    Gorgias. “Encomium of Helen.”
•    Amélie Oksenberg Rorty. Selections from Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric
•    Crowley and Hawhee. “Pathetic Proofs”
•    Hauser, Gerard A. “The Passions.”
•    Walker, Jeff. “Pathos and Katharsis in ‘Aristotelian’ Rhetoric: Some Implications.”
•    Smith, Craig, and Michael Hyde. “Rethinking ‘the Public’: The Role of Emotion in Being-with-Others.”
•    Nussbaum, Martha. “Aristotle on Emotions and Rational Persuasion.”
•    ---. Selections from Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions.
•    Katule, Richard. “Quintilian on the Art of Emotional Appeal.”
•    Ahmed, Sara. “Affective Economies.”
•    Damasio, Anthony. Selections from Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain.
•    Daniel Goleman. Selections from Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ
•    Massumi, Brian. Selections from Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation.
•    Brennan, Theresa. Selections from The Transmission of Affect.
•    Helmers, Marguerite. The Elements of Visual Analysis.

Assignments and Grading:  

Analysis of a photograph or ad - 5%  
Written enargeia (vivid description) - 10%
Analysis of an written text - 10%
Screencapture Analysis of a visual text - 20%  
Semi-weekly reading notes - 10%
Written pathetic appeal - 20%
Visual pathetic appeal (written explication) - 25%

Publications

“Performative Perfume.” Forthcoming in Performatives After Deconstruction. Ed. Mauro Senatore. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013. 20 mss pages. 

“Writing-Being: Another Look at the ‘Symbol-Using Animal.’” Forthcoming in Writing Posthumanism Writing. Ed. Sidney Dobrin.  Parlor Press, 2012. 25 mss pages.

“Creaturely Rhetorics.” Special forum on rhetoric and the question of the animal. Philosophy and Rhetoric 44.1 (2011): 88-94. 

Inessential Solidarity: Rhetoric and Foreigner Relations. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010. 214 pp.

Review of Amit Pinchevski’s By Way of Interruption: Levinas and the Ethics of Communication. Philosophy and Rhetoric 43.3 (2010): 289-95.

Reading Ronell. Edited collection with an introduction. University of Illinois Press, 2009. 254 pp.

“Greetings: On Levinas and the Wagging Tail.” JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory. Special issue on Levinas. 29.1 (2009): 711-748. 

Women's Ways of Making It in Rhetoric and Composition. With Michelle Ballif and Roxanne Mountford. Routledge, 2008. 342 pp.

The UberReader: Selected Works of Avital Ronell. Edited collection with introduction. University of Illinois Press 2008. 342pp.

"Identification: Burke and Freud on Who You Are.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 38.2 (2008): 123-147.

"The Fifth Risk: A Response to Muckelbauer's Response." Philosophy and Rhetoric 40.2 (2007): 248-256.

"Addressing Alterity: Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and the Non-Appropriative Relation." Philosophy and Rhetoric 38.3 (2005): 191-212.

"Finitude’s Clamor; Or, Notes Toward a Communitarian Literacy." College Composition and Communication 53.1 (Sept. 2001): 119‐145.

"(Non)Fiction('s) Addiction(s): A NarcoAnalysis of Virtual Worlds." High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs. Eds. Cynthia Haynes and Jan Rune Holmevik. University of Michigan Press, 1998. 267‐285. Rpt. in 2nd ed., 2001.

Breaking Up [at] Totality: A Rhetoric of Laughter. Rhetorical Theory and Philosophy Series. Southern Illinois University Press, 2000. 312 pp.

"Confessions of an Anacoluthon: Avital Ronell on Writing, Technology, Pedagogy, Politics." JAC: Journal of Composition Theory 20.2 (2000): 243‐281.

"Negotiating the Differend: A Feminist Trilogue." With Michelle Ballif and Roxanne Mountford. JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory 20.3 (2000): 583‐625.

"Addicted to Love; Or, Toward an Inessential Solidarity." JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory 19.4 (1999): 633‐656.

bottom border