Radicals Rhetoric And The War

Radicals, Rhetoric, and the War documents the Kent State antiwar protest at the height of the Vietnam era. Informed by thirty years of oral history interviews, the book details perspectives and voices from students, faculty, and administrators.

When Kenneth Burke conceived his celebrated “Motivorum” project in the 1940s and 1950s, he envisioned it in three parts. Whereas the third part, A Symbolic of Motives, was never finished, A Grammar of Motives (1945) and A Rhetoric of Motives (1950) have become canonical theoretical documents. A Rhetoric of Motives was originally intended to be a two-part book. Here, at last, is the second volume, the until-now unpublished War of Words, where Burke brilliantly exposes the rhetorical devices that sponsor war in the name of peace. Discouraging militarism during the Cold War even as it catalogues belligerent persuasive strategies and tactics that remain in use today, The War of Words reveals how popular news media outlets can, wittingly or not, foment international tensions and armaments during tumultuous political periods. This authoritative edition includes an introduction from the editors explaining the compositional history and cultural contexts of both The War of Words and A Rhetoric of Motives. The War of Words illuminates the study of modern rhetoric even as it deepens our understanding of post–World War II politics.

Learning effective communication--an activist's most powerful tool.

Radicals, Rhetoric, and the War documents the Kent State antiwar protest at the height of the Vietnam era. Informed by thirty years of oral history interviews, the book details perspectives and voices from students, faculty, and administrators.

The rhetorical presumption of war's necessity makes violence regrettable, but seemingly sane, and functions to shame anyone who opposes military action. Ivie proposes that the presence of dissent is actually a healthy sign of democratic citizenship, and a responsible and productive act, which has been dangerously miscast as a threat to national security. Ivie, a former US Navy petty officer, puts a microscope to the language of war supporters throughout history and follows the lives and memories of soldiers and anti-war activists who have dealt with degrees of confusion and guilt about their opposition to war. Arguing that informed dissent plays out largely in the realm of rhetoric, he equips readers with strategies for resisting the dehumanizing language used in war propaganda. Through his careful study of language strategies, he makes it possible to foster a community where dissenting voices are valued and vital.

Given that radicalization is the process by which an individual or group comes to adopt increasingly radical views in opposition to a political, social, or religious status quo, the prevalence of marginalized people being affected under its tyranny has sky rocketed through the course of time. Radicalization occurs across multiple diverging pathways increasing a groups resilience and lethality, more often times than not causing many to suffer.Through a collection of poems from the persepctive of fictional displaced peoples worldwide, their testimonies aid in forming a non-radical society freeing us of the sociological trap that is radicalism; forming a utopia in which all beings from all walks of life can satisfy their material and spiritual needs.

In The Rhetoric of War, Harvey Averch explores the relationship between the a priori policy models that decision makers use in war (or peace) and policy analysis, and provides cost-effective alternatives for decision makers in war or peace. The Vietnam War serves as a case study of the effectiveness of many models proposed by political scientists, historians, and policy analysts as capable of improving decision making if only decision makers were persuaded to adopt them. Averch demonstrates that whatever the method, willingness to be personally and organizationally self-critical is a necessary condition for using any policy analysis method in a serious way.

First published in 1971, Rules for Radicals is Saul Alinsky's impassioned counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change and know "the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one." Written in the midst of radical political developments whose direction Alinsky was one of the first to question, this volume exhibits his style at its best. Like Thomas Paine before him, Alinsky was able to combine, both in his person and his writing, the intensity of political engagement with an absolute insistence on rational political discourse and adherence to the American democratic tradition.

This expansive volume traces the rhetoric of reform across American history, examining such pivotal periods as the American Revolution, slavery, McCarthyism, and today's gay liberation movement. At a time when social movements led by religious leaders, from Louis Farrakhan to Pat Buchanan, are playing a central role in American politics, James Darsey connects this radical tradition with its prophetic roots. Public discourse in the West is derived from the Greek principles of civility, diplomacy, compromise, and negotiation. On this model, radical speech is often taken to be a sympton of social disorder. Not so, contends Darsey, who argues that the rhetoric of reform in America represents the continuation of a tradition separate from the commonly accepted principles of the Greeks. Though the links have gone unrecognized, the American radical tradition stems not from Aristotle, he maintains, but from the prophets of the Hebrew Bible.