Part A (200-250 words)

Refer to research about the film and about rhetoric to (a) describe the main argument you will make in your presentation and (b) describe plans you and your team have for using rhetorical strategies to present an interesting and persuasive discussion.

Part B (200-250 words)

Refer to research about culture and communication, intercultural rhetoric or inclusive style to describe (a) the expectations your audience might have for your presentation, and (b) strategies you and your team will use to ensure your presentation will appeal to an audience made up of people from diverse cultural backgrounds.

In both entries you will be rewarded for discussing what this task reveals about academic communication.

SAMPEL

Part A

Our group will discuss rhetoric and sophistry in Thank You for Smoking (Rietman 2006). When discussing Naylor's, Finistirre's, and Holloway's speeches, it became clear we need a definition of sophistry and rhetoric. As the academic, I will define the terms based on MiecznikowskiSheard's article "The Public Value of Epideictic Rhetoric" in College English (1996).

MiecznikowskiSheard states that many critics misunderstand epideictic speech as a form of sophistry, which is "burdened ... by suspicions of the speaker's self-indulgence and opportunism [...] and his distance from the interests of the community" (768). Accordingly, sophistry is communication in the speaker's own interest without concern for community wellbeing. But, for MiecznikowskiSheard, epideictic speech is actually a form of rhetoric by speakers who are "ethical individuals, responsible citizens, and conscientious members of their many communities" (766). Rhetoric is ethical speech that forms and maintains strong communities. Read alongside Bert Olivier's claim that the film "turn[s] against itself" (45) to promote an appreciation of ethical rhetoric, my definitions support the argument that the individual characters are sophists, but the film is rhetorical.

Our group will recreate the style of communication from the film and the host will reveal our ploy. For example, I will introduce my definitions with the sentence: "In my esteemed academic career, I have developed the most important theory on sophistry to date, a theory so brilliant that we barely need to hear from the other speakers on the panel". This will show that my "character" is selfish and individually focused. Even if I'm convincing, the host will explain that I'm unethical and, thereby, promote rhetoric.

Part B

Diverse communities in the classroom probably value democratic forms of communication. In an issue of Rhetoric and Public Affairs (11.3, 2008) focused on democratic style, or how to communicate in inclusive ways, Darrel Enck-Wanzer advocates for "intersectional rhetoric":

I define intersectional rhetoric as a rhetoric that places multiple discursive forms-speech, embodiment, and/or image-on relatively equal footing, is not leader-centered, draws from a number of diverse discursive political and rhetorical conventions, and is constitutive rather than instrumental. (461)

Such a form of communication uses a range of communication types (audio, visual, gesture, written) to engage with the preferred styles of communication of diverse communities. Further, the goal isn't to convince people of something (leader-focused) but to help people to develop their own ideas. We expect students who value learning want to think of their own ideas rather than be told what to think.

Our presentation will use strategies to ensure inclusive, democratic participation. The host is preparing a powerpoint slideshow to engage visual learners and to state in simple, clear language our argument. An argument written onscreen throughout most of the presentation will help students who do not speak English as a first language follow the debate. Further, the host is planning to summarise each speaker's overall main point in clear language. So, while we will embody our roles, presenting in character with language and gesture to match our personas (a strategy that will engage people who enjoy performance as a communication technique), students who are not able to follow the complex language of, for example, the academic presenter, or who are not familiar with performance techniques such as parody, will have the arguments and overall position of the group explained clearly.