second day, sniffles at bay
Music: ELO: Time (1981)
8:30 AM: I'm sipping bathroom minimaker coffee and preparing myself for an intense day. Last night John Murphy's keynote was interesting and, thankfully, unapologetic about its politics. He spoke about the inventional resources (e.g., logics of reciprocity) that JFK drew from to craft his version of universal liberalism. I've not been to this conference before, so I must admit the Q&A was, um, intimidating: out of the gate David Zarefsky asked a question. It was marvelously eloquent, generous, and concise. But for the life of me I didn't understand the question, so blown way by his eloquence. John got it, though, and he answered with humor and wit. More questions came, some quite intense. John was masterful in fielding and answering questions. I remember thinking he'd be good on the Lehrer news program or something. Anyhoo, what became quickly apparent was my woeful ignorance of political speechcraft and political philosophy (admittedly, I know nothing of Ike's many speeches on race, for example). Mary Stucky's response to John was super helpful, because she detailed the many types of liberalism out there (I didn't know there were so many). Anyhoo, I'm learning stuff and admiring of the speakers and their cool-cucumber repartee.
Had drinks and three hours of charming conversation with my friend David Beard and three super smart and fun grads from Milwaukee. With Sneaker Pimps on the juke. Hot!
First up this morning is John Lucaites and Cara Finnegan, then Angela Ray and Stephen Browne. Last night I was feeling a little ill, so I must admit I only managed to follow about 50% of the conversation. This morning I'm feeling pretty good; took a benedryl so I'll be a little spacey, but that's preferable to having the sniffles. Deciding not to stay out all night last night was smart. I'll try to report more from the "executive center" trenches around lunch.
10:30 AM: Ok, we're on a potty break. John and Cara did a fantastic job. John presented on the idea of a "visual trope," and more specifically, lynching as a visual trope. Cara questioned whether trope was the right term; she worried calling lynching a visual trope tempered the atrocity on the one hand, and lacked specificity on the other. She proposed the alternative of repertoire. I wondered if she knew of Diane Taylor's work; repertoire would work nicely with the archival logics of photojournalism. It was also clear to me John (and Hariman's) work was informed by Laclau on tropology, but I think that point got lost. Unfortunately, people cannot get away from Burke's horrible, horrible "master tropes" essay that has ruined rhetorical studies' understanding of trope. If we think of trope in the sense Lundberg and others have been advocating---as a type of social movement, a cultural process of shifting, like Lacan on the "agency of the letter"---then I think Lucaites' argument is pretty compelling. I still feel pretty sheepish, though, asking questions and making comments (they give you a baton mic, like you're on Oprah, so I didn't. Maybe in the next session with the most awesome Angela Ray I'll have the guts to ask a question (that is, if I have one).
I'll keep updating this post throughout the day if I can. Check back at the lunch hour. I think I might be able to blog this!
12:15 P.M.: I've just returned from a marvelous presentation by the amazing Angela Ray. Ok, I am biased because she and I go way back, but: I have yet to hear as clear and concise a presentation as that which Angela delivered. She reviewed the literature on "feminine style" and spent some considerable time navigating the pickle of essentialism. I like me some Stephen Browne, but I confess I didn't follow his response very well so I cannot report on it accurately (my cold meds kicked in about the middle of Anglea's talk---it's a leetle hard to focus at the moment). I think the gist of his response was a historcist yang to the universalist yen.
The first historically significant comment made at this conference, which no doubt will be recounted years hence, was made by Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. I should have wrote the exact words down---I'm sure someone did. As soon as Browne finished his response, Karlyn's hand shot up in the air. Once she had the microphone she said (and I paraphrase): "I think we should abandon feminine style." She argued in favor of attending to gender.
It's now time for lunchness. Good. I be hungry.
4:00 p.m.: I've just returned from a panel on religion and rhetoric featuring Jim Aune, James Darsey, and Robert Glenn Howard. All three had interesting talks, but I must confess James Aune has reconfirmed my belief he is among my five most favorite speakers. He gave an interesting talk that ended on a fearful note of sublimity from Benjamin: "not even the dead will be safe if they win." That's a paraphrase, of course, I don't have the library handy. Jim's dramatic delivery was marvelous. And "they" are Evangelical Xians. And this led to an exciting---dare I say "spirited?"---exchange between Marty Medhurst and Aune about the religious character of social movements.
Before that there was lunch, which was delightful. The dining room was full by the time my friends and I arrived, so we ended up on the "overflow patio." This, however, got us a bit stuck for the program. Which was unfortunate, because Mike Hogan found me later and said he regretted I wasn't at the lunch talk because he gave me some love. From other reports, it sounds tough love, but I'm flatted for the attention from Mike, of course.
I'm back to my room a little early for sickness issues (stilling for hours stifling a cough means you come back to your room to do that . . . for about fifteen minutes). The next session is a focus on Lloyd Bitzer's notion of the "rhetorical situation," now common parlance among rhetoric types.
Oh, one thing that I knew would happen but is still nevertheless touching to see: the shout-outs to Karlyn by each guest speaker are loving and at times moving. I'm really glad to be here and participate in that.