Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information Leadership, Fifth Edition

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Management Communication Quarterly
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0893318908318265v1
22/1/123    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Conrad, C.
Right arrow Articles by Malphurs, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Are We There Yet? Are We There Yet?

Charles Conrad* and Ryan Malphurs

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: c-conrad{at}tamu.edu.


   Abstract
Operating from a perspective suggested by Kenneth Burke’s analyses of "scope and reduction," in this response essay the authors begin by reconsidering the Aristotelian and Burkean rhetorical traditions that dominate contemporary organizational rhetoric research. They argue that both traditions can be applied in ways that reduce rhetoric to technique or to discourse. Both reductions slight the complex dialectical relationships among action, agency, and structure that define rhetorical action. Using this framework, the authors examine the core essays in this special issue, concluding that although they largely avoid problems related to discoursism, they are less successful in avoiding the other form of reductionism, treating rhetoric as technique and rhetor as magician. In a coda, the authors return to the assumptions of the Platonic/Aristotelian tradition, find that it contains ethical assumptions that are problematic in a world dominated by corporate power, and suggest an alternative approach.

First published on May 23, 2008, doi:10.1177/0893318908318265

Management Communication Quarterly 2008;22:123.

A more recent version of this article appeared on August 1, 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Management Communication QuarterlyHome page
J. A. A. Sillince and R. Suddaby
Organizational Rhetoric: Bridging Management and Communication Scholarship
Management Communication Quarterly, August 1, 2008; 22(1): 5 - 12.
[PDF]