Apocalypticism and typology: Rhetorical dimensions of a symbolic reality

Reid, Ronald F.

doi:10.1080/00335638309383652

Cited by 24 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Islamic tradition, secrecy is a feature of sacred written texts and dictates norms regarding individual identity (Khan 2008). In the Christian tradition, the distinction between typological interpretation and apocalyptic interpretation differentiates between prophecies that have already come to fruition and biblical secrets that have yet to be revealed (Reid 1983). Secrecy is also a theme of Christian and Hebrew narrative: the book of Judges describes the unique pronunciations of the word shibboleth among the warring Ephraimite and Gileadite tribes.…”

Section: Rhetorical Secrets and White Mythologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recanonizing Rhetoric: The SecretinandofDiscourse

Hallsby

2022

Journal for the History of Rhetoric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Challenges to rhetoric’s canon often occur under the rubric of revising that canon and its foundational, shared meaning. Read through the strategies of deconstruction, the secret offers a common ground for recanonizing approaches by centering either a concealed quantity in ancient rhetoric’s granular archive (the secret in discourse) or an unfolding idea whose transformation has rendered it unrecognizable to its original version (the secret of discourse). This article draws on Jacques Derrida’s “White Mythology” (1974) and A Taste for the Secret (2001) before addressing how the secret’s registers in and of discourse animate de- and recanonizing readings of ancient Greek and Roman rhetoric. Its implications address scholars distressed by the durable forms of oppression ensconced in rhetoric’s ancient canon.

show abstract

Section: Rhetorical Secrets and White Mythologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recanonizing Rhetoric: The SecretinandofDiscourse

Hallsby

2022

Journal for the History of Rhetoric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shortly after that, FTA began to receive more scholarly scrutiny as the partial subject of a Speech Communication Association paper (Leff & Mohrmann, 1977), and the sole topic of an SCA "Seminar Program" in 1978, andCentral States Speech Association "Spotlight" program in 1980. Here, the reactive criticism began and continued in several articles (Mohrmann, 1980(Mohrmann, , 1982a(Mohrmann, , 1982bVatz & Weinberg, 1987), "state-ofthe-discipline" review essays (Black, 1980;Farrell, 1980;Gronbeck, 1980;Hart, 1986;Leff, 1980), book reviews (Farrell, 1982;hie, 1987;Osborn, 1986), and rhetorical asides in journal articles (Brummett, 1984;Goodall, 1983;Lucaites & Condit, 1985;Reid, 1983).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In Defense of Symbolic Convergence Theory: A Look at The Theory and Its Criticisms After Two Decades

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that not only is theory-building often unfashionable, but the spurious assumption that the presence of scholarly disputes signifies the need to abandon theory-building efforts adds to the difficulties of those willing to develop and expand general theories of human communication. We argue that the time is at hand to provide a new response to the published criticism of the symbolic convergence theory (SCT) and its attendant method of fantasy theme analysis (FTA). Since 1977, critics have made a number of charges about the usefulness of the symbolic convergence theory. We have collapsed the more frequently mentioned and argued points into four indictments of SCT: ( 1 ) SCT's proponents have not clarified the basic presuppositions that undergird the theory;(2) SCT is Freudian-based and therefore applies only to small group communication;(3) SCT's insights are researcher-dependent not dependent on the theory; (4) SCT is a relabeling of old concepts with ttivialjargon that lacks precision and clarity. This paper explains and refutes each indictment. The paper concludes with a discussion of constructive criticism and the harms resulting from indiscriminate and unjustified criticism on theory building in general.

show abstract

“…According to Reid (1983), sociologists and historians who attempt to account for the appeal of apocalyptic literature, but who lack the perspective of rhetorical studies, fail to explain the appeal of apocalyptic discourse. They often fail to take into account the audience's predisposition based in conditions of social and economic class,116 or their experience of calamity, or in psychological anomie.117 Bloch reasons that without rhetorical analysis, Apocalyptic literature has been interpreted as a spur to action, as a source of comfort, and as a rationale for passivity.…”

Section: A Narrative Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Having ears to hear: John and the audience of Revelation

Shore¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apocalypticism and typology: Rhetorical dimensions of a symbolic reality

Cited by 24 publications

References 11 publications

Recanonizing Rhetoric: The SecretinandofDiscourse

Recanonizing Rhetoric: The SecretinandofDiscourse

In Defense of Symbolic Convergence Theory: A Look at The Theory and Its Criticisms After Two Decades

Having ears to hear: John and the audience of Revelation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About