THE AGRARIAN RHETORIC OF RICHARD M. WEAVER BY R. McKAY STANGLER Submitted to ...

208 Pages·2012·1.23 MB·English

THE AGRARIAN RHETORIC OF RICHARD M. WEAVER

BY

R. McKAY STANGLER

Submitted to the graduate degree program in Communication Studies and the Graduate Faculty
of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.

__________________________________________
Chairperson: Dr. Jay Childers

__________________________________________
Dr. Beth Innocenti

__________________________________________
Dr. Donn Parson

__________________________________________
Dr. Robert Rowland

__________________________________________
Dr. Charles Marsh

Date Defended: June 15, 2015
ii

The Dissertation Committee for R. McKAY STANGLER certifies that this is the approved
version of the following dissertation:

THE AGRARIAN RHETORIC OF RICHARD M. WEAVER

__________________________________________
Chairperson: Dr. Jay Childers

Date approved: June 15, 2015
iii
Abstract

The rhetorician and philosopher Richard Weaver has been an unfairly marginalized figure in
rhetorical studies, consigned to the margins for his conservative political views and insistence
upon the reality of Platonic transcendental forms. In this dissertation, I advance an argument that
Weaver is not only a major figure who deserves reexamination, but also that a true understanding
of Weaver must be based upon his education and training by the Southern Agrarian writers,
critics, and poets. Analyzing Weaver’s writings through the framework of Agrarian thought, I
use the categories of practice (practical and traditional knowledge), place (geographic identity),
and solidarity (societal common purpose) to suggest new ways forward for rhetorical studies,
rhetorical education, and civic life.
iv
Acknowledgements

One of the goals of doctoral work in the humanities, more than a few faculty members
remarked to me during the last half-decade, is to “enter the conversation”: to take one’s place at
the table of scholarly debate and discussion. The subtext of this reminder is that there is no such
thing as the mythical lone scholar, toiling away like Montaigne in a neo-Gothic castle tower.
Indeed, no scholar gets through any level of work alone. Many people have helped me in
manners beyond measure.
In the Department of Communication Studies, students and faculty alike are fortunate to
count Suzanne Grachek and John Fackler as allies. Suzanne and John make the department run,
and I am extremely grateful to them for all the help over the years. John and I talked literature
and politics many times, and I doubt he knows how much those conversations meant to someone
desperately needing a break from high theory.
My fellow students were a constant source of support, friendship, and amiable academic
rivalry. I became good friends with many of them, and I hope our relationships endure as we
spread out to other schools. I’d like to particularly thank Benjamin Garner, Chelsea Graham,
Cooper Wakefield, Vince Meserko, Mike Anderson, and Eddie Glenn.
Dr. Brent Steele was a highly respected professor of political science here at KU when I
first encountered him in a class on international relations and social theory. Aside from being
incredibly intelligent, he is also an amazing and dynamic teacher. It was in that class that I first
encountered the objections to Enlightenment thought that sent me down the road toward this
dissertation. He is now at the University of Utah, and I doubt he could ever know just how much
his lectures influenced my thinking.
v
Dr. Charles Marsh served as my outside committee member, and I’m so grateful to him
for the lessons in Isocratean thought and the helpful research suggestions. Dr. Marsh is a
classical rhetoric scholar in the journalism school—no easy feat in the age of the algorithm. I
have told every journalism major I’ve encountered at KU to seek him out, take his class, and
simply listen. He is a true bright spot in the KU professoriate.
Dr. Beth Innocenti was my first teacher in my first class on my first day of the doctoral
program, and on that day we read none other than Richard Weaver—excerpts from The Ethics of
Rhetoric, to be exact. If you’d told me on that day that he would be the subject of my
dissertation, I would likely have replied: “This boring curmudgeon?” Surely Dr. Innocenti’s
enthusiasm for that text lodged somewhere in my subconscious, for when I came across an
excerpt from Ideas Have Consequences two years later, purely by chance while looking for
another work, something in my mind clicked. She is a remarkable scholar, a kind and supportive
teacher, and owner of the greatest laugh in Lawrence. She also gave me two of the best pieces of
advice in graduate school: “When in doubt, return to the text,” and “Make every sentence true.”
Seems shallow, until you try to follow it exactly.
Anyone in rhetoric will know the name of Dr. Robert Rowland, but to know him by his
(frighteningly prolific) publishing reputation alone is to miss what a truly amazing scholar and
teacher he is. When I was doing my written comprehensive exams in an office across from his, I
overhead an unhappy undergraduate complaining to Dr. Rowland about his grade in an
inappropriately angry voice. Dr. Rowland replied, calmly but firmly, “Those are just opinions—
make arguments!” It was excellent advice, delivered in an almost Homerically intercessory way,
and I’d like to think my answers from that point forward were a little better. He is a brilliant
vi
debater, a helpful and supportive teacher, and he has one of sharpest minds I’ve ever
encountered. His influence on my thinking was, and remains, profound.
I had one stroke of great fortune in the fall of 2013: despite his retirement, Dr. Donn
Parson agreed to serve on my committee. What can one say about him? Yes, is a legendary
figure in debate and argumentation. Yes, he has shaped the field in ways yet to be understood
and has shepherded legions of students through the realm of rhetoric. But he is more than that.
He is one of the wisest people I’ve ever known, and without question one of the broadest
thinkers. He always encouraged us to think beyond narrow disciplinary confines and to ponder
the deepest questions. He taught me more than I think he will ever realize, and his questions still
guide my search for answers—at a time and in a place, of course.
My wife, Bridey, has been an unshakeable foundation of calm, patience, assistance,
resolve, and general support. I would never have survived this past half-decade if it were not for
her. We certainly didn’t make it easy on ourselves; we moved an incredible six times during the
program—oh, and we had a child—but through it all she was positive, supportive, and endlessly
patient with her husband, who grew more and more morose with each new chapter of social
theory and cultural critique. Misanthropy, apparently, loves company—and I have the best
company of all.

***

In June 2013, after completing a hellish season of comprehensive exams, I went through
a bit of an emotional crisis. My work seemed of little tangible value; my scholarly
accomplishments paled when held up to material problems; I wondered if academia was right for
vii
me. I explained as much in a rambling and occasionally incoherent email to my adviser, Dr. Jay
Childers. A couple of days later he wrote back, greeting my complaints head-on and addressing
my qualms with personal stories of his own. It is clear to me now that it was one of the most
important messages I’ve ever received in any medium. (He probably wishes there weren’t many
such emails.)
It seems banal to say that Dr. Childers has been more than an adviser to me; surely every
graduate student has felt the same way. But since the banal things usually end up being the truest
things, I’ll go ahead and assert it. He has seen me through every question, every breakdown, and
every achievement of the last five years. He praised, criticized, cajoled, rebuked, edited, coaxed,
and lectured me into what I am today. It often took me far too long to accept his advice, which
led me to say “You were right” to him more times than I could possibly count.
Every positive professional and scholarly attribute I have is due to him. Every negative
trait I still possess endures in spite of his effort. He is at once a man of extraordinary intelligence,
vast wisdom, and wide interests: as apt to quote poets as rhetoricians, quick to recommend
novels and academic works alike, fearful of society’s path but optimistic about the capacity for
change.
I fear I can never hope to repay him for all he has done for me. Doubtless he has shaped
me in ways I have yet to grasp. I dedicate this work to him, with great admiration and unending
gratitude.
viii
Table of Contents

Abbreviation Guide ix

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
The Treatment of Weaver in Rhetorical Studies 9
A Brief Weaver Biography 16
The Philosophy of Agrarianism in America 20
How This Dissertation Proceeds 32

Chapter 2: Weaver and the Forms of Agrarian Knowledge 44
Contrasting Types of Knowledge 47
The Agrarian View of Knowledge 53
History, Tradition, and Memory in Agrarian Thought 59
Weaver on the Elements of Practice 65
Historical Tradition in Weaverian and Agrarian Thought 70
Final Thoughts 78

Chapter 3: Rhetoric, Culture, and Place 85
The Concept of Place in Agrarianism 88
The Southern Agrarians and the Place of the South 91
The South in the Thought and Rhetoric of Weaver 99
Place, Rhetoric, and the Good Life 106
Property, Metaphysics, and Rhetoric 111
Final Thoughts 115

Chapter 4: Solidarity and Rhetoric 126
Cultural Solidarity in Agrarianism 129
Weaver, Rhetoric, and Individualism vs. Community 137
Solidarity, Rhetoric, and Ethics 144
Sermonic Language and Cultural Solidarity 152
Final Thoughts 156

Chapter 5: Conclusion 167
Rhetoric as Moral Education 170
Agrarian Rhetoric as a Model for Criticism and Education 173
Problems of the Weaver Rhetorical Program 182
Rhetoric, Aiming Upward 193
ix
Abbreviation Guide:

Ideas Have Consequences: IHC
The Ethics of Rhetoric: ER
Language is Sermonic: LS
Life Without Prejudice: LWP
Visions of Order: VO
The Southern Tradition at Bay: STB
The Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver: SE
In Defense of Tradition: IDT
I’ll Take My Stand: ITMS
God Without Thunder: GWT
1

Rhetoric is a form of human transcendence, a way
we open ourselves to the influence of what is
beyond ourselves and become receptive, a way we
participate in a larger world and become open to the
lives of others, a way we learn and change.

-- James Crosswhite

We speak not only to tell other people what we
think, but to tell ourselves what we think. Speech is
a part of thought.

-- Oliver Sacks

Communication that is not also communion is
incomplete.

-- Allen Tate