Gaonkar

I was curious how others felt about the Gaonkar essay. He does a nice job giving overviews (sometimes competing overviews which are always defined by context) of the history of rhetoric, but ultimately he winds up where he began: rhetoric is supplemental, and Gaonkar is okay with this. I am also interested in the ways in which the various texts we have read this week "speak" to one another. Gaonkar is a professor of communication studies, while La Tour's area is understandably diverse (philosophy, history, anthropology), yet both posit similar ideas. For instance, Gaonkar distrusts any fundamental change to the definition of rhetoric (in order to "save" rhetoric or legitimize it). Likewise, La Tour aims to radically change popular notions of viewing sociology, yet he wishes to do so without perverting the nature of sociology; in fact, La Tour wishes to bring sociology back to its roots.

After reading Goankar, I'd like to look at Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The problem with introductory material is its lack of examples, and I'd like to read more about the internal rhetoric of the sciences to see this rhetoric in action. I'm guessing (or hoping) that LeFevre's text will cover some of this ground.