This study offers a rhetorical analysis of George Jackson’s Soledad Brother, informed by class critical and critical race theory. Recent rhetorical studies scholarship has taken up the problem of prisons, mass incarceration, and resultant issues of race, yet without paying attention to the nexus of black radicalism and criticisms of capital. This study views George Lester Jackson as a rhetorician in his own right and argues that his combination of critical race and class critical perspectives is an important move forward in the analysis of mass incarceration. Jackson is able to combine these ideas in a plain-writing style where he employs intimacy, distance, and the strategy of telling it like it is. He does this in epistolary form, calling forth a long tradition of persuasive public letter writing. At this study’s end, ideas of circulation re engaged to show the lines of influence Jackson has and may continue to have. Through rhetorical analysis of Soledad Brother, this study demonstrates the utility of uniting class critical criticism and critical race theory for rhetorical studies, and suggests further avenues of research consistent with this approach.

<p>"The Uses of Literature: Gilles Deleuze's American Rhizome" puts four writers - Walt Whitman, Herman Melville, George Jackson and William S. Burroughs - in conjunction with four concepts - becoming-democratic, belief in the world, the line of flight, and finally, control societies. The aim of this study is to elaborate and expand on Gilles Deleuze's extensive use of American literature and to examine possible conjunctions of his philosophy with contemporary American literary criticism and American Studies. I argue that Deleuze's interest in American writing not only productively complicates recent historical accounts of "French Theory's" incursion into American academia, but also provides a compelling way think about the relationship between literature and history, language and experience, and the categories of minor and major that organize national literary traditions. Beginning with the concept of the "American rhizome" this dissertation approaches the question of rhizomatic thought as a constructivist methodology for engaging the relationship between literary texts and broader social movements. Following an introduction laying out the basic coordinates of such an approach, and their historical relevance with respect to the reception of "French Theory" in the United States, the subsequent chapters each take an experimental approach with respect to a single American writer invoked in Deleuze's work and a concept that resonantes with the literary text under consideration. In foregrounding the question of the use of literature this dissertation explores the ways literature has been appropriated, set to work, or dismissed in various historical and institutional arrangements, but also seeks to suggest the possibility of creating conditions in which literature can be said to take on a life of its own.</p> / Dissertation

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-28T14:16:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Enezio Eugenio de Almeida Filho.pdf: 4288341 bytes, checksum: 6d7c3e5e0f23728ac321058b96f617c8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-10-17 / Discovery Institute - Center for Science and Culture / This research follows the line of History and Theory of Science that has as a goal to explain the construction of scientific thought by discussing the foundation of hypotheses and theories within their historical contexts. The goal of this thesis is to analyze Mivart´s critiques and Darwin´s answers, and to verify if they were scientifically well formulated and based considering the scientific context of that time. The reason for writing this work is an attempt to fill a gap in the History of Science about the scientific controversy between Mivart and Darwin on the role of natural selection in the origin of species. This work´s hypotheses are two: that Mivart´s critiques, despite being religiously motivated, were plausible scientifically, and that Darwin answered them fully. This research analyzes the primary sources of Mivart (Genesis of species) and Darwin's Origin of Species, and other secondary sources. The result reached was that Mivart´s critiques were indeed scientific, and that Darwin answered them according to the evidences and scientific knowledge then available / Esta pesquisa segue a linha de História e Teoria da Ciência que objetiva trazer esclarecimentos sobre a construção do pensamento científico através da discussão da fundamentação de hipóteses e teorias dentro do seu contexto histórico. O objetivo desta dissertação é analisar as críticas de Mivart e as respostas dadas por Darwin, e verificar se elas estavam bem formuladas e fundamentadas cientificamente considerando-se o contexto científico daquela época. A justificativa para a realização desta trabalho é tentar preencher uma lacuna em História da Ciência sobre a controvérsia científica entre Mivart e Darwin sobre o papel da seleção natural na origem das espécies. As hipóteses deste trabalho são duas: as críticas de Mivart, apesar de terem sido religiosamente fundamentadas, eram cientificamente plausíveis, e Darwin as respondeu satisfatoriamente. O aspecto teórico-metodológico foi a análise das fontes primárias de Mivart (Genesis of species) e de Darwin (Origin of species), e outras fontes secundárias. O resultado obtido foi que as críticas de Mivart eram científicas, e que Darwin respondeu-as conforme as evidências e o conhecimento científico da época