In June 1954, the Atomic Energy Commission determined that J.
Robert Oppenheimer, wartime director of the Manhattan Project and
Father of the Atomic Bomb, was a security risk. Consequently,
America's most prominent scientist was removed from government
service. In contrast to historical and political explanations of
the Oppenheimer case, Holloway explores the role that rhetoric
played in Oppenheimer's demise. In doing so, the author draws
attention to the symbolic nature of politics and character and
highlights the significant interaction of political and scientific
terminologies in American discourse.
Holloway's analysis and evaluation suggest that the accusations
against Oppenheimer used the most powerful terms of the
mid-1950s--communism, progress, and science--to legitimize the
government's questionable action. Oppenheimer, for his part, failed
to use his most strategic rhetorical resources in his defense, and
therefore participated in his own ruin. Holloway highlights the
rhetorical interaction among accusation, self-defense, and decision
statements through a microscopic rhetorical analysis of the case's
five central documents. An original extension and refinement of
Kenneth Burke's cluster-agon method, which Holloway calls
terminological algebra, is proposed as a systematic analytical tool
consistent with Burke's theories. Recommended for critics of
rhetoric and political communication.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!