[ATTW-L] CFP: Classical Rhetoric & Contemporary Law

Thu Aug 9 20:02:12 UTC 2018

See the CPF below or (for prettier presentation) visit
https://rhetoricked.com/2018/08/09/cfp-classical-rhetoric-contemporary-law/
-- 
Thanks!
-Brian
__________________________
*Brian N. Larson, J.D., Ph.D.* | Associate Professor

*Texas A&M University School of Law*
Scholarship (Bepress) <https://works.bepress.com/brian-larson/> (SSRN)
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2017167> |
Blogging @ www.Rhetoricked.com
Personal/research email: brian at tendallarson.com
Email for TAMU student and official matters: blarson at tamu.edu

Call for proposals
Expressing interest in collaborating on scholarship exploring
the intersections of classical rhetoric and contemporary law

*Preliminary proposals due September 14, 2018 (AoE
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anywhere_on_Earth>)*

*(CFP version 8/9/18)*

Classical Rhetoric & Contemporary Law, a national group of scholars in the
legal academy broadly interested in rhetorical theory and particularly in
classical rhetorical texts, has been meeting virtually for more than a year
discussing such texts and their intersections with contemporary legal
practices and education. The list of texts the group has discussed so far
appears below. The group has presented portions of its work at 2018
conferences of the Rhetoric Society of America and of the Legal Writing
Institute.

Many (though not all) of CRCL’s members are experienced legal practitioners
and law teachers and scholars specializing in teaching legal communication
in the legal academy; others have training in rhetoric, communication
studies, and philosophy, among other disciplines. Most are not trained with
terminal degrees in rhetoric and none in classics. Many are also eager to
be scholarly collaborators.

CRCL intends this CFP to elicit proposals that identify and advance
scholarly projects to discuss, illustrate, explore, or advocate for the
relationship between classical rhetoric and current legal education or law
practice or both. Any interested scholar, whether a member of CRCL or no,
is welcome to submit a proposal in the form described below.

*Preliminary proposals are due September 14, 2018 (Anywhere On Earth
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anywhere_on_Earth>)*. A proponent may submit
more than one preliminary proposal. A subset of CRCL (identified below)
will evaluate proposals for completeness and relevance. CRCL will then have
a video conference the last week of September or first week of October 2018
where group members and proponents will review the proposals and have the
option to align themselves with one or more of them. Thereafter CRCL will
shape its activities and the readings that it discusses over the coming
months to support the projects selected by its members. It may function as
reading group, writing group, writing workshop, or in some other form
appropriate to support the projects growing out of it.[1] <#_ftn1>
Proposal form and format

Each proposal should be in the form of a PDF file and respond to the
following prompts:

1.     *Proponent information.* The proponents should provide their names,
affiliations, and scholarly disciplines. CRCL expects that most proponents
will come from the fields of legal communication, legal theory, legal
philosophy (or jurisprudence), (classical) rhetorical theory, history of
rhetoric, communication studies, argumentation theory, and technical and
professional communication. Scholars from other fields should indicate the
relevance of their training and research to contemporary law, classical
rhetoric, or both.

2.     *Project overview.* The proposal should include a description of the
project not exceeding 200 words that identifies the form(s) the scholarship
will take and its likely audience(s). See the examples identified below.

3.     *Outline.* A “thick outline” of the project or some part of it. (See
note.)

4.     *Example of scholarship in applicable mode(s).* A brief example of
some work product that would begin to flesh out the outline. (See note.)

5.     *Proponent and collaborator proposed roles.* The proponents should
indicate whether they seek to lead a team on the proposed project or hope
to find another scholar to lead or co-lead the team’s work. They should
indicate what they are hoping collaborators can contribute.

6.     *Timelines. *A brief summary of target timelines for the project.
This summary can be very tentative. It should, however, address in some
meaningful way the commitment of time that proponents are expecting of
collaborators.

7.     *Length.* Other than the project overview, there are no length
limitations on proposals, but CRCL expects most will be considerably
shorter than this CFP!

*NOTE:* The requirements for thick outline and example perhaps require
explanation. Some of CRCL’s members will propose, while others will merely
want to work on, projects. The project outlines and example work product
need to be sufficiently detailed to permit potential collaborators to
decide whether to align behind projects. Thus, a high-level outline for
most of the project, with a detailed outline for part of it and sample
prose (for example) for some very small portion of it or from a similar
work (or a reference to such a similar work), should help potential
collaborators understand the project at large and small scales. In short,
they need to know whether it is the kind of work they might enjoy doing. Of
course, potential collaborators may seek to influence project design; we
anticipate a dialogic process for some period of time following the
presentation meeting.

Email proposals by the deadline and direct inquiries regarding them to Dr.
Brian N. Larson, Texas A&M University School of Law, BLarson at law.tamu.edu.
Possible project types (not an exhaustive list)

The following types of project have already been discussed at least briefly
by CRCL members (though CRCL as a group will pursue none of these unless
proposed as part of this process). Project proposals of entirely different
types are also welcome. The key is to identify and substantiate meaningful
connections between classical rhetoric and contemporary law.

1.     A symposium hosted at a law school resulting in a symposium issue of
the school’s law review focused on classical rhetoric and contemporary law.
Collaborators would commit to develop essays suitable for presentation and
publication and to assist in organizing and promoting the symposium. The
organizers of such an event might also invite recognized speakers from
outside the group to take part. Such a proposal should consider how the
symposium might be funded and whether it would be held face-to-face or
virtually.

2.     A reader or annotated reader targeted at advanced law students
(probably in a legal rhetoric seminar). The authors/editors might select
excerpts of classical texts, provide necessary context, offer critical
evaluation, and perhaps pair them with contemporary legal communicative
performances (excerpts from briefs, court opinions, oral arguments, etc.).
Collaborators might be expected to select texts to edit, criticize, and
contextualize and for which they would describe contemporary intersections.

3.     A reader or annotated reader targeted at graduate students (or
advanced undergraduates) in rhetorical theory or history of rhetoric. This
might have a similar structure to the previous example, but with a
different critical focus.

4.     A reader or annotated reader targeted at a combination of the
previous two audiences.

5.     A law review article more narrowly focused on some classical text or
theme. The proponent could be seeking collaborators to assist with concept,
research, and writing.

6.     A university press book that makes a significant contribution to
legal theory, rhetorical theory, or both. The proponent could be seeking
collaborators to assist with concept, research, and writing.
Texts already discussed by CRCL

These are the texts that CRCL has already read and discussed. Project
proposals are not bound to them, however. Your proposal may require
collaborators to gain familiarity with other classical texts, or with
medieval, renaissance, or later texts that engage critically with classical
texts. But at the root must be contemporary legal practices and some
rhetorical text or group of texts written before 500 CE. Proposals relating
to ancient texts and contemporary legal practices from cultures other than
the West are also welcome, but in that event proponents should be sure to
provide enough context to permit scholars previously focused on the western
canon and western practices to understand potential intersections with law
or rhetoric (or both) in the West.

Gorgias. *Encomium of Helen*.

Anonymous. *Double Arguments (Dissoi Logoi)*.

Antiphon. *The Tetralogies*.

Aeschines. *Against Ctesiphon*.

Demosthenes. *On the Crown*.

Isocrates. *Against the Sophists*.

Isocrates. *Antidosis*.

Plato. *Gorgias.*

Plato. *Phaedrus*.

Aristotle:

*Categories. *

*De Interpretatione.*

*Prior Analytics.*

*Posterior Analytics*.

*Topics *(Books I and VIII, with Excerpts from Related Texts).

*On Rhetoric*

Cicero. *On the Ideal Orator [De Oratore]*.

Quintillian. Books One, Two and Ten of the* Institutio Oratoria*.

CRCL members mustering and evaluating proposals

The following members of CRCL are promoting this call for proposals and
will evaluate preliminary proposals for completeness and relevance:

Kirsten K. Davis, Stetson University College of Law

Melissa Greipp, Marquette University Law School

Brian N. Larson, Texas A&M University School of Law

Francis J. Mootz III, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law

Susan E. Provenzano, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Kristen K. Tiscione, Georgetown University Law Center

------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref1> It seems unlikely, but it may be that no proposal will find
even one collaborator as a result of this process. In that event, it is our
hope at least to provide useful feedback to proponents regarding their
ideas so that this will not seem a waste of time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://attw.org/pipermail/attw-l_attw.org/attachments/20180809/e82163cd/attachment-0001.htm>