M
Martha Solomon
Researcher at Auburn University
Publications - 13
Citations - 288
Martha Solomon is an academic researcher from Auburn University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Rhetorical criticism & Rhetoric. The author has an hindex of 10, co-authored 13 publications receiving 282 citations.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
The “positive woman's” journey: A mythic analysis of the rhetoric of stop ERA
TL;DR: By drawing its structural pattern from the romantic quest mythoi and developing characterizations of supporters and opponents which reflect elements of Jung's mother archetype, the rhetorical vision of STOP ERA becomes especially potent and appealing to many American women.
Journal ArticleDOI
THE RHETORIC OF DEHUMANIZATION An Analysis of Medical Reports of the Tuskegee Syphilis Project
TL;DR: Examining the medical journal reports of the Tuskegee syphilis study, this essay explores the role that rhetoric played in the study's continuation and argues that depicting patients as victims of disease was wrong.
Journal ArticleDOI
Ideology as rhetorical constraint: The anarchist agitation of “red Emma” Goldman
TL;DR: In this paper, a case study of the rhetoric of Emma Goldman explores the relationship between ideology and rhetorical strategies and argues that these strategies are inherent in anarchist ideology and that, consequently, anarchism could not be rhetorically effective as a social movement within American society.
Journal ArticleDOI
The rhetoric of stop era: Fatalistic reaffirmation
TL;DR: In this article, the STOP ERA movement, led by Phyllis Schlafly, has received little critical attention and the authors examine the image which the group develops of its opponents; the image it projects of its supporters; and the ideological framework indicated by these images; and, the rhetorical implications of (1), (2), and (3).
Journal ArticleDOI
Responding to Rowland's myth or in defense of pluralism—A reply to Rowland
TL;DR: The essay as mentioned in this paper challenges what Rowland sees as problems with mythic criticism in its present state, and then turns to a critique of several of the underlying features in Rowland's argument.