Response to Readings for 25 Feb 08

“Introduction” by Corbett

Corbett demonstrates the history and importance of rhetoric to students and writers in a piece that is both comprehensive and accessible. With an excellent bit of invention and arrangement of his own, the author cleverly entices modern readers with an illustration of the functionality of studying rhetoric. In a brief but comprehensive introduction, Corbett covers a lot of ground from the canons of rhetoric to external and internal proofs.

As I have said in previous blog posts, I truly wish I had read some of the assigned articles in this course at the beginning of my graduate program. On a personal level, Corbett’s article was exciting to me because he begins his piece with an illustration of the rhetorical appeals in advertising. His analysis of the Hewlett Packard ad would have been so helpful to me as I was starting to write my thesis on the situated meaning of pharmaceutical advertising. I just completed the final chapter of my thesis, and while I became more confident as I wrote each chapter, I still had considerable doubt about my ability to adequately analyze the discourse. Therefore, I was thrilled to see that some of my thoughts coincided with Corbett’s ideas about advertising.

But enough about me, I want to commend Corbett for his ability to show rhetoric’s importance to writers who are working in both professional and academic capacities. Corbett not only shows how rhetoric can be functional to everyday life but also spends considerable time – in his excerpt from The Illiad – demonstrating how rhetoric plays an important role in literary studies. Corbett uses these examples to reach multiple audiences and reinforce the premise that rhetoric is a discipline that is still necessary for us to study. His caution to society that we should look more critically at the writing and speeches of others reminds me of Sister Miriam Joseph’s warning in The Trivium that we have to be aware of rhetorical aspects in order to know how best to respond to the intentions of others.

I also found Corbett’s observations to be interesting. First, he mentions that rhetoric becomes important again “during periods of social and political upheaveal” (16). We can certainly see how this rings true in the presidential campaign currently underway. Barack Obama, for example, may not have the experience of other candidates, but people are willing to overlook this aspect because he is eloquent and understands the value of analyzing his rhetorical audience. Next, Corbett observes that often the people fighting hardest for the reinstatement of rhetorical study were people who were not trained in the practice. This echoes some of the information in Berlin’s article.

“Current-Traditional Rhetoric” by Berlin

Berlin addresses the development of current-traditional rhetoric, or scientific rhetoric, as well as the surrounding elements which led to its establishment. Much of the background information restates the historical readings from Brereton and Reynolds et al. from our 4 Feb 08 class. While he doesn’t clearly identify his intended audience, Berlin makes no secret of the fact that he disapproves of the way current-traditional rhetoric was used in the writing classroom.

In the history that he provides, Berlin concurs with Corbett that the development of college curriculum came about through the efforts of men in business who often were not college educated themselves. These proponents of higher education foresaw a need for more “practical” instruction to prepare students for life. In a way, the evolution of college curriculum reminds me of the move from civic humanism to Lockean liberalism in the eighteenth century. This makes me believe more than ever that education and writing instruction do tend to follow the changes in society.

Berlin’s pejorative description of current-traditional rhetoric, however, makes me wonder whether he was discussing only what happened in the past or commenting on the practices of the modern composition classrooms. I understand that Berlin feels scientific rhetoric was taken to an extreme that limited composition to empirical arrangement (classification, taxonomy, etc) and style (rules, prescriptive texts, etc). However, even inductive composition has a place in writing instruction. In fact, I learned a great deal about rhetoric and writing in a course about scientific rhetoric. Perhaps Berlin means the overuse of any particular theory is harmful?

“The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse” by Connors

In the process of explaining how the modes of discourse came into popular use and subsequently fell from favor, Connors explains why the narrow classification of rhetoric did not adequately prepare students for writing. The author also illustrates how specialization gave writing teachers the methods for exposition that they use today. This article, I believe, somewhat answered the question I posed after reading Berlin’s piece. For example, Connors clearly points out how the overuse of the scientific method of division, classification, etc., paved the way for a very rigid approach to writing. Citing many of the same authors who appeared in our other readings for this week, Connors acknowledged the contributions of the founders of the modes of discourse while showing why changes needed to be made along the way.

Connors also shows us how certain theories can quickly become accepted without any question – to the point that ideas and concepts are hardly ever in doubt again. This seems to be a feature of writing education that even Connors forgets at times. For example, he mentions that the period from 1825-1870 was difficult to fully detail because “the ideas were presumed to be in currency rather than the specific property of individuals” (444-445) At the same time, Connors expresses surprise in footnote six that the “ ‘Big Four’ did not admit any indebtedness to Bain” (455) during the late nineteenth century. Isn’t it possible that Bain’s theory of unity, mass, and coherence had become, by that time, just as accepted as public property by other educators? In any case, Connors shows and warns us against inflexible methods of teaching.

“The Basic Aims of Discourse” by Kinneavy

Using what he calls the concept of “complete discourse” (129), Kinneavy provides a brief, but comprehensive survey of various theories whose aims are directed not at the writer or reader but at the true intention of the text or speech. I especially liked the way Kinneavy divided his explanation into the areas of “external” and “internal” norms because he clearly separates people from the discourse they prepare or read. Looking at the content of the discourse and what it exhibits is a good way to uncover what a writer or speaker might genuinely be trying to do.

I also enjoyed the way Kinneavy follows Connors and Berlin in cautioning the overuse or rigid specialization of writing theories, but still justifies the need to first isolate a particular feature in order to study it better. In that regard, Kinneavy’s thoughts run parallel to Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning because we begin to learn on a lower level by analyzing – or picking apart – a concept to gain knowledge. Only then can we move to a higher level of learning by synthesizing the new knowledge with the surrounding context. It is this combination of analysis and further synthesis I believe Kinneavy stresses in his examination of the different discourse aims.

On a side note, isn’t it interesting that we have been reading this week about the potential drawbacks in over-classification or specialization yet Kinneavy accomplishes his task by giving us charts filled with classifications? Perhaps this tells us once again just how prone we can be to adopting theories through scientific methods.