Hey, Y'all! How do we find ourselves this fine Tuesday afternoon? I happen to find myself with a figurative lighter in my hand standing near the bridge between rhetoric and composition ready to burn it. Of course, this is hypothetical and imaginative arson I am speaking about, however, after readings Crowley's piece, I can't help but feel like that. Which, kind of bothers me. She argues in a very persuasive way that rhetoric has little to nothing to do with composition. She does, however, state that intertwining of the two in their histories but moves to showcase how little composition has to do with rhetoric. Although, I am inclined to agree with her, particularly, when she denotes "modern" composition as the one with no ties to rhetoric. And she is right, composition the way it is today, does have little to do with rhetoric, but I myself feel icky about removing this bridge. I feel like this bridge between the two exists and it is important. Yes, it is maybe seldom used, but there is a historical intertwining that she even states that established this bridge so does that not show how these two are connected? I sit at the precipice of agreeing with her and disagreeing with her. The way in which she defines rhetoric is mainly where I find myself in issue. She states "stipulative definition of rhetoric: any theoretical discourse that is entitled to be called"rhetoric" must at minimum conceive of rhetoric as an art of invention, that is, it must give a central place to the systematic discovery and investigation of the available arguments in a given situation" but could not composition fit into this definition as well? Writing is an art form, writing is to discover, writing is to investigate, invent, and argue? I came into rhetoric and composition because I enjoyed that this field was so expansive, it felt inclusive to me. I started wanting to research creative writing and found myself reading scholar's within this field. I moved on to looking at video games and gamification, yet another area covered by rhetoric and composition. While, I understand what Crowley argues, and I do think she has very valid points I remain on the bridge between the two. I think that yes composition has changed and it is more separate from rhetoric, but I still think the two are intertwined historically and still do this day. I also think this idea of rhetoric and composition building bridges between other "disciplines" is what makes us, us.
Kyle, thanks for your post. To your point about Crowley’s working definition of rhetoric and how you ask if this is tied to composition, I’d say that in Crowley’s view it’s not, as she declares calling on Gorgias and Cicero, “any practice entitled to be called ‘rhetoric’ must intervene in some way in social and civic discursive networks.” Along with this she explains that even teachers that seemingly do this in their classes (whether through civic intervention or service learning) don’t do this because of rhetorical theory or the “commitment to invention.” And, I’d have to agree with her on this because if we did so, it’s dangerous, or in her words, “when the prevailing regime of truth carefully monitors teachers to insure their intellectual conformity.” This conformity is teaching composition as its own and rhetoric as its own things. Likewise, there would be great risks for breaking away from the Platonic ideals of the academy to something where we prioritize inquiry, invention, and discovery, especially in the way words have formed power and continued to oppress. We’re operating in a system that does the oppression of many people, so how can we move away from that from within the system itself? I don’t know if I have an answer (or will ever) to that, but I do always wonder where my moral complicity lies in teaching composition for higher education, especially if we aren’t teaching Rhetoric either.
ReplyDeleteKyle,
ReplyDeleteI feel as though Crowley is too stuck on historicizing. Rhetoric's connectiong to composition ebbs and flows, dependent entirely on the individul institution and academy. Our program centers rhetoric, others dont't. I probably use more rhetoric than instructors with different English backgrounds. It's absolutely ridiculous, though, to say the Composition has nothing to do with rhetoric--especially when looking at the scholarship in the field. Maybe Crowley's problem is her Greco obsession. She says we don't use or use enough invention in composition. I say that traditional rhetoric isn't the only way to center rhetoric.
And also, ouch, that comment is full of errors.
DeleteKyle,
ReplyDeleteI agree that Crowley roots much of her argument in the historical definitions of rhetoric and composition. I personally think she’s wrong about composition having nothing to do with rhetoric. As someone who is new to graduate school level Rhet/Comp, the numerous definitions for both rhetoric and composition have been overwhelming. In my mentor professor’s 103 class textbook, there’s a whole page devoted to the different definition of rhetoric throughout history. Most of these definitions completely contradict each other. If we cannot clearly define rhetoric, how can we compare it to other things, such as composition? Crowley does define it within the article as “must at minimum conceive of rhetoric as an art of invention, that is, it must give a central place to the systematic discovery and investigation of the available arguments in a given situation,” but that is also her own definition, making it a bit bias when using it for comparison. Though, in her defense, she does state her definition is stipulative. It seems as if everything within Rhet/Comp is conditional and flexible.
I also really resonated with your idea about how building bridges between other disciplines is what makes us “us.” At the end of Crowley’s article, she states “ indeed, at this moment in time I am very concerned about the very survival of the academic study of rhetoric.” This fear of losing rhetoric as an academic study should drive us to find more bridges and connect to more disciplines.
Kyle,
ReplyDeleteWe mentioned this in class (so I won't recap much), but I definitely read Crowley's argument a bit differently. I do agree with you that rhetoric and composition should not be divorced from one another, especially in Freshman Composition. This piece reminded me of the "no politics in the classroom" debate. If we remove any trace of rhetoric from the classroom, I can't imagine how I would engage my students in discussions of privilege and oppression. Granted, I am not sure what a classroom without a discussion of rhetoric would look like in the first place. To me, this separation feeds the idea Freshman Comp. is a service course rather than a course that promotes deep critical thinking and analytical skill (from an outside perspective). Without rhetoric, I find it is easy to fall into an apolitical teaching style.
From my limited experience as an instructor, I have noticed that students expect an apolitical classroom--they expect to simply sit down and learn how to write well. While the social constructivist moment does open doors to discuss privilege and oppression, I find it difficult to do so without discussing rhetoric. I, too, understand Crowley's fear of this separation.
Hi Kyle,
ReplyDeleteI do think it was interesting to learn from our discussions on Thursday that many think they are understanding rhetoric and composition as a marriage. However, once we dig down deeper, we find that the rhetoric that instructors think they are teaching may not look all that much rhetoric. As Crowley notes, invention is key to the teaching of rhetoric, and many composition instructors may actually be just teaching an adjusted version of current traditionalism.
Unfortunately, to an extent, some of it becomes unavoidable due to the inescapable grasp of capitalism, materialism, and the individualism involved in a conservatism focused institutional setting. Sometimes I wonder what difference I am making in learning alternatives to those ideologies, only for students to be rudely reacquainted with them as they enter their next classroom or next job.
Following format here...
ReplyDeleteHi Kyle,
First off, I loved the language there at the beginning. It's that MFA shining through. Secondly, I also sort of felt this way as well but, as Caitlyn suggests, Crowley gets hung up pretty heavily on the history of rhet/comp. With that, then, it's easy to get wrapped up while trying to synthesize what she is saying. Like I said, I too was convinced otherwise during Thursday's class.
I think Mike painted a pretty clear picture of what Crowley envisions: Rhetoric and composition as a village, with rhetoric in the middle and composition on the outside, surrounding rhetoric. The big take away for me, like Jake said, is the process of invention inherent with rhetoric. I think, if there was a bridge like you propose, perhaps invention is a good place to start looking?