The Rhetorical Family Tree Experience

This project was an exciting experience for me. I enjoy researching my family history, so this project immediately caught my interest. My group for this project was excellent every member was willing and we worked together well. Dr. Frank provided an abundance of information and most of the scholars that I contacted outside of Colorado State University-Pueblo were very cooperative. This project made me realize the wide reaching influence that rhetoric and composition involves and proves that our connection to past scholars is not as limited as some may assume.
My group, assigned to investigate Dr. Frank’s rhetorical influences, began as a group of two. I had never met Dr. Frank, but Jo was familiar with her and worked on setting up an interview. Soon, our group became a group of three as Johanna joined our group after her original group disbanded due to Dr. Griffin’s retirement. Johanna was a welcome addition bringing her experience with Dr. Frank through the Southern Colorado Writing Project and great collaboration and research skills.

Before we met with Dr. Frank Johanna presented the idea to divide the work according the aspects of Dr. Frank’s work: the SCWP, creative writing, and academic writing. Since Johanna has been through the SCWP we decided she should take up that area, Jo’s connections with Dr. Frank came through David Keplinger and former creative writing professor of Colorado State University-Pueblo so she explored Dr. Frank’s creative influences and I investigated her academic influences. This approach worked well because when we interviewed Dr. Frank we each knew what questions we needed to ask. We still took notes on each area so we could offer extra support if necessary.

The interview was difficult to schedule because our schedules mostly conflicted, but we were all willing to bend where we could. We even considered interviewing Dr. Frank individually. Jo discovered that we could meet with Dr. Frank at 5:00 on a Tuesday evening, but our class with Dr. Souder began at 5:30. Johanna discussed this issue with Dr. Souder who graciously allowed us to be thirty minutes late to class so we could complete our interview even though Johanna and I still had midterm presentations to complete. The interview went well for Johanna and I since we both collected numerous names to research. Jo did not receive really any name, but she decided to attempt some research and perhaps another interview before eventually deciding to take part in areas Johanna and I were researching. This arrangement was short lived because Jo had to pursue other avenues. While we missed Jo, her absence did not cause too mush trouble because we simply returned to our previous arrangement.

Dr. Frank provided me with many names to begin tracing her rhetorical roots. I began with Dr. Steve C. Dillon but this attempt did not take me very far because he did not reply to my inquiry. The information I could find on him detailed the universities he had received his degrees from and his writings, but I could not reveal any of his professors or likely influences. The next person I sent an inquiry to proved to be much more successful. Gail Stygall answered my inquiry swiftly and provided me with the name of Marilyn Sternglass, but Dr. Sternglass passed away so finding her influences was very difficult. I learned that Dr. Sternglass did win the Mina Shaughnessy award and taught at City University New York like Shaughnessy and she wrote a forward for one of Mike Rose’s books. I am not sure any of this would constitute an influential relationship with either of these composition theorists though.

Dr. Leroy Searle’s reply to my questions was extremely helpful. Dr. Searle provided me with numerous names even though many of them were the major rhetoricians we studied for class along with Aristotle. He said that they were his major influences but also recognized that these names may not fit the purpose of our project and also provided me with names of his modern influences. I found many connections for these names mostly through their colleagues or scholars with similar ideas. Again many of the scholars Searle mentioned are no longer living so I could not be certain of their influences. There was information connecting them to scholars that contested their ideas rather than influencing them. Most of these names were related to anthropology, but I did find that one or more rhetoricians did draw from their work.

I found the rhetorical family tree to be a fun and exciting project. My group was excellent and the professors of varying universities extremely helpful. I enjoyed communicating with and researching people from various areas of study and universities. It was satisfying to acknowledge all of the people and ideas that shaped my professors and will eventually shape me. This project showed the importance of using all available resources. We interviewed our professors and engaged in correspondence with their mentors as well as doing research in the databases and Internet. This served to remind us that we should acknowledge the past that has shaped us while building on our extensive foundations.

Multiple Discourses

Lisa Delpit brings up many interesting points in her article “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse.” Delpit voices her concerns about issued in James Paul Gee’s articles “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction” and “What is Literacy,” as well as seemingly set ideals towards teaching multiple discourses to poor students and minorities. She claims that many teachers feel it may not be possible to teach these students multiple discourses or that teaching multiple discourses would be more oppressive to the students. “…they question whether that is a task they can actually accomplish for poor students and students of color. Further more, they question whether they are acting as agents of oppression by insisting that students who are not already apart of the ‘mainstream’ learn that discourse.” (Norton 1311). Delpit’s main concerns with Gee are his suggestions that: “…people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult to, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse,” and “…an individual who is born into one discourse with one set of values may experience major conflicts when attempting to acquire another discourse with another set of values,” (Norton 1312-1313).

Delpit finds these views “paralyzing” to poor students and minorities. She includes many examples of students who Gee’s articles concern receiving instruction in “dominant discourse” and succeeding. Delpit even offers instances of these students requesting to learn “dominant discourse.” “…one educator of adult African-American veterans … insisted that her students needed to develop their ‘own voices’ by developing ‘fluency’ in their home language. Her students vociferously objected, demanding they be taught grammar, punctuation, and ‘Standard English,’” (Norton 1317).

What I think Delpit is suggesting is not the vanquishing of any writers voice but giving everyone the opportunity to develop skills in multiple discourses. This would then relate to Andrea A. Lunsford’s article “Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric: Gloria Anzaldúa on Composition and Postcoloniality”. Lunsford claims the Anzaldúa struggled to make sure her voice was not lost, but she also recognized the “multiplicity” of her voice. “…Anzaldúa announces the multiplicity of her ‘self’ and her ‘voice’: she is a ‘wind-swayed bridge, a crossroads inhabited by whirlwinds’…” (Norton 1401). I don’t think that Anzaldúa was concerned with the “dominant discourse” but what I feel relates to Delpit’s article is the idea to recognize multiple voices to be used in multiple discourses.

Rhetorical Heritage

When Dr. Souder first mentioned the Rhetorical family tree project, I was excited. I have always been interested and liked looking into my family history, but I never thought about considering heritage from the stand point of who has influenced me intellectually. This project may prove to be another exciting examination of who we are, how have arrived where we are, and in this case why we study what we study.

This project has also helped to encourage me to communicate with scholars beyond simply reading their books or articles. I have enjoyed learning about the people who have influenced the professors who are influencing me. The rhetorical family tree also shows us that we should build on what has been done, as well as remembering what has been done. The presentations have catered directly to the rhetorical family tree because many of the rhetoricians had direct influence on each other, and each presentation attempted to find a link between a major rhetorician and a composition theorist.

Johanna, Jo and I interviewed Dr. Frank and I was delighted to discover the many different influences she has had in every different aspect of her expertise. I also found it interesting that her major influences began when she was a middle school student. I enjoyed interviewing her and learning the names all of the people who have influenced her and how.

I have noticed that many of the people that are connected on the rhetorical family tree are spread all across the content, and as Dr. Souder predicted, quickly went outside of it.

Many of the ideas that have been mentioned for the presentation of the rhetorical family sound very interesting. I liked the ripples in a pond idea that I think Emily mentioned because it could represent different directions and ideas while still presenting the bigger connection. I also liked the more traditional idea of using an actual tree, especially it we added the roots as well. Using something similar to constellations also seemed like something that might work well and be appealing.

Spontaneity to Conversation

There were many articles discussing the writing process and how to teach writing in the reading for this week, but I think that Lester Faigley’s article “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal,” bridges some of the presentations that have been given throughout the semester. The two theories that Faigley focuses on that I noticed the strongest connection to the rhetoricians that have bee presented to the class were the expressive view, and the social view. In which he points out views of Coleridge in expressive theory and views of social theory that are similar to Burke.

While exploring exressivsm Faigley demonstrates its possible roots in Romantic expressivsm. “This definition of ‘good writing’ includes the essential qualities of Romantic espressivsm—integrity, spontaneity, and originality—the same language M. H. Abrams uses to define ‘expressive’ poetry in The Mirror and the Lamp,” (Faigly 654). As we learned for Emily’s presentation, Coleridge was a romantic poet and as such finds himself part of Faigley’s essay. “Elbow chose the metaphor of organic growth to describe the operations of composing, that same metaphor Edward Young used to describe the vegetable concept of genius in 1759 and Coleridge borrowed from German philosophers to describe the workings of the imagination,” (Faigley 655). I know I. A. Richards is not classified as romantic poet, but I think that the romantic notion of writing originating with the author relates in a small sense to new criticism. Both views share a slight isolation. Literature should be read by only looking at the written piece, and the generation of writing is solely from the author.

When describing social theory, Faigley points out that most of the studies of social theory are derived from Burke. “I will attempt to identify four lines of research that take a social view of writing, although I recognize these positions overlap and that each draws on earlier work (e.g., Kenneth Burke),” (Faigley, 659). The social view looks at how a writer or writing fits into a society. “The focus of a social view of writing, therefore, is not on how the social situation influences the individual, but on how the individual is a constituent of a culture,” (Faigley, 659). The social view seems to suggest that writing is generated through social situations rather than spontaneously bursting into the authors head. This idea reminded me of Berthoff’s article “Learning the use of Chaos” because we understand our society through language, and Berthoff argued that we form ideas by finding our way out of chaos with language.

Generating Ideas

It seems strange that the focus on the writing process is a somewhat new idea but many past rhetoricians seem to have had the idea tangled amongst their prominent concepts. In Emily’s presentation we learned that there have been many ideas about the stage of invention, and Coleridge was among them with his belief that inspiration flowed through the author. The theory of the necessity of inspiration for writers has been contested by later composition theorists, like Linda Flower. I found that part of our readings included discussions of the writing process. Ann E. Berthoff offers ideas about the writing process at the stage of invention in her article “Learning the Uses of Chaos.” Berthoff’s ideas of the invention stage differ from Coleridge since she suggests that ideas come from language. “We find the forms of thought by means of language and we find the forms of language by taking thought,” (Berthoff, 648). Her ideas, as the title suggests, align with invention from chaos. “…they can find ways out of chaos because language creates them. Language itself is the great heuristic,” (Berthoff, 648). Berthoff does offer a small connection to Coleridge when discussing gaining ideas from the writing of others. “If the authors is saying X, how does that go with the Y we heard him saying in the preceding chapter or stanza?” (Berthoff, 650). This reminded me of Coleridge’s idea of taking two opposite things and creating a metaphor. Finding the connections between chapters and stanzas are generally not that difficult, but I think they both offer ideas about finding connections to generate ideas.

It also seemed that Coleridge may have shown some concern about the suppression of voices that didn’t fit what would have been considered standard. I think Linda Brodkey offered ideas on the same subject in her article “On the Subjects of Class and Gender in ‘The Literacy Letters.’” Brodky examined the correspondence between middle-class teachers and working class students in an “Adult Basic Education” class. What Brodkey noticed was some of the teachers struggled to steer the correspondence and avoid topics that seemed uncomfortable to them. “Don’s response is characteristic of the kind of discursive uneasiness that arises whenever one of the students interrupts the educational practice deems such working-class concerns as neighborhood violence irrelevant,” (Brodkey, 638).

Brodkey’s findings seem to suggest a concern for the isolation of the writing classroom from the real world. She states that the teachers weren’t trying to be crude, but were presenting “…a view that insists that the classroom is a separate world of its own, in which teachers and students relate to one another undistracted by the classism, racism, and sexism that rage outside the classroom,” (Borkey, 645). I have heard many teachers tell their students to leave their personal issues at the door so it doesn’t interfere with their education. This is faulty because even if they can keep their world out of the classroom it still affects their learning. This relates back to our discussion of gender and cultural studies being forced together and possibly still marginalized. As Brodkey states, “What is ultimately challenged is the ideology that class, and by extension race and gender differences, are present in American society but absent from American classrooms,” (Brodkey, 645).

Restriction in the Compostion Classroom

Restriction seems to be common in composition today as well as in the past. Mary Astell encouraged women of her time to disregard “vanities” and do something meaningful. She urged them to write, but it was commonly accepted that rhetoric was only successful in Latin. This posed a problem because most women on the seventeenth century were not schooled in Latin. Astell combated this notion by making the point that rhetoric was part of their daily lives, so it could be practice in languages other than Latin.

Lisa Gerrard comment on the restriction females still seem to meet today in her essay “Feminist Research in Computers and Composition.” Gerrard states, “Computers have long been precieved as male machines, and computers culture as an exclusive boy’s club,” (Gerrard 186). She attributes this to the male domination in computer advertisements. “An analysis of computer advertisements found images of confident male executives interpreting computer output and women as typists, computer phobics, and bimbos,” (Gerrard 186). Gerrard offers that males’ comfort with technology and computers may stem from exposure as children. Gerrard claims that students often begin their computer experience with games. “Students’ first encounter with computers is likely to be games---games designed for boys,” (Gerrard 188). The games target males rather than females, but Gerrard acknowledges that manufacturers have begun to target female audiences. It does seem that women of today are considered masculine if they are competent with computers just as the women of Astell’s day who practiced eloquence would have been. I think that computer use has come along way though because there are many women quite competent in computer use, but I think Gerrard’s article does speak to the need to pay attention to gender in the class as well as culture. Gerrard reminds us “that not all women are oppressed in the same way, that in addition to being female, women may be oppressed because they are lesbian, black, or poor, and that they may---by virtue of being white, heterosexual, or middle-class—be members or groups that oppress other women, (Gerrard 190).

In “The Persistence of Difference in Networked Classrooms: Non-negotiable Difference and the African American Student Body,” by Todd Taylor, the oppression of Standard English is acknowledged. Taylor tracked three students to prove this claim. Stephanie whose “…uses primarily a standard, professional (white) dialect,” but lacks computer experience (Taylor 225). Chris who has greater computer skills than Stephanie, he but is “…less comfortable speaking in class…perhaps due to self-consciousness about his predominately black spoken dialect,” (Taylor 225). Felicia use a “…mostly black dialect…” and lacks computer skills like Stephanie (Taylor 225). Taylor focuses more on body language to express confidence and shyness, but I find the shyness of Felicia and Chris due to their dialect interesting. Perhaps Standard English has been stressed so long and so rigidly that it is beginning to become like Latin, away to prevent certain groups from joining scholarly discussion.

Culture, Composition, and Education

After the presentations on Vico, Locke, and Hume, I was impressed by the impact that each of these men had on out current ideas about writing and education and/or the development of our current ideas. All of these men lived more than 200 years ago and their impact is still recognized or even being applied today.

Giambattista Vico’s ideas seem to have been before his time because Johanna stated that he felt his ideas were being sent into a “desert”. After reading “Giambattista Vico” by Maria Teresa Maiullari and hearing the presentation, I felt that many of the current practices in modern education stem from Vicco’s ideas. He emphasized the importance of students taking part in their own education, cross curricular approaches, and the importance of the scholar not separating from his/her society. It is clear the Vico felt students needed to take part in their own education, much as teachers and professors feel today. “He was concerned with transmitting knowledge through the teaching of rhetoric, but he also wanted to start a movement of autonomous self-development in the student,” (Maiullari 1). Vico not only wanted to “transmit” knowledge to his students, but also develop a desire for learning. Vico also made strong claims for cross curricular instruction. “In fact, Vico himself had studied mathematics because it was indispensable to the study of the rules of rhetoric,” (Maiullari, 2). Vico saw that the academic fields relied on each other and recognized the importance of all disciplines. What I found the most interesting was Vico’s recognition that the scholar should not be separated from his/her society so their knowledge will be beneficial to their culture. “The eighteenth-century educator described a distinct group in whom knowledge will come to maturity, but this group is in favor of diffusing its knowledge among all men,” (Maiullari, 4). This view may have developed in Vico due to the importance he placed on culture. I believe he would he have wanted learning and knowledge to reflect and benefit the culture. The knowledge must be beneficial to student as well as the culture, and to do that Vico claims the knowledge must become wisdom and in turn arrive at virtue.

Hume also had ideas about the importance of virtue and culture. Hume lived in a time of a growing middle class and a growing number of women readers which would be beneficial to his work of writing histories. Still, Hume was not without competition because a new genre was developing, the novel. To gain an edge over the developing genre, Hume maintained the Histories were virtuous and novels were not. “…history provided the best way of becoming ‘acquainted with human affairs, without diminishing in the least from the most delicate sentiments of virtue,” (Wootton, 281). Even though the thought is outdated Hume still shows concern for virtue in writing and study. Being a historian Hume would have been concerned with his culture. David Wootton explains that Hume’s works included histories of England and Scotland. Hume wasn’t only concerned with his native, Scottish, culture but the English as well. I think he does establish a strong sentiment for culture when he changed the spelling of his last to reflect the proper Scottish pronunciation. I think one of Hume’s strongest influences was the ideas of histories ability to change and be reestablished.

Locke also offered important notes on culture when he presented the idea of knowledge forming from experience. He also allowed for meanings of words to change according to culture and time.