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.

Building on History

In “Rediscovering the Lost Art of Researching The History of Rhetoric,” Richard Leo Enos discusses the importance of returning to a “humanist scholarship”. Enos claims that research has drifted from looking at mostly primary sources to looking at commentary and suggests looking at the history of rhetoric will help to reclaim research as it has been practiced in the past. Enos provides examples of primary sources being or nearly being ignored. This is dangerous because the expulsions of primary sources prevents the development of knew ideas and approaches. Enos’s claims are supported by articles by Edwar Corbett, Maxine Hairston, and James Kinneavy in their articles in Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric to Practical Reasoning.

Corbett, Hairston, and Kinneavy show cultures have built on the ideas of the past and that important techniques are often lost, misunderstood, or ignored. In “The Topoi Revisited,” Corbett argues that Latin rhetoricians built on Greek ideals while applying their own approaches. This shows the importance of researching the history of rhetoric to discover new approaches. The Latin Rhetoricians used their ideas of rhetoric along with the Greek’s to create a stronger form. Corbett uses the topics to prove that generations of rhetoricians have built on ideas from past practices. Quintilian borrows the topics from Aristotle. “Quintilian especially thought of the topics as a valuable training device for callow pupils aspiring to be eloquent orators, but it is also clear that he hoped the maturity that came with experience would wean the pupils from this rather mechanical system of heuristics,” (pg. 46 Corbett). Corbett claims that Aristotle used the topics to organize rhetorical arguments where Quintilian used the topics to teach students rhetoric, but didn’t expect them to continue the practice with the topics. The building on past forms continues through the Renaissance and all the way to Kenneth Burke where Corbett links the dramatistic method to Latin rhetoricians. “Burkes pentad (act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose) for instance, could be viewed as a version of the series of questions like Quis, Quid, Quando, Quomodo, Quare, that the Latin rhetoricians used as topoi when discussing a particular person,” (Corbett 55). In looking at the history of rhetoric Corbett noted how rhetoric has been strengthened by each generation of rhetoricians contributing ideas or alternate approaches.

Hairston and Kinneavy each explore a technique of rhetoric that has been neglected due to inappropriate use, and/or oversimplification. Hairston focuses on enthymeme. She claims that enthymeme is an important method in Aristotle’s Rhetoric that is no longer used by composition and rhetoric teachers because it is misunderstood. It seemed that considering enthymeme dealt with the audience for word choice and how structure. Enthymeme works with some audiences due to beliefs, purpose and time. The notion of time relates directly to Kinneavy’s subject, which was kairos. Kineavy argues that the common definition of kairos doesn’t define the term completely. Kairos is more than the importance of timing, is also incorporates ethics and art. “Levi begins his article on kairos in Plato with this statement ‘the concept of kairos, as we have often observed, is both an ethical and an aesthetic concept,’” (Kinneavy 91). In art and writing what is ethical to a society would be represented as good or “beautiful” like in Greek times. The argument must not only appeal to time but the audience’s ethics as well.

The three articles in Rhetoric and Praxis support Enos’s ideas about using the history of rhetoric to return to “The Art of Research” by revealing the impact of past practices on modern rhetoric and neglected and oversimplified terms. We must explore what has been to continue the growth of rhetoric and discover forgotten and new methods and attempt new approaches.

It's All About the Audience

In Perelman’s “The Social Contexts of Argumentation,” Perelman begins by noting the difference between argumentation and demonstration. "It consists in taking as a starting-point a technical distinction between demonstration and argumentation and in deriving consequences of a sociological order from the very conditions in which all argumentation, an any particular argumentation subjected to examination, is put forward," (Perelman, The Social Contexts of Argumentation, 252). He maintains that a difference between argumentation and demonstration must be noted for the practice of argumentation to be examined. Perelman seems to consider argumentation as a more refined art than demonstration. “Demonstrative proof, consisting as it does solely in this transition from premises to conclusion, seems to evade social conditioning,” (Perelman, 252). It seems there is little to consider in regards to audience when using demonstration. On argumentation, Perelman says, “The result of --an essential fact for the sociologist--is that the development of all argumentation is a function of the audience to which it is addressed and to which the speaker is obliged to adapt himself," (Perelman, 252). When argumentation is the method, the speaker or writer must consider his or her audience. Perelman warns against the “universal audience,” claiming one does not exist, so the speaker must account for his or her audience’s differences. In demonstration, it seems this would not be a concern for the speaker.

As Perelman presents demonstration and argumentation, it seems that he finds demonstration more practical and argumentation grounded in theory and concept. “The outlook of argumentation, unlike that of demonstration, does not make it possible entirely to separate thought from action, and it is easy to understand that argumentation should sometimes be favored, sometimes banned and often regulated by those who hold power or authority in society,” (Perelman, 253). Thought is required in argument, but not necessarily in demonstration. Perelman also hints at the strength of argumentation claiming that it may on occasion need to be “regulated” or even “banned” by authoritative figures. This statement reminds me of the articles about the history of Greek rhetoric and how it was banned in Rome for a time because it was viewed as dangerous.

Perelman suggests that argumentation hinges on two aspects, ethos and audience. I think Perelman would argue that these two items are the same. “In order to speak it is necessary in a great many cases to have some qualification, to be a member or representative of some group,” (Perelman, 253). This is ethos. What qualifications does the speaker need to have in order for the audience to have confidence in what he or she has to say? This still relates back to the audience. The speaker is constantly searching for ways to move his or her audience. In a sense the audience holds power over the speaker as the speaker must reach the audience’s expectations before he or she can convince the audience of anything.

The speaker must even determine word choice according to the audience: “The effective exercise of argumentation assumes a means of communication, a common language, without which there can be no contact of the minds,” (Perelman, 253). The language chosen to convey the argument must be satisfactory to the audience or the argument will never be communicated. These ideas made me think of what Dr. Souder said about Frederick Douglas and how he changed everything from his words to his clothes to suit his audience. So I would agree with Perelman about the importance of the audience when constructing one’s argument. I liked the brief history on rhetoric and how each culture adapted or abandoned the practice. It is like Perelman says it is important to look at the culture and history of a subject and audience when composing an argument. I don’t think leaving rhetoric to literature is actually abandoning it though because it is trying to communicate to an audience as well.

Perelman rests the successful practice of argumentation squarely on the shoulders of considering one’s audience. This can also relate to the teaching of writing. How often is teaching presented through demonstration rather than argumentation? Can demonstration by Perelman’s definition be a successful method of teaching if we do not consider the audience (the students)?