History Bump

What are compositionists, anyway? People who write? People who teach writing? People who are concerned with the relationship of rhetoric to composing (however broadly wrought)? People who know what AWK means or who Dianna Hacker is? I'm mostly just messing around, but I usually feel like folks are talking about different things when we say "compositionists" or "rhetoricians," fwiw. Maybe you've experienced that too?

In class on Thursday it sounded as if some folks thought "composition" had to do with writing pedagogy, and "rhetoric" had to do with everything else connected with writing. In other words, if one wants to study writing, one becomes a rhetorician; if one wants to study the teaching of writing, one becomes a compositionist.

As I said on Thursday, nobody is going to come up with a clean distinction between compositionists and rhetoricians. There are, however, some central tendencies that differentiate them. Composition tends to be concerned with the production of text. At one time that was exclusively print text; now it can include digital or visual texts as well. But the production of print text is at the heart of composition; hence pedagogy is a significant, often dominating, though hardly defining concern. Rhetoric (in the classical sense, anyhow) concerns itself with persuasion, whether written or oral—and now, additionally, visual and digital. In the modern period, rhetoric expands to look at the ways in which our language constructs rather than reflects our beliefs and our sense of facticity—the "rhetorical turn" in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

Obviously these two have considerable overlap; hence people like me who are concerned more with composition than with rhetoric may refer to themselves as "rhetoricians." (Though—significantly—those who are concerned more with rhetoric do not, except for specific purposes, call themselves "compositionists.") And hence Andrea Lunsford, writing in 1991, defines composition studies in such a way that it embraces rhetorical concerns: "[C]omposition studies views composing not as a series of discrete skills or a package of processes to be practiced but as the very way we constitute and know our worlds."

Derek brings up a good point. I used the term rhetorician with KRP and he looked at me and said, "I don't know what that word means." He was half joking, but later in the course he asked the class if we had read or could name any rhetoricians that we study in rhetoric. There may be some rhetors from ages long since past, and you might argue that there are one or two here or there, but the vast majority of what we study comes from other fields. We use lit. crit., philosophy, history, religion, science, etc. This is not to say that these other fields don't borrow as well, but that it may explain, in part, the oft made statement that we don't have a core body of knowledge (not to say that this statement is true).

Becky, one of the things that you also remind me of is that in his history of composition, Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures, Berlin gives the impression that composition, within the English department, is the keeper of modern rhetoric. He doesn't write a whole lot about, or acknowledge very effectively, that rhetoric is still a central part of Communication Studies. I also think it's interesting the ways in which both places here use the term. Many times, as with the title of Berlin's book or Collin's course, we pluralize rhetoric, while I've never heard anyone do that in CRS. I'll certainly have to pay more attention to that, but I think it's a telling distinction if it holds true.

I don't think that anyone in CRS would agree that Connors is fetishizing rhetoric because, while there is a great deal of movement in theories of rhetoric, the people that I know in CRS talk about the canon of rhetoric, which is a well defined and understood thing, and then those pieces that fall outside of the canon, which are no less valued and often help to tell a much richer story. For example, when Dr. Calafell came to tell us about her project on Elvez (the hispanic Elvis impersonator) she was very specific that she was starting from within the canon of rhetoric to see how he intersects, and then moving out to show how rhetoric adapts and adopts differently given the specific situation. Sounds like White's reading of Vico, no?

Anyway, it seems to me that when we start talking about rhetorics (in the plural) we risk losing some of that methodology, and we wind up talking out our asses, like Croce?

I'm reminded all of a sudden of Bartholomae's use of commonplaces and how they create privileged spaces, and I'm not sure that there is a problem with that, though sometimes we treat it as such. Do computer networks and face-to-face networks function differently rhetorically? Absolutely. But we can't find that difference if we don't start from a commonplace. Otherwise, we'll make ill-conceived proclamations that the computer network is somehow "new" (implying totally or universally) when the reality is that it contains some new features, some old features, and some poorly remediated features that all talk to one another in unique ways.

What is CRS, and who is KRP and Dr. Calafell?

CRS is Communication and Rhetorical Studies, formerly known as SpeechCom. KRP is Kendall Phillips. Can't say who Dr. Calafell is, but I remember her being here and talking about this project in a CCR symposium last spring - at least I think that's where it was.

I'm glad to see this thread taking up what it is, because I've been struggling with wanting to post something about this ever since Thursday, and the jist of that is: when we ask whether composition or rhetoric is "privileged" in our program, it begs some questions:

1. When we say "rhetoric" what exactly are we referring to?

2. When we say "program" are we referring to the CCR program or the Writing Program?

I ask the latter because it is too easy to conflate the two, to perceive the CCR program as a part of the Writing Program, when it is not. Though the lines are sometimes hard to find, CCR is a stand-alone program, that, like the English department, offers Teaching Assistantships to teach in the Writing Program. Coming from English as I do, I find that distinction extremely important.

I ask the former for some of the reasons others have already mentioned above, and for a few others of my own. It is a rare course in this program that actually teaches rhetoric. Lois's class in the fall gave us a nice overview of the field of rhetoric, from Plato through the Burke and other more recent folk. But the "rhetoric" courses I've had up to this point fall more into that distinction of "rhetorics of..." than actual courses in the study or learning of rhetoric. We don't learn or practice rhetoric as an art form, don't present speeches, or share "themes" or other work that would resemble for me the actual learning of rhetoric. We study other's writing and take up rhetorical analysis, which comes with its own variety of methods.

So, just to be a bit feisty (or as Dianna has dubbed me, to fulfill my role as a shameless agitator...) I would argue that rhetoric is not privileged in our program. I would further argue some of our faculty members privilege critical theory over just about anything, and it often appears in classes that have "rhetoric" in the title. Cultural Rhetoric sometimes seems to be cultural studies and critical theory.

Derek was right about the jobs that our graduates go on to, that they are composition based, or writing program director aimed. I think this is in part a result of the kinds of jobs that are available (comp/rhet job listings tend to talk a whole lot more about comp than about rhetoric). Most folks hired into English departments are asked to teach different kinds of composition, from FYC to technical writing and other genres in between. But seldom have I seen a posting that asks the candidate to be prepared to teach rhetoric courses.

Connors writes in several places about speech and communication breaking off from English, and rhetoric going with the comm folks. Look at our own school: CCR may be housed with the writing program and part of A&S, but Communication and Rehtorical Studies is part of a different college. That seems worth interrogating on its own. The way rhetoric is taught and discussed in those courses is different than they way we take it up - as evidenced from Ty's posting above and other comments he has made.

So to wind up this very long post, let me just ask that we be a little more careful and a little more precise is furthering this damaging binary of composition and rhetoric. It's bad enough that we have a field still subordinated to "literature" or the critical theory urge of many English departments; we don't need to further divide ourselves. The creation of text, whether written, visual, hybrid, digital, or whatever, is also an exercise in rhetoric. I think we do ourselves more good by seeking the "and" rather than the "or".

Thanks for the pickup, Chris. We've been entertaining and haven't had the opportunity to clarify ourselves. Dr. Calafell is:

BERNADETTE CALAFELL
bcalafel@syr.edu
Assistant Professor
(Ph.D., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)
Her primary research interest lies in the rhetorical and performative struggles to define and redefine Chicana/o and Latina/o identities in private and public cultures, and draws on cultural studies, queer theory, rhetorical criticism, postcolonial studies, intercultural studies, and performance studies. She has published in Voces: A Journal of Chicana and Latina Studies, Text & Performance Quarterly, and Race/Gender/Media: Considering Diversity Across Audiences, Content, and Producers.
Expertise: Latino/a studies, queer theory, and intercultural studies.

(Information courtesy of the CRS Web site.)

She taught some of the classes on the feminist rhetorical theory and is very knowledgable about, and has a wonderful approach to, both bell hooks and Gloria Anzaldua. I highly recommend anyone who reads this and has similar interests to those she innumerates to contact her. She is way cool.

you know what I really hate? When I post something, find typos in it and can't fix it.... apologies around for failure to read my text better before posting it!

Chris says:

But the "rhetoric" courses I've had up to this point fall more into that distinction of "rhetorics of..." than actual courses in the study or learning of rhetoric.

As I was posting my comment here about Dr. Calafell, it occurred to me that "feminist rhetorical theory" is not the same as "feminist rhetorics." I'm not even sure what the latter is, not because I don't believe it exists, but it's one of those all encompassing terms (or seems to be) so actually gleaning a useful definition seems daunting. However, feminist rhetorical theory seems quite evident, at least to me. It is a method of studying of how feminists (predominantly women) employ rhetoric. While this might be a concern of some people in our department, I'm looking at this other thing Chris wrote and the wheels are turning:

I would argue that rhetoric is not privileged in our program. I would further argue some of our faculty members privilege critical theory over just about anything, and it often appears in classes that have "rhetoric" in the title. Cultural Rhetoric sometimes seems to be cultural studies and critical theory.

I find this to be a very astute observation and it really hits home when comparing "feminist rhetorical theory" to "feminist rhetorics." It is the study of how rhetoric functions versus the study of how and why a cultural artifact functions rhetorically. It is "Ancient Rhetoric" versus "Ancient Rhetoric and its Modern Reception." There is quite a bit of value in the cultural studies application of rhetoric, so this is not an argument that "we" are doing it wrong, but the rhetoric in our department, both at the CCR and Writing Program levels, is quite different.

I'm also reminded here of something Beloved Professor asked me over at kubernetes about whether I think this phenomenon is specific to CCR and the Writing Program or if it is wider than that. Let me answer by saying this: rhetoric is not a term frequently used in the hallowed halls from whence I came. I would submit, and I'm drawing this from my impression of the way that Berlin is trying to re-establish rhetoric in English departments, that when Speech departments split from English and took rhetoric with them, rhetoric became a lost focus in English departments, and thus in writing programs. For example, who in our department has a degree in rhetoric as opposed to a comp/rhet or other degree?

So, to end this long comment, there are many major differences between our department (which Chris aptly noted has two branches that function quite differently) and CRS (or Speech Comm). If there weren't we'd be the same department. (I'm actually out on a limb in thinking that writing programs should be part of Communication Studies departments, but that's a mess for another day). The reason the CRS is in the college of Visual and Performing Arts here is mostly politics. First, it's weird (in my experience) to have a Speech Comm and a Comm Studies department separated. Second, if CRS were in A&S, they would give up certain freedoms pertaining to the structure and function of their programs within the university (as part of A&S they would have to participate in a university wide core requirement scheme, for example, and their 90 seat intro lectures would triple or worse). Third, some yutz might get the bright idea that because rhetoric appears in both of our department titles, we can just mush the two together. Some yutz at the hallowed halls from whence I came looked at course goals and learning outcomes and decided that the Communication Studies and English departments should merge. It didn't happen, but it created a tremendous amount of grief and has severly damaged both departments and their rapport with one another.

Ty,

A couple of quick notes. First, I have a degree that, other than my TA training course, didn't involve composition. My degree is a Humanities Ph.D., with tracks in rhetoric and critical theory. My first job was in a department where our courses were rhetoric and professional writing, not composition.

I would also guess that there are other people in the department who were in graduate school at a time when "comp/rhet degrees" weren't particularly available.

Second, one of the reasons I pluralize rhetoric is that I find Paolo Valesio's argument for it fairly convincing in his book Novantiqua, where he suggests "rhetorics" as an analog for "linguistics." Part of my personal def'n for rhetoric involves context, and the claim that certain contexts allow (and disallow) various rhetorical practices. In a given situation, it can be misleading to speak of "rhetoric" when one means "a rhetoric." But then, that's my take. Perhaps this means that I'm "talking out my ass," but then, I feel as though I have some pretty good company in doing so.

My take also isn't as quick to recognize "rhetorical theory" as a substantive or coherent phrase. Again, if rhetorics are contextual, then I have to wonder how effective a "theory," which by necessity abstracts and decontextualizes, about "rhetoric" can actually be. I try to be pretty careful in our class about avoiding the phrase "network theory" for this very reason, although perhaps Watts might be credited with advancing a "theory" of networks in the falsifiable, scientific sense.

Now, this doesn't mean that I won't use the singular, often implicitly capitalized "Rhetoric" or the phrase "rhetorical theory." I don't keep that tight a rein on my vocabulary.

Finally, I suppose I would caution all of you about assuming that there's anything as stable and unchanging as "the program," and that tendencies in particular courses must necessarily embody what "the program" privileges or doesn't. This is not to disparage your experiences or perceptions of what I would loosely call the prevailing mood, but you should recognize that they are not universal, that to speak of "the program" in this way is a convenient myth, a metaphor for what actually happens here.

cgb

C,

I'm always talking out my ass, so welcome to the party if'n that's the case :-)

One of the things that your comment brings to mind is that rhetoric is always contextual; it is called forth by the situation (a la Bitzer). At least, this is how it has always been presented to me. Therefore, I suppose that I see rhetoric as implying the context on which you are drawing a distinction. Am I misreading your ideas about the distinctions between rhetoric and rhetorics?

I'm very impressed by White's definition of theory when he is writing about Vico's law of ricorsi: "a set of laws the utility of which, for predictive purposes, requires specification of the limiting conditions within which those laws apply" (227). This definition, for me, specifies the point that I think you are trying to make, that theories are only useful in and operate within the confines of certain contexts that the theory itself defines. There is a certain self-reflexiveness built into theories that make them inherently unstable. The theory of evolution is not a complete set of assumptions, but the best we've come up with so far to describe the observations we have made about how life on Earth came into existence. And when I write "the theory of evolution" I'm not thinking that there is just one but a group of theories that add to a larger body of knowledge. Unfortunately, I don't have a better way to effeciently imply this set of ideas and concepts than to write "the theory of evolution." So I suppose on one hand I'm struggling with a linguistical problem? And that your distinction of rhetorics might be one way to solve this? (Ouch, brain hurt).

Your last paragraph is also troubling to me because, here in the midst of visiting days, I am reminded of how much the department shifts based upon which of these candidates might actually attend the program and how their interests will shape and influence the work that goes on here, just as the recent addition of faculty modifies the department (both at CCR levels and at Writing Program levels). Also, having been a part-timer, I'm aware of the ever shifting landscape of instructors, and how their experiences (though I suppose I could place myself in this as well) working at different institutions modify and inform their approaches to teaching here, just as what I learned at the institution from whence I came shapes my teaching here (particularly in the different goals the programs invite me to embrace). I suppose what is troubling to me in your comment is that I don't believe that I perceive the program as stable or all-encompassing, but something in the way I'm writing cues you to read it that way, and you are not the first to make that comment. I am interested in working on this "feature" of my writing, so any tips you can offer would be greatly appreciated.