Ben Wharram
The Role of Rhetoric in First-Year Composition
In 2003 there was a surge of attention toward the role of rhetoric in the public and academic world. This attention created several different viewpoints and theories that did not all coincide, opening the discussion for determining the best approach for refreshing rhetoric into classroom curriculum. Specifically, this debate looked at what kind of rhetoric was being taught in first-year composition (FYC) courses and how this pedagogy had developed over the past 50 years. In this literature review I will analyze and compare the standpoints of several key voices in the conversation from the special volume of Encultration Volume 5, No. 1, in addition to providing my own reasoning that rhetorical practice is still in fact a major part of secondary education in my experience and also my understanding of problem at hand. In the discussion there are a variety of well-defined viewpoints that I will structure thematically. First are those that believe that rhetoric has gone stale and is now either misunderstood or completely left out of the discussion. This side is taken by several scholars in the field, such as Sharon Crowley, Christine Farris, and Cynthia Haynes. These arguments will then be countered by other scholars such as Krista Ratcliffe and Susan Jarratt, who claim that rhetoric does still in fact play a large and effective role in public and academic discourse, and that its understanding may have simply changed with the turn of the millennium. My research will then turn to two more modern perspectives from the field of Rhetoric and Composition, in order to analyze where the conversation has gone in the time between.
To begin, many rhetoric and composition scholars at the time that Encultration Volume 5, No. 1 was released were concerned about rhetoric's perceived marginalization in our field. In particular, this marginalization was coming from a lack of classical rhetoric in the FYC course. While many scholars believed that rhetoric needed to be refreshed into the curriculum, the methodology on how was not as clear. First, Professor Christine Farris, in her essay "Where Rhetoric Meets the Road: First-Year Composition" (2003), argues that while the terms "rhetoric" and "composition" have withheld an academic working relationship with one another for decades within the field, rhetoric it seems has fallen through the cracks in recent years. Farris, who has an extensive background as an English scholar, reflects on her own experience in several different English programs. She initially looks at rhetoric's role in undergraduate courses that she was enrolled in at the University of Washington, and explains that it was generally understood why and how this relationship between rhetoric and composition worked. Course material covered Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and then applied their theories to other coursework in the form of composition practice. Farris continues to explain that because of the research of well-known rhetoric and composition scholars of the time, students were aware of how the two terms came to be in partnership with one another. More importantly, students could not possibly progress throughout the entirety of their undergraduate coursework without encountering rhetoric and composition in at least a few classes. Farris compares this experience to a more recent memory, flashing forward about 30 years to her role as professor. When helping a graduate student select his reading list, he stated that he had envisioned his work connecting rhetoric and composition, as if this were a new concept. This struck Farris as peculiar, not only because of her own experience drawing a connection between the two but because this seemed like a brand-new concept to the student, who again, was organizing graduate-level coursework. This immediately raised the question: What has happened to rhetoric's obvious role in the classroom over the past few decades? Farris answers this question by explaining that the first step in this marginalization was when English programs began teaching composition from Susan Miller's "Neoclassical account" of composition's historical beginnings in ancient rhetoric, which, reduced to mere style. Farris continues "We were recuperating this ancestry for the battle between 'bad' prescriptive form-bound rhetoric and 'good' student- and audience-friendly rhetoric."
Sharon Crowley's essay "Composition is Not Rhetoric" (2003) serves as a response to Christine Farris, as she affirmatively states that rhetoric's marginalization in the field has been caused by many modern FYC courses do not addressing or including rhetoric in their curriculum. She claims that simply the fact that students can complete advanced degrees in English without ever coming across a textbook on rhetoric, as we saw from Christine Farris' first-hand experience, is proof that English programs are not up to par with rhetorical practice. Crowley continues, saying that because classical rhetoric is not taught in FYC classrooms and that mainstream composition journals do not feature many pieces on rhetoric, and furthermore that the importance of classical rhetoric is becoming obsolete. To an audience of current and aspiring English scholars, this sounds like a more extreme version of Farris' explanation that rhetoric has simply gone "plastic" in the field of late. Crowley provides an example of this in her article, calling upon evidence Edward P.J Corbett's textbook on classical rhetoric, originally published in 1965. The textbook defines rhetoric as a theoretical foundation for teaching composition in the FYC course. Crowley claims that while is this book is "still in use among graduate students, [the] book has never been widely used in the first-year course for which it was intended." Crowley does this to show that the strategies used in the past for the instruction of rhetoric in FYC have become artifacts only studied in graduate-level coursework.
Next, Cynthia Haynes enters the debate and puts forth a similar understanding of the problem at hand but offers a different approach to the explanation and analysis of it. In her essay "Rhetoric/Slash/Composition" (2003), Haynes asserts that the terms "rhetoric" and "composition" will be forever reliant on one another as a result of decades of scholars intertwining the two terms together. The author centralizes her piece on the slash mark between the two terms and how it came to be, and explains that the connection between the terms has resulted in both the rise and downfall of each. Haynes elaborates on this theory by first acknowledging clear evidence of the beneficial relationship the terms have had together in first-year composition (FYC) courses in the past. This reinforces points made in both Farris and Crowley's essays. Haynes then transitions however to explain that although rhetoric may have once been the more dominant of the two as far as recognition within the field, composition now holds the driving role between the two, leaving rhetoric's role in the dark. Haynes credits this role reversal to the implication of technology to academic discourse. Rhetoric/composition, she explains, has had to embrace technology into the field, which has more so caused a highlighting of the importance of composition than marginalized rhetoric. She goes one step further in fact, questioning why "technology and composition" do not hold the same virgule-separated stature (as rhetoric/composition) when studied together. Hayne's article both acknowledges and explains the conjunctive and disjunctive facets rhetoric/composition, in order to clarify not only the importance and relevance of each, but to also explain how the field has adapted to satisfy the needs of a constantly changing world.
A similar approach to Haynes' analysis of rhetoric's lost role come from Bill Bolin in his essay "The Role of the Media in Distinguishing Composition from Rhetoric" (2003). Bolin asserts that there is a "lost responsibility" among FYC instructors as far as including rhetorical study and practice into the curriculum. Bolin builds off of Richard Weaver's "Language is Sermonic" (1963). In his analysis, Bolin theorizes that society as a whole has "become too readily seduced by the idea that everything of consequence can be observed and measured, that everyone, along with the school children of the 1950s, is rushing toward science and math at the expense of the humanities." This lust for quantitative results and concrete, tangible evidence, dating as far back as the 1950's, has resulted in a decline in the understood importance of rhetoric as it pertains to composition and the academic world. Bolin draws comparisons on a more modern approach, specifically Sharon Crowley's stance on rhetoric in the FYC course, and claims that the injustice for rhetoric in the academic world has been caused by the public's expectation and need for tangibles in order to measure academic success. Contributing factors to this expectation include A-F grading scales and standardized testing. This article covers a wide range of examples to show that English programs are still, as Richard Weaver stated in 1963, employing non-expert "fringe people" (adjunct faculty, graduate students, etc.), to teach a prestigious academic art such as rhetoric in FYC. As a result, students are missing out on the rigorous and dedicated approach needed to become scholars and experts in the field.
This is a common trend however in English programs however, and it is a result of the field's continued push to teach "composition studies" instead of rhetoric and composition as one course. In her essay "The Current State of Composition Scholar/Teachers: Is Rhetoric Gone or Just Hiding Out?" (2003), Krista Ratcliffe presents her experience at the field's College Composition and Communication Conference, where she was one of many among her colleagues to notice the absence of "rhetoric" in the ongoing debate on composition studies. However, Ratcliffe is unlike some of the other scholars. Ratcliffe was aware that rhetoric was being marginalized, as made clear by the C's and scholars throughout the field, but the question she began asking was how much? To find out, Ratcliffe and her small group of colleagues began looking at graduate composition programs to see if classical rhetoric had made the cut. They also looked at the field's leading scholarly journals to see if there was a focus on rhetoric and its development. What Ratcliffe found contradicted the raucous fears of the scholars before her. The results showed, for both graduate programs as well as the field's leading composition journals, that there was and still is a commitment to the development and application of rhetoric in academic and professional discourse. Because however there were gaps in the group's research, Ratcliffe acknowledged their slightly flawed methodology. However, their research does still show that rhetoric is still theorized and practiced upon despite the common perception that suggests "composition studies" has taken over and minimized rhetorical practice in the field.
Ratcliffe's essay is one of the few voices that does not seem to be over concerned about the future of rhetoric in the field. Susan Jarratt is another one of these voices that aims to calm the headlines of a breakup between the biggest partnership in the field's history. In her essay "Rhetoric in Crisis?: The View from Here" (2003), Jarratt firmly states that although there have been recent claims of rhetoric's waning relevance, particularly in first-year composition (FYC) courses, rhetorical studies are very much alive and thriving today in both public and academic space. Jarratt does her own research, looking for evidence of the furthering and development of rhetoric in dozens of journals, newspapers, and magazines aimed at both public and academic audiences. Jarratt does however acknowledge the evidence of these counter claims of waning relevance within the field itself, submitting that even as a rhetoric/composition scholar she has never studied or taught in a department that was built around the fundamentals of rhetoric, that included its histories, theories, and practices. Nonetheless, Jarratt explains that this does not constitute a crisis. This article directly responds to some of the more extreme claims made about rhetoric being dead and obsolete, in order to limit what she refers to as "unproductive breast-beating." Jarratt is likely the most relaxed scholar in this debate, and comes off as well-versed in the theories of both Ratcliffe and Haynes. Jarratt seems confident that simply the partnership between rhetoric and composition is enough to keep either relevant in times where the other plays a more dominant role, and that now is simply an example of rhetoric possibly taking a "backseat role" to composition.
Of course, these voices are all from the same year and special edition of Encultration (2003) which directed focus onto the question of rhetoric's importance. But a lot can change in just a few short years. Moving forward in the conversation, there are still varied opinions on how significant a role rhetoric should play in first-year composition. The next piece that I came across is similar to the voices heard throughout this debate in the past, although the theory embraces the aforementioned "composition studies" as the FYC course. Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle, in their essay "Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning “First-Year Composition†as “Introduction to Writing Studies†(2007). In the discussion, the authors reflect on their time as English instructors and further argue that because there has historically been debate on the content of first-year composition, they feel confronted by the field's extensive calling into question of their "cornerstone course." Furthermore, Downs and Wardle acknowledge the public misconceptions about the kind of writing that takes place in the academic setting, and state that as a result it is time for a new first-year course to be implemented, to clear up any confusion about the goals at hand for writing professors. The authors describe intended outcomes for the new course, "Introduction to Writing Studies" and explain how it resolves confusion from the past. The course, Downs and Wardle go on, aims to "improve students’ understanding of writing, rhetoric, language, and literacy in a course that is topically oriented to reading and writing as scholarly inquiry and that encourages more realistic conceptions of writing." The authors propose that this finite description improves upon that of FYC, as it does not attempt to teach "universal academic discourse" as defined in the previous course. Through their own personal accounts, the authors of this article declare that it is simply impossible to successfully instruct this practice to an oversized class in any given semester. For this reason, Downs and Wardle set forth their plan for the first-year writing class that focuses on a realistic approach for instructing rhetoric, style, literacy and language to students that are new to secondary education.
Generally, the consensus among English scholars and rhetoricians is that rhetoric belongs in the classroom and is an efficient mode of creating better writers. However, there are still some who believe that rhetoric is simply a politically charged word tossed around by English professors looking for job security. "Stop Using Rhetoric to Teach Writing" (2008), by Joseph Kugelmass, argues that Aristotelian rhetoric is outdated and has no place in the classroom. Kugelmass speaks directly against the grain, of other scholars in the field, stating that when critical thinking developed into rhetoric, students and teachers and society as a whole became non-objective. By this, Kugelmass is saying that rhetoric being brought into the classroom eliminated the need for critical reasoning. With rhetoric, everything has a taxonomy to it, a classification into one of Aristotle's ethos, logos, pathos which took away the negative attention to texts that critical thinking brought to the conversation. Kugelmass received quite a bit of backlash from this piece (the active comment section on the academic page it is hosted is only the beginning). In general, other scholars in the field did not seem convinced by Kugelmass' own critical reasoning, and some even publicly reply their disapproval.
As an aspiring English scholar, I find myself somewhere in between the cross-talk. It appears to me, having progressed through first-year composition years after these claims have been made, that rhetoric has made its way out of hiding, at least in my own academic experience. At a larger university I attended, attention was paid in great detail to the 5 canons of classical rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Students were required to be creative in the classroom and in their writing. Prompts called for evidence from personal experience, and also challenged students to think about who they were addressing and how they should address them. However, this was a subconscious study of rhetoric. At the time, I had no idea why we were practicing writing in this way. Although it did help my overall style, arrangement and confidence as a writer, I felt that this first-year class did not completely explain where these practices came from or how they would turn me into a better writer. This, I believe, is a result of the lack of experience held by the graduate student that ran the course. Though this student was well-versed in the curriculum of FYC, I blame a lack of expertise for this unorganized practice. For this reason, I have a personal understanding for Bill Bolin's definition of "fringe people" in English departments.
It was not until I transferred to a smaller institution that I began to understand the method being used. For this reason, I think that it is important that students truly understand why they are studying the theories at hand. I was not particularly surprised by Krista Ratcliffe's experience with a graduate student suggesting that rhetoric and composition had roots with one another. I think that had I stayed at my prior university, I would have likely run into this conclusion on my own at some point or another, rather than having the information being taught and understood for such reasoning.
As for rhetoric's should-be role in first-year composition, I believe that Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle have a particularly focused vision of how to carry out the instruction of their proposed alternative to FYC, Introduction to Writing Studies. The authors of this article declare that it is simply impossible to successfully instruct rhetorical practice, along with the other tangible expectations that go into teaching academic discourse. After analyzing a number of opinions on the first-year writing course, I too am convinced that it is impossible to meet the mark in adhering to the endless expectations. It seems that there are far more examples of finger pointing than brainstorming a solution, and Downs and Wardle provide an excellent suggestion for the future of the first-year composition course.
There are several reasons why I favor the proposed course by Downs and Wardle. The first conclusion that I myself arrived at when constructing a literature review on the subject was that there are far too many voices in this conversation for all needs to be universally met by a first-year writing course. I felt that there must be some way to synthesize classical rhetoric into the curriculum while still catering to advancements in technology, diverse classrooms, fringe faculty, and so many more so-called obstacles that needed to be overcome. While there are those that do not support rhetoric in the classroom, I find myself among those who appreciate and value rhetoric for its artistic and inventive nature, while also respecting rhetoric for the power of persuasion that it brings to all kinds of discourse in our everyday lives. Rhetoric should continue to be taught and encouraged in its entirety, especially in entry-level college writing courses, as it is utilized on a grand scale in public, academic, social, and political discourse each day.
Works Cited
Bolin, Bill. "The Role of the Media in Distinguishing Composition from Rhetoric."
Enculturation vol. 5, no. 1, (Fall 2003): http://enculturation.net/5_1/bolin.html
Crowley, Sharon. "Composition is Not Rhetoric." Enculturation, vol. 5, no. 1, Fall 2003,
www.encultration.net/5_1/crowley.html. Accessed 26 Nov. 2017.
Downs, Douglas, and Elizabeth Wardle. “Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning ‘First-Year Composition’ as ‘Introduction to Writing Studies.’†College Composition and Communication, vol. 58, no. 4, 2007, pp. 552–584. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20456966.
Farris, Christine. "Where Rhetoric Meets the Road: First-Year Composition." Enculturation vol. 5, no. 1, Fall 2003, http://enculturation.net/5_1/farris.html
Haynes, Cynthia. "Rhetoric/Slash/Composition." Enculturation vol. 5, no. 1, Fall 2003, http://enculturation.net/5_1/haynes.html
Jarratt, Susan. "Rhetoric in Crisis?: The View from Here." Enculturation vol. 5, no. 1 Fall 2003, http://enculturation.net/5_1/jarratt.html
Kugelmass, Joseph. “Stop Using Rhetoric to Teach Writing.†Inside Higher Ed, 23 Dec. 2008, www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/12/23/stop-using-rhetoric-teach-writing.
Ratcliffe, Krista. "The Current State of Composition Scholar/Teachers: Is Rhetoric Gone or Just Hiding Out?" Enculturation vol. 5, no. 1, Fall 2003, http://enculturation.net/5_1/ratcliffe.html