RESPONSE

Lacy-I can never post a comment, so I have to do a post:

I think you will be fabulous in Rhetoric and Composition; best of luck to you Lacy!!!

Comp and Rhetoric

      To be honest, I think this is such an interesting topic and I wish we had more time in the semester to discuss it! To cut to the chase, I'd like to discuss a section of the reading that I really liked. On page 175, the authors say "we believe that the work of rhetoric and composition can best proceed not only through questions of definition and relations between definitions, but also, and more important, through questions of the histories and conditions of that work, including efforts to shape rhetoric and composition and the institutional reception of those efforts." All too often, it seems that people believe that rhetoric is dependent on composition and vice-versa; however, I see the two areas as independent focuses that go hand in hand with one another. For example, one could study the rhetoric of a speech --to me, the spoken word is not composition as we have restricted the definition to writing.  Also, one could study composition through teaching methods, concerning themselves little with the history, definition, or social context of the word or text. When the two focuses meet, however, they complement each other wonderfully. 

       On a closing note, I have absolutely loved this class! I actually plan on pursing a master's in Rhetoric and Composition, so this class was the perfect introduction. One thing that I will definitely take away from this class is that we should never stop questioning what we read. There are always questions and additional purposes once you break the surface of the text. And, no matter what, there will always be another there to challenge you and expand your way of thinking. 

        Good luck to everyone on their finals and have a wonderful Winter Break! I will probably see most of you in one class or another next semester.  :) 

A Response to William Covino

Trying to decipher Covino's writing was such a chore; my focus remained more on his interesting, but more appropriately confusing, sentence structure, that I had a difficult time trying to actually find meaning in this article. There was a part that I eventually riddled out, though. On pages 37-38, Covino discussed the transition of rhetorical pedagogy from it's historical rich teachings of the 1970's and 1980's, to it's newly found emphasis on global application of the 1990's. This leaves room for controversy: what should we focus on in 21st century pedagogy? Covino cites several arguments that petition for a stronger emphasis on the classics: a petition which I'm personally inclined to agree with. Though educators should cover global applications of rhetoric in their classroom, it does not hold the same meaning if the classics, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Cicero, are not covered first; for what is the value of rhetoric if you do not have a firm grip its basic components? Some may complain that these authors are so often quoted and referenced that there is no genuine need to actually read their works; however, if one is to pass over them entirely, they may possibly have a more difficult time analyzing the more modern works thoroughly.  

comment on Lacy's James Berlin post

I do agree with you about the collaboration process with peers in a classroom setting. I am in Armstrong's Eng. 3360, Magazines and Trade Journals class. Group discussion is the main source for our writing, and to an extent, it does help a lot in understanding the reader and what needs to be fixed in the document. But, the way Berlin put it, it reminded me of the way peer reviewing could have its downside. Groupthink was an excellent example, but I first thought that it stresses other people’s opinions above your own, and who’s to say they won’t bring in their own biases and their socially constructed ways of viewing the world?

Response to "Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories"

This reading was refreshing and, in my opinion, exactly what we needed after midterms. It successfully transitioned our train of thought from strictly rhetorical theory to pedagogical theory. There were so many responses I had for this reading, I'm now not sure where to begin. Oh well, I guess I'll just structure my response by the order in which the thoughts come to me!

- First, I'd like to quickly discuss a quote from page 236. "Pedagogical theories in writing courses are grounded in rhetorical theories..." In brief, I believe this statement to be 100% true. In order to teach writing, you must first understand it's philosophical origins, for only then, can you as the teacher, as well as the students, build from the complex, yet strong foundations of rhetoric to produce quality writing. 

- Second I want to discuss a quote from page 236. "To teach writing is to argue for a vision of reality, and the best way of knowing and communicating it." Being English majors, it's quite clear we've taken a considerable amount of composition classes. What do all of these classes, from English 1010 on, have in common? They all share the common goal of communicating effectively through the written word. The goal of writing is to expose your readers to a way of thought that may have not considered otherwise. I believe it was Cicero who argued that in order to speak (or in this case, write) effectively, the author must be knowledgeable on the subject they are speaking on. Once we have the power of knowledge on a topic, we then must know how to communicate it effectively with our audience. What good is all the knowledge you have if you can't share it with others effectively? When a teacher teaches how to write, they are showing the student's how to use the knowledge they already have to acquire a deeper understanding and, eventually, how to produce a document that will communicate their understanding and vision clearly. 

- Third, I would like to negate the Expressionist pedagogical approach of Cole  as discussed on page 242. Cole encourages class room discussion while writing papers. While collaborative revising is a good strategy for identifying errors, I believe that it strips the argument of personally developed truth. In contrast to my argument, Expressionist thinkers believe that truth can only be arrived after the writer has conversed with their peers, for group input can eliminate "what is untrue to the private vision of the writer." If group input is stressed too much, then the writer is then risking the content of their work by submitting to groupthink (an event in which most, if not all, members of a group arrive and pursue the same way of thinking). 

- Fourth, I wanted to end my response with my favorite quote from the reading. The New Rhetoric is an innovative way to approach writing. This rhetorical theory celebrates the writer's thought's and involvement in their work. Under this theory, the writer is the creator of truth rather than just a mere tool for communicating an available truth. I'd like to conclude with my favorite quote from the reading. 

"When you write, you don't follow somebody else's scheme; you design your own. As a writer, you learn to make words behave the way you want them to... Learning how to write is not a matter of learning the rules that govern the use of the semicolon of the names of the sentence structures, nor is it a matter of manipulating words; it is a matter of making meanings, and that is the work of an active mind." From 7th grade on, it seems that teachers stress the importance of the structure and regulation of writing, that they completely forget to emphasize the reason for writing: to create meaning. 

 

Kenneth Burke- From a "Grammar of Motives"

For the most part, I found this reading to be rather straight forward. One question that arose during my reading was "what are the limits of agency?" The reading defines agency as the means or instruments used to assist the agent in his/her action (p. 1298). The examples of agency provided were mostly physical objects, such as on the bottom of page 1301 where a "file" is used to assist the agent escape. Burke further elaborates on agency in the bottom of the second column on page 1301 in claiming that the hand itself, which holds the file, is an agent as well. Going back to my original question: what are the limits of agency? From the writing, it appears that agency is limited to physical objects; however, I believe that agency can extend to sensations or other non-tangible assistants.  For example, instead of the hero in the reading using a file or his own hand to assist him, he could have used strength or knowledge to help him escape.

The Book of the Cities of Ladies

 It is interesting to see the the treatment of women in past years. What I found most interesting about this read was the desire of men to keep women uneducated. Though they would morally benefit from it, it seemed that men were nervous of what could come of such schooling. It is also argued that women have done much good in society. Therefore, I wonder why anyone would want to hinder such positive progression.

I have thought, too, of Hitler. His oratory skills were salve to a broken and downtrodden Germany--and led to one of the most hideous travesties in modern history. So my question for rhetoricians who speak of rhetoric as justice: When the unjust use rhetoric (such as Hitler), is it not rhetoric? Is it only true rhetoric when used justly? And if so, who decides what is just and unjust?

Quintilian from Institutes of Oratory

I thought Quintilian's approach to finding a suitable definition for "oratory" was, perhaps, too in depth, but interesting all the same. Though his final definition of oratory- the art of speaking well- was vague, it was perfectly appropriate because oratory itself is vague in it's application. It certainly is not restricted to persuade  when discussing affairs of the state. As I see it, you can just as easily give an oratory on the importance of not wearing white after Labor Day as you can on foreign diplomacy. Also, oratory is not a practice that is limited to the just or truthful either. Adolf Hitler, who is as far from just and truthful as a person can be, is considered one of the greatest orators history has ever seen. When it all boils down, oratory is an unrestricted art that is almost always used by the speaker to gain power or advantage in society.

Aristotle... basically everything we read that wasn't from Book 1

Reading the various selections from Aristotle's work On Rhetoric raised  a new thought on how the rhetoric can be used to reach a judgement. The thought I would like to address is how the audience uses rhetoric to further shape their own judgement. The opening line of Book 2 Chapter 18 is "Since the use of persuasive speech is directed to a judgement (there is no further need of speech on subjects that we know and have already judged)". In order for people to reach a judgement, they must listen to speakers who present on both sides of topic. As a result, most emphasis is put on the speaker which forces the reader to forget about the audience. The speaker presents a well researched, carefully worded opinion in a well rehearsed manner, but that does not mean that their word alone shapes the judgement of the audience. In most cases, the audience (who is of free thought) has the ability to use the power of rhetoric to reach their own judgment. In open forums or debates, the speaker will usually give their oration and then will open the floor to questions. The power of rhetoric has now shifted to audience in the forms of rebuttals and questions. A speaker may have the audience fully convinced that their opinion is the correct judgement, but one carefully worded rebuttal or question could completely destroy the argument or the speaker's credibility.

Gorgias, Encomium of Helen Response

For Tuesday's blog, I wanted to focus on a comparison of two statements from Gorgias' Encomium of Helen.  By using the power of speech as one of his proving points, Gorgias explains why Helen is innocent of the blame put upon her. Gorgias argues that though the claims made in a speech may not always be true, it can still impact the audience in the way that their emotions are manipulated to view a subject in a certain way. Near the end of this proof, Gorgias compares speech to a drug, in that as a drug dispersed in the body can either improve or diminish the physical well-being of a person, speech has the same influence over the mind as it can cause pain or happiness and all emotions in between (13, 14). Earlier in the passage, Gorgias' claims that since most people are  not experts on all subjects and usually don't seek such extensive expertise, the often turn to the opinions of others and accept them as truth (11). The comparison of these two passages demonstrates the undeniable power of speech. From this, we can draw that our emotions are rarely influenced by truth, but often, we are persuaded to act on untruthful opinions, which time and time again, has proven disastrous.

General Introduction Responce

While reading the introduction, I really enjoyed reading the history of rhetoric. One thing I found interesting was under audience analysis when Aristotle said that people are out to seek their own self interest. Throughout the Medieval rhetoric section, I thought that that proved true with the Christian Church and their disregard for Pagan rhetoric. Also, I found Bacon's argument that human knowledge is only a version of the objective truth because it is blurred with bias proves true with today's media and literature. It seems today that we have to take what we read with a grain of salt because the media has cemented the reputation as being a slanted and untrustworthy source of information.