Monday, October 10, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You make a very good point. You can't build before first knowing what you're building on to.
ReplyDeleteYou have to be the wise man who built his house upon the rock, not the foolish man who built his house upon the sand.
On the one side, it is great that a student's capacity for imagination and self-expression was stressed here, yet on the other side, the cost for such ideals was, for me, too high to perceive the "prescriptive approach to writing as dull and unnatural" (36).
I believe in the idea that you have to first learn the rules for writing before you can intentionally break them, and do well by it.
The field of composition does have "a worthy past which should be consulted before being consigned to oblivion (2)" (Kinneavy, 37).