2.First-year writing is a course about which many groups feel compelled to voice their opinion. Do a media search for news about student writing or a “literacy crisis.” What do you find? How are problems with student writing framed? What does this framing tell you about what is most valued when it comes to writing? How might these values be read as gendered?
3.Take a look at several first-year writing program websites around the country. Look at who teaches the courses and how they are categorized (faculty, instructors, TAs). What can you tell about the labor conditions at work? Who does most of the teaching? What is the gender division among teachers or between tenure track and part-time instructors?
Classical Rhetoric as Composition’s Proper Ancestor
During the mid twentieth century, the organization of US universities assumed a formation we’re familiar with today—one divided by disciplines and within those disciplines, sorted by professors’ specialties. With professors occupied by their own research, the bulk of first-year composition teaching fell to TAs and part-time instructors; or, as Richard M. Weaver described the situation in 1963, composition courses were staffed by “just about anyone” who would teach it, including “beginners, part-time teachers, graduate students, faculty wives, and various fringe people” (qtd. in Crowley 119).
With the business of teaching assigned to women and associated with caretaking and drudgery, those interested in professionalizing the field needed to legitimize it by locating something other than teaching at its center. One strategy was to tell a new story about the field’s origins, replacing composition’s ancestry as a fix-it shop for poor student writing with the noble paternal lineage of classical rhetoric. From this thinking emerged what James Berlin dubs “The Renaissance of Rhetoric” or what Susan Miller, through a more critical lens, calls composition’s “neoclassical account” of its history. According to this story, then, the origins of composition exist not in the feminized act of teaching a service course, but in venerated figures like Plato and Aristotle and canonical works of classical rhetoric.
Restoring rhetoric to university education would not only give composition a legitimate history, subject matter, and research area but some scholars believed it would also help revise the focus and purpose of composition instruction, altering the curricular focus from correctness to Aristotelian argument. This movement marks a moment when scholars like Albert R. Kitzhaber, Wayne C. Booth, and Ken Macrorie, from within the field itself, aimed to define the field’s pedagogical and scholarly contours. It connected the teaching of composition to a rich, established tradition that involved careful study and deployment of rhetorical concepts: ethos, logos, audience, purpose, style. Edward P. J. Corbett’s Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student is the best known of this scholarship. Here Corbett sought to reclaim the fifth-century approaches for the contemporary classroom. This system “taught the student how to find something to say, how to select and organize his material, and how to phrase it in the best possible way” (vii). Indeed, this process may resonate with some writing pedagogies you’ve experienced, where you locate a topic, gather research, create an outline to arrange it, and then write the paper.
In Corbett’s textbook, students first focus on “Discovery of Arguments” by practicing thesis formation and ways to “appeal to reason.” They also learn that sometimes it is necessary to appeal to emotion, since Corbett acknowledges that while “rationality is man’s essential characteristic,” man is also moved by “irrational motives” (39). Once students have determined what they want to say, they are led through the process of arrangement: introduction, statement of fact, confirmation, and conclusion. Finally, Corbett addresses issues of style, which range from “grammatical competence,” to “choice of diction,” to sentence structure and word order. At the root of this approach is the belief that rhetoric should occupy the center of composition classrooms because of its omnipresence in our society; students must make and respond to arguments in their daily lives. Corbett also suggests that a rhetorical approach highlights persuasive devices that “come naturally, instinctively to human beings” (30), which could be honed by opportunities to study and practice this activity.
Others, though, highlighted limitations to this tactic. As Miller, as well as C. H. Knoblauch and Lil Brannon, points out, many of these efforts to establish classical rhetoric as a predecessor to modern composition failed to complicate the seemingly generic or universal “rational” subject at its center, who was, in fact, a male subject from the ruling elite. Women in ancient Greece were denied education, literacy, and citizenship, and in fact, weren’t even allowed into the public sphere, let alone to make public arguments. Likewise, this discourse presents “rationalism,” which is foundational to effective persuasion, as a natural human attribute. For instance, in Corbett’s words, “Rationality is man’s essential characteristic” (39). Consequently, alternative ways of knowing or being in the world are easily deemed irrational, alien, or illegitimate.
Feminist scholars have also challenged the idea that practices of classical oratory can simply transfer across centuries, geography, and populations. We see this assumption in Corbett’s treatment of a scene from The Iliad in his textbook. From this text, he argues, the “modern student” learns that “despite the hundreds of years that separate his society from Homer’s, men acted and responded then in much the same way that they do today” (19). Even as the “dominant ideas of society change,” Corbett argues that “the basic human passions and motivations are the same today as they were in Homer’s day” (19). As you’ll see in the chapters ahead, feminist scholars place great emphasis—whether recovering ancient rhetorical texts or addressing contemporary classrooms—on the importance of local contexts and attention to differences within them, thereby disrupting the idea of universal rhetorical strategies or human characteristics.
While ancient rhetorical practices were never widely adopted in the composition classroom, the study of rhetoric would continue to be a vital line of inquiry in the field—one that has often been privileged above composition as a “practical,” feminine classroom subject. For instance, in a survey Theresa Enos conducted in the 1980s on gender and publishing in Composition and Rhetoric, she found a split within “rhetoric” and “composition,” such that scholarship in rhetoric was associated with knowledge production (i.e., the territory of men), while scholarship in composition connoted a focus on pedagogy, and was therefore more open to women.
Beginning in the 1990s, however, feminist scholars began to challenge the notion of a “unified” rhetoric attributed solely to classical male figures and designated as the scholarly territory of male scholars. Feminist conceptions of rhetoric, or “rhetorica,” as Andrea A. Lunsford has dubbed this work, interrupt the “seamless narratives” of the rhetorical tradition, refusing to valorize “one, traditional, competitive, agonistic, and linear mode of rhetorical discourse” (6). Instead, Lunsford writes, feminist rhetoric makes room for multiplicity—for rhetorics—and for “dangerous moves” (often equated with the feminine) such as “breaking the silence, naming in personal terms, employing dialogics, recognizing and using the power of conversation, moving centripetally toward connections and valuing—indeed insisting upon—collaboration” (6). In this way, then, feminist rhetorics extended the texts that comprised (and were taught as) the “rhetorical tradition,” altered accepted rhetorical strategies, and expanded possibilities for writing instruction and practice.
For Writing and Discussion
1.Has education in rhetoric been part of your own learning experience? If so, how would you describe the way rhetoric was represented?
2.Doing a search on the Internet, take a look at several composition programs that espouse a rhetorical focus for their curriculum. In what ways does the program reclaim classical rhetoric? In what ways does it disrupt it or move beyond it?
The Process Paradigm: Composition as a Science
Because the humanities are often deemed “soft” (or feminine) in relation to the “hard” sciences, one way English studies has sought to legitimize