Nov. 19th

The contemporary rhetors from this week's readings place a premium on flux, instability, and process. Foucault explored the source of power which he describes as fluid, flowing from discourse. Herrick states that for Foucault, "power is a matter of which ideas prevail at the moment" (247). Just looking at our country's politics, this seems like a simple matter--whoever wins owns all the marbles, but it's not that simple with Foucault. Where power comes from still isn't entirely clear for me. I know that Foucault believes it originates in discourse, but then institutions are the means by which this power is dispersed. But even though "institutions are subject to power just as individuals are" (251), it seems that they often take on an identity of their own making them at least appear to have the power.

What Foucault and Derrida may have in common is the idea of hidden ideas or discourse. Foucault talks about excluded discourse, the idea that not all knowledge is available at all times: "knowledge is largely a 'set of rules (neither grammatical nor logical) to which speakers unwittingly conform'" (250). Depending on context or historical setting, some ideas are inappropriate or excluded--the knowledge is hidden. Derrida discusses this concept with his unstable meanings. He analyzed ideas that most people would see as fixed and juxtaposed them with their opposites, challenging meaning. He believed that words merely create the idea of stability, but other meanings lie beneath the surface--some unintended, but others may have an agenda. Creating meaning, for Derrida, is never finished; it revolves around the idea of social collaboration or negotiation. So as the composition of the society changes, so does the meaning attached to language.

Rhetoric: The Struggle between Identification and Division

"Rhetoric is concerned with the state of Babel after the Fall."

(Burke, in B&H, p. 1327)

I find myself very drawn to Burke's statement as we try to sort out the "who's on first," "what's on second" characteristics of rhetoric. Although each era we have discussed has added its own twist and emphasis to the foundations of classical rhetoric, I love that the 20th century adds the concept on context. All of the rhetoricians we have read deal with audience to some degree--some, like Cicero, with more fervency than others. But, I believe that Burke's concepts of consubstantiality and identification introduce the importance of relationships.

This idea of consubstantiality is important because it forces us to recognize that "we have in common certain substances including physical embodiment, common aspirations, and language itself" (Herrick, p. 224). These commonalities lead us to compare (and contrast) who we are and what we think and measure those judgments against others in our own communities and cultures. Burke labels this desire to bridge the gap as identification. Seems simple enough, but why do we feel the need to identify, to bring our aspirations more in line with others? Because we're different. Something about us as individuals, groups, and cultures sets us apart from others. So rhetoric becomes the tool we use to deal with people, groups, or ideas with which we may be at odds.

I've been mulling this idea over, trying to place it in the context of a classroom. Initially, I was thinking in terms of an "us" versus "them," "professors" versus "students" dialectic. But in reality, I believe what we have is an archipelago of islands--lots of individuals with different backgrounds, aspirations, and languages (whether formal second language or informal social dialect) loosely grouped by the confines of the four classroom walls. Part of the difficulty we have as instructors is creating, modeling, portraying an identity that will motivate students to want to emulate what the academic environment has to offer. In Herrick, Burke states, "You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your was with his" (p. 223). The classroom can be perceived as its own culture where dialogic exchange creates a cooperative environment--a place where words can act as "bridges" between instructors and students (Bakhtin paraphrased, Herrick, p. 222).

Online Instruction and Social Media

Nothing earth-shattering here, but I thought this was an interesting article that posed questions about social networking and on-line instruction. I think that the newest trends and all of the "bells and whistles" that technology puts at our fingertips provide creative options for presentation, but I also think we have to acknowledge that it's not technology that drives education, it's simply finding the best way to help our students achieve the learning outcomes for the course.

When Social Media is Irrelevant

Echoes of Old

Reading Bain and Hill this week felt as though I was reading an introduction or background information in our composition texts--and in essence, I was. Although it was very interesting to trace some of our current pedagogical "roots" to these rhetoricians, some of the foundations that have carried over are a bit stifling--or maybe we have interpreted or implemented the ideology so that it is stifling.

On one hand, I like Bain's modes: description, narration, exposition, oratory, and poetry. I think they are valuable tools to help students examine the variety of ways they can express themselves within one medium. Certainly, writing purely in only one of these rhetorical modes at a time is not practical, but choosing the form that may best showcase an idea or argument is a skill (or maybe art) that students can learn. On the other hand, some of Bain's ideas appear to lead to a more skill and drill mentality. He points out that one purpose of English teachers is to "obtain suitable exercises for practice in writing English" (B&H, p. 1146). He continues praising how the "sustained practice . . . or applying of the designations, principles, and rules of Rhetoric . . . would eventually form, in the mind of the pupil, an abiding ideal of good composition" (B&H, p. 1146). Despite the amount of research proving otherwise, this apparent traditional constructivist approach still reigns in many English classrooms--especially those grooming developmental writers.

Dovetailing with Bain, Hill cites four requirements for efficient communication: Grammatical Purity, Clearness, Force, and Elegance (B&H, p. 1149). His explanations appear to focus more on the current Clarity-Brevity-Sincerity approach to style in writing. Hill, though, anticipates the need for the criteria to meet his terms to evolve as the audience changes. In describing Grammatical Purity (Correctness), Hill explains that these expressions must meet the criteria that "are accepted by the consentient practice of the speakers or writers of the present time who enjoy the best national reputation" (B&H, p. 1149). This concept reminds me of Hume's touchstones, which in his definition are "works of art [that] are clearly better than others, a judgment about which nobody would disagree" (p. 829). So the rules are there, but they are iterative in the sense that they may change as the audience's taste changes.

Someone brought up the 5 paragraph essay in class last night, and there is clearly an audience that still sees its merit, but its criteria certainly no longer meets the touchstone standard. Composition is definitely still evolving. The relatively predictable pendulum swing from oral to written expression and back will somehow have to adapt to what technology offers as alternative forms of expression. I wonder what we will first judge as stifling or "traditional constructivist" in the technological realm (or is PowerPoint already there?)