• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

2008C15Skeffington

Where is the ‘Rhetoric’ in Rhetoric and Composition?
Reviewed by Jillian Skeffington
jillian@u.arizona.edu

Panel Chair:

• Michael Bernard-Donals, University of Madison, Wisconsin

Speakers:

• Michael Bernard-Donals, University of Madison, Wisconsin, “Why Composition Needs Rhetoric”
• Thomas Rickert, Purdue University, “Rhetoric beyond Pedagogy and Critique: Plans for Vitalization”
• Rosa Eberly, The Pennsylvania State University, “Rhetoric’s CCCClosets”

Why were all of the panels about rhetoric during the same session? Note to future conference planners: spread the rhetoric around so that we don’t have to choose just one! This panel was moved, but we all seemed to find it anyway. It was well attended—the room was full to capacity, with people even sitting in the dreaded front row.

Michael Bernard-Donals began with his investigation of the place of rhetoric in the CCCC program and his assertion that composition (or writing studies) does indeed need rhetoric. He cited the 2003 and 2004 issues of Enculturation that dealt specifically with the relationship between rhetoric and composition as a means of introducing the audience to his own perspective on the connection between rhetoric and composition. Here is an example of the data he provided from past conference programs:

• Rhetoric appeared in the panel or paper titles 35-55 times per conference between 2001 and 2007. It appeared more frequently toward the end of that period than at the beginning.
• In 2001 there were 48 rhetoric sessions. 29 were in history and theory, of those 12 were historical and 17 theoretical.
• Of the 200 teaching practices panels in 2001, 9 involved rhetoric.
• There were 9 occurrences of rhetoric in the research section over the entire 7 years.

Bernard-Donals argued that while we often use rhetoric as a metonym for theory, rhetoric itself is marginalized in the CCCC. It is seen as archival work, rather than as a practical area of study. He also points out that themes focusing on ideas such as consensus building and inclusion coincide with this marginalization of rhetoric. He concludes that part of the reason for this marginalization of rhetoric might be that it threatens our drive for a stable identity. Rhetoric is inventional, but not necessarily epistemological. The connection between rhetoric and composition is important, though, because writing itself makes space for those conflicts of language that cannot necessarily be resolved, only named. While writing as rhetoric may displace our comfortable positions, we need that displacement in order to move forward.

Thomas Rickert continued the discussion of rhetoric in composition with a look at some of the institutional structures that shape the relationship between rhetoric and composition. He, too, referenced the issue of Enculturation, but he also pulled from Steven Mailloux’s 2006 article, “Places in Time: The Ins and Outhouses of Rhetoric.” Rickert seemed interested in examining the fragmentation of rhetoric. While rhetoric is indeed visible in the conference itself, it has many disciplinary homes. Rickert sees potential in the role of Cultural Studies as a means of keeping rhetoric engaged with composition—perhaps a Cultural Rhetoric Studies could be an answer. He cited Kant and the German model’s emphasis on critique as part of the context that has led us where we are. Kant sees the humanities as lacking content, but having responsibility to reason, rather than to the state. The job of the humanities, then, is to question the sciences and society and to examine the role of truth. Rickert argued that what we need to grapple with next is the role of rhetoric in this cultural and societal critique.

Rosa Eberly’s talk began as a concerted effort to wake us up. She did her best to get the audience singing “My Old Friend the Blues,” but was only marginally successful. Eberly’s take on the rhetoric/composition relationship is that it is indeed like the song. When everything else is questionable, we turn to rhetoric. She argued that the need for these discussions is ever present. We must always be ready to argue for the centrality of rhetoric. We must also figure out why rhetoric always seems to be either split or marginalized (closeted). While splitting and marginalizing can sometimes be a useful position from which to speak, it is our obligation to figure out how to speak from other positions as well.

The question and answer period at the end was fairly fruitful. An audience member asked why it is that we keep using other terms instead of rhetoric. The consensus among the panel was that when we try to use rhetoric as a term in teaching writing, we fall prey to claims of elitism and classicism. One panel member quipped that rhetoric had never really recovered from Plato. Another audience member asked whether reviving the sophists would rescue rhetoric, but the panel pointed out that we’ve tried that, and it didn’t work particularly well. The final question, which there was not time to really answer, came from Lisa Ede, who asked whether the panel members would all have the same definition of rhetoric. They probably wouldn’t, but we were out of time to pursue that. Perhaps next year?