|
Articles Conference Reviews |
J.22 White, Corbett, BlairJ.22 Revisiting Rhetorical Ancestors: E.B. White, Edward Corbett, and Hugh Blair This panel offered a wide-ranging overview of some of the various contributions made by three major players in English studies during the 20th century. I chose to attend this panel because I was primarily interested in the topic of the first presentation, but, once the second presentation began, I was quickly hooked and ended up staying for the whole panel. All three presentations contributed a great deal to my understanding of the roles that these three key figures have played within English Studies and beyond, and they also offered some interesting perspectives and little-known details on the far-reaching impact and implications of their work. Russell Durst: “Making Comp Respectable in English Departments: Edward Corbett and the Development of Composition Studies”Because my own research focuses on the relationship of rhetoric and composition to the larger field of English Studies, the title of this presentation piqued my interest. While I was aware that Corbett had helped shape the renewed interest in rhetoric shown by English departments in the 1960’s, I hoped that this presentation would further my understanding of the extent of the role that he had played. In this I was not disappointed. Durst’s presentation focused on the major contributions that Edward “P.J.” Corbett made to the field of composition. For example, Corbett served as chair of the CCCC’s in 1971 as well as editor of College Composition and Communication from 1973 to 1979, and he also won the C’s Exemplar Award in 1996. Moreover, Corbett also mentored a number of graduate students who went on to make their own important contributions to the field, such as Robert Connors, Andrea Lunsford, and Lisa Ede. In addition to noting these achievements, the bulk of Durst’s presentation focused on the fact that Corbett virtually introduced classical rhetoric to English Studies in the 1960’s. Durst opened his talk by noting that during most of the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, classical rhetoric was largely absent from composition classrooms, at least until the 1965 publication of Corbett’s landmark textbook, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, which is now in its fifth printing. Durst conceded that while it may not be possible to attribute the rise of classical rhetoric in English Studies to any one individual, Corbett’s significant contributions through his scholarship, teaching, and professional leadership achieved more in this regard than did anyone else. Durst pointed out that Corbett was a leading member of the Rhetorical Society of America, founded in 1968, which was dedicated to reviving the study of rhetorical theory and practice in the U.S. Durst noted that while Corbett participated in this organization (along with other prominent rhetoricians like Lloyd Bitzer, Wayne Booth, Virginia Burke, and Richard Weaver) he was one of the only members associated with English studies generally, and composition in particular. In essence Durst argued that Corbett served as the primary conduit back to our field. Durst emphasized the fact that Corbett helped shape the field of Composition by providing it with a scholarly basis that helped legitimize it and gain some acceptance as a scholarly pursuit within and beyond English departments. By developing new ways to link rhetoric to the study of literature, such as through encouraging an analysis of style in both student and published works, Durst noted that Corbett did much to bridge the gap between literature and composition. Nevertheless, Corbett felt very strongly that the two should not be taught in tandem, noting in a 1983 essay that “literary texts will more often than not serve as a distraction from, rather than a promoter of, the objectives of a writing course” (p. 183). Interestingly enough, Corbett’s formal training was in literature, and Durst noted that it was only because Corbett happened on Hugh Blair’s Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres that he began to consider rhetorical theory as a viable option for the classroom. Durst recounted that Corbett had been looking for books in the library to help him develop a more systematic approach to teaching literary prose in the classroom, when came across Blair’s work. Citing this as Corbett’s “initial ‘ah-hah’ moment,” Durst argued that thus began “a very productive career’s worth of writing, teaching, and mentoring.” Katherine Gottschalk: “The Phenomenon of The Elements of Style: Letters to E.B. White by the Little Book’s Readers”Gottschalk’s very engaging presentation was based on her study of 121 letters that were sent to E.B. White from 1959-1983. Written by 117 readers of Strunk and White’s well-known “little book,” these letters are currently housed in the Cornell University archives, and they reveal the extent to which many readers viewed the book as a set of unshakable standards to which all good writers should adhere. Opening her talk by referring to Catherine Prendergast’s recent College English article, “The Fighting Style: Reading the Unabomber’s Strunk and White” Gottschalk framed her piece in terms of the powerful drive for structure and adherence to rules that many of White’s correspondents seem to deeply espouse. In fact, many of the letters reflect a moral imperative for correct usage and style and reveal what Gottschalk refers to as readers’ “violently corrective spirits,” whether they are directing their concerns at White himself for not always following the rules espoused by “the little book,” or at the degradation of society at large, as evidenced by the lack of adherence that others also show to those same rules. Gottschalk points out that some readers even direct their ire at themselves for their own digressions from the book’s recommended style choices. Citing one delightful letter after another, Gottschalk’s talk provided a glimpse into the minds of their writers. She cited one reader’s concern for the "esses" rule and noted that the admonition to “omit needless words” was a key consideration for several other letter-writers, nineteen of them to be exact. Gottschalk noted that all of the letter writers seemed “passionate about language” and that while many of them focused on critiquing style choices they noted within or outside of the book, all of the letters reflected a deep love of the language and of the possibilities it provides for humor and playfulness. Gottschalk said that in reviewing the letters she was struck by the “gleeful fun they took in framing their correspondence and with the pleasure many showed in having an opportunity to discuss language and share their own skills.” The presentation concluded with Gottschalk reiterating Prendergast’s argument that, as teachers, we can help students see and utilize the full range of language use, including playfulness, rather than reifying students’ desire for “correctness” and adherence to an established set of rules. She asked us, pointedly, to consider how our pedagogy affects writers’ attitudes about words and language use, which, I believe, is an important question to be both asked and answered. As one who has long appreciated the little book’s contributions to our collective understanding of stylistic principles, I was fascinated by the deep impact that Strunk and White’s book has apparently had on at least some of its readers. It is not often that such a collection of letters to an author becomes available for public consumption, so in that sense, this presentation offered a rare treat. Moreover, Gottschalk’s presentation prompted me to consider the myriad ways in which language can be used and understood, and also reminded me of the deep fear many people have of using it “incorrectly.” Tika Lamsal: “Blair as a Colonialist: Revisiting Hugh Blair’s Lectures on Taste”This presentation was intriguing to me, as it emphasized a position that I had not previously considered: that rhetorician Hugh Blair played a major role in maintaining imperialism and colonialism through his lectures on taste. Because going into this presentation I had only a generalist’s familiarity with these lectures, Lamsal provided me with some important context for considering the implications of Blair’s work. Lamsal’s presentation focused on the notions of “othering” and linguistic imperialism to support his argument that Blair’s lectures reflected the colonial discourse of his time and contributed to the establishment of a binary between Europeans and non-Europeans, specifically those that Blair refers to in his lectures as “the Asiatic people, American savages, and Hottentots and Laplanders.” (Lamsal helpfully noted that the latter two groups refer to the primitive inhabitants of South Africa and Northern Europe, although not of European descent.) Lamsal argued that Blair’s lectures continually work to establish a binary between those of European descent and all others. He further noted that for Blair taste is cultivated through education, and it is perfected by Europeans’ natural inclinations. This is in sharp contrast to non-Europeans, whose inclinations Blair believed could only be cultivated through nurturing by Europeans. Throughout his presentation, Lamsal noted the ways in which Blair worked to differentiate Europeans from others. He pointed out that Blair considered non-Europeans to be inherently less cultivated than Europeans; for example Blair referred to Asiatic peoples as despicable, Native Americans as savage, and Hottentots and Laplanders as uncivilized and lacking standard taste. Lamsal argued that the notion of “delicacy” was a key consideration for Blair, and a characteristic that he attributed to Europeans, who he viewed as far superior to those individuals that hailed from “barbarous nations” and who as a result he believed were marked with a “vulgar eye.” In terms of linguistic imperialism, Lamsal noted that language functioned as a powerful tool during colonial times by enabling Westerners to impose their ideology on non-Westerners, and moreover, that Western superiority was at least in part established through the missionaries who pressured colonized peoples to learn English. Lamsal argued that Blair perpetuated this form of imperialism through his “projection of the supremacy of the English vernacular and his insistence on its role to cultivate the taste of the ‘civilized’ English people, in contrast with the ‘uncivilized’ barbarous nations, [which] reflect[ed] the linguistic imperialism prevalent in his time.” The presentation was concluded with Lamsal’s reminder that when we consider the contributions of rhetoricians we should also “contextualize the social, political, and cultural undercurrents implicit in their discourse,” which of course, makes perfect sense. Because Blair lived and worked in an era when colonialism and imperialism were dominant in the discourse and in everyday life, it is not terribly surprising that his lectures reflected this cultural milieu. Nevertheless, because I had not previously contextualized Blair’s work in this way, I had not considered its implications. Lamsal’s presentation thus provided me with some important context for considering the life and work of Hugh Blair, which will be useful to me both within and outside of the classroom. |