Main Online “chat” Interview (October 14, 2003): Beth Hewett: Andrea and Mike, thanks for joining me today. I’d like to start off our chat with a question or two about the Alliance of Rhetoric Societies (ARS); then, I hope you will have other thoughts to add. Michael Leff: Ok. Andrea Lunsford: Shoot. Beth Hewett: The ARS conference consisted of working groups—as opposed to a series of panel presentations and papers. What caused you to decide on that type of forum? Did you find it to be successful? And should we expect another such conference with that form? Andrea Lunsford: I think both Mike and I were worried about this rather unusual format, but in retrospect we found it very effective--and we had many comments from conference goers who said the format was conducive to the kind of good solid work that most groups seemed to get done. Michael Leff: Our objective was to get people from different disciplines to talk to one another. So we wanted to avoid the typical “give a paper and listen” format. I think it worked pretty well. Beth Hewett: What worked well in particular? Andrea Lunsford: Talking across disciplines worked well—at least in the groups I was part of. Michael Leff: People seemed to talk together, learn from folks from different disciplines. Some prejudices seemed to be put to rest. Beth Hewett: Can you give an example of this learning from other disciplines? Michael Leff: I can. A couple of people I know who regarded English Department rhetoricians as difficult found out that they could deal with them once they got past the disciplinary thing. Andrea Lunsford: Yes -- for example, in one of the groups on "rhetorical tradition," we had scholars from classics, communication, English, and professional communication—and from Chinese, Japanese, African American, and Chicano/a backgrounds—this mix kept us all on our toes and prevented us from falling back on unexamined assumptions about what "others" think. Michael Leff: The same was true in other groups. Beth Hewett: I thought it was fairly true in my group—until the dreaded "those composition people" statement arose. Andrea Lunsford: Wow, what was that all about? Michael Leff: Yes, my goodness! Beth Hewett: It had to do with how difficult composition people are and that they have so little knowledge of rhetoric. I only mention it because I was surprised at the sentiment. Andrea Lunsford: I just didn't run into any of that in the other groups, though I did hear one person, in rhetoric AND composition, say that she hadn't realized how very different the disciplines of English and communications are. It seemed to me that the composition scholars who were in attendance were ones who DO know a lot about rhetoric. Michael Leff: I hear that a lot from people in Communication. I find it puzzling, and it contradicts my long experience crossing between Communication and English. But the prejudice does exist and needs to be confronted. Andrea Lunsford: The only way to put disciplinary prejudices to rest is to continue meetings like this one. Michael Leff: My sense is that people left feeling they had more in common than when they came. Andrea Lunsford: I agree with what Mike just said about how we ended up [at the end of the conference]. Mike and I are from a generation when cross-over between communication and English was much more common and possible than it is today ... which is sad. Beth Hewett: Hmm, that would be an example of putting to rest some prejudices. At any rate, do you think that ARS will take this same form in its next meeting iteration? If so, have you considered the purpose of that meeting? Michael Leff: Let me make a comment about the next conference. It’s not at all clear that there will be one sponsored by ARS. ARS might function more to get people to cross over to meetings they don't usually attend. Also the new format for RSA's odd year conferences will allow seminars, institutes, special sessions, etc. ARS can promote those sorts of things. Beth Hewett: How might ARS accomplish that goal? Is that the "organization of organizations" idea? Andrea Lunsford: I was very energized by the new format for RSA odd-year conferences, and I hope ARS will work hard to promote these across disciplines. Michael Leff: Yes it is. It is to be more a catalyst than an ordinary organization. Andrea Lunsford: I agree -- and our new web site will be a place to advertise such events. http://www.rhetoricalliance.org Michael Leff: But what ARS will be remains to be seen. I hope that it is the first step toward developing a really powerful alliance of rhetoricians from all over the disciplinary map and all over the world. Andrea Lunsford: That's the vision, and many thanks to Mike for helping to articulate it. Beth Hewett: How will you advertise your website? Andrea Lunsford: The obvious first step is to contact big listservs such as H-rhetor and WPA and invite them to the Website. Michael Leff: We are going to announce the website on the listservs that rhetoricians use. By the way, the website is up. Andrea Lunsford: The plenary sessions from the conference proceedings will be on the website soon: • Tradition o Speaker: Jerzy Axer, University of Warsaw o Respondent: Jeffrey Walker, Emory University • Pedagogy o Speaker: Jacqueline Royster, Ohio State University o Respondent: Wayne Booth, University of Chicago • Agency o Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, University of Minnesota o Respondent: Sharon Crowley, Arizona State University • Role of Rhetoric in Academy and Beyond o Speaker: Steve Mailloux, University of California, Irvine o Respondent: James Arnt Aune, Texas A&M University Beth Hewett: Great! I’m sure readers will enjoy and benefit from the thinking in these papers as much as I did at the conference. In your email interview, Mike, you mentioned the international participants. Do you or Andrea think that some prejudices were laid to rest there, too? Andrea Lunsford: Sure--Mike do you know how many people from other countries we had in attendance? We might count the international contingent as including scholars who live in the U.S., but are studying the rhetorics of other cultures/languages/nations, right? Michael Leff: We had three from Japan, three from Denmark, one from Holland, one from South Africa, and one from Sweden. I think that's all of them—except Jerzy Axer who was there in spirit. Andrea Lunsford: So ten total from abroad—so that's about seven percent of those attending? Beth Hewett: Andrea, you've been a particularly strong voice for non-traditional rhetorical traditions—what do these traditions have to say to us, especially through the international contingent? Andrea Lunsford: In short, a LOT. To give just one example, while we were at Northwestern, our colleague Brigitte Mral, from the University of Orebro in Sweden, was asked to prepare an analysis of the Bush/Blair speeches following 9/11—for her government! Those of us in the U. S. could scarcely imagine our government being interested in such an analysis. What we found, in this case, is that "rhetoric" is viewed very differently from culture to culture. Brigitte''s standing as a rhetorical scholar brings her to the attention of the government—in good ways! Beth Hewett: I've been particularly struck by how much we probably overlap in research without even knowing it, in part because many English speaking Americans really don't speak or attend to another country's native language. Michael Leff: Yes, Europeans and other folks learn English. Americans just don't study other languages much. Only remedy—send Americans to study abroad! They will learn that way. [Regarding research,] it is incredible how people doing much the same thing don't know about one another. Andrea Lunsford: It is constantly embarrassing to note how monolingual Americans are, by and large. I wonder if rhetoric graduate programs (and groups like ARS) could do more to promote the study of languages. Michael Leff: For example, in planning the conference, I would say we should invite some in Communication. Andrea wouldn't know that person. Then she would suggest someone in English and it would turn out the two were doing similar things and they didn't know each other either. Andrea Lunsford: --and the same thing, but both these people would be working on very similar concerns. This is one reason the idea of rhetoric centers—which came up at the conference—appeals so much to me; if we could have the equivalent of such a center or of an "area studies" model, I think it could be very useful. Beth Hewett: Andrea, the idea of rhetoric centers came up in my work group, too. Can you say more about them? Michael Leff: Do you mean the possibility of starting such centers? The only one I know now is at Iowa (poroi, the project on the rhetoric of inquiry). Yes; I think we need to develop some things along that line. Andrea Lunsford: Well, we didn't talk seriously about what rhetoric centers would be or do—but I have been very interested in the collaborative model that some humanities centers have adopted—at Ohio state, University of Illinois/Chicago, and Stanford. In this model, grants go to pairs or groups to do research that couldn't be done by one scholar. I think that would be attractive to rhetoricians and would bring scholars from different disciplines to work on a topic Michael Leff: Absolutely! Beth Hewett: How could ARS help in establishing such centers? Michael Leff: Well, in the first place we could get people talking about them. Maybe we could sponsor some sort of program on the idea at CCCC and/or NCA and maybe do a seminar at RSA. Andrea Lunsford: Well, money is always the key issue. But a school that had a vibrant group of rhetoricians across disciplines could make a proposal; and ARS could be instrumental in supporting it, adding our numbers and voices and rationale for establishing such a center. Michael Leff: One thing that is important is to have ARS stand for cooperative work. This will help do away with "you comp people" nonsense. Beth Hewett: Do you have a sense of when ARS might move a bit more out of the extremely developmental phases of imagining—which are critical phases—and into implementing or enacting some of these possible initiatives? Do you two have any goals regarding such actions in the time you are working together? Michael Leff: I don't know what future direction we may take. This thing is still amorphous. Andrea Lunsford: I think one of our big goals is to get the Web site up and functioning; second is to get a couple of publications out about ARS. I am not on the governing board of ARS, but I think that's the immediate plan. Michael Leff: That is correct. Andrea Lunsford: So we have a short-term if not a long-term plan. Beth Hewett: There's a time and place for amorphous--this seems to be it! I have one more question for you both: From the participants' perspectives (as far as you know), what is the relationship between the academy and the public where rhetoric is concerned? Michael Leff: That is an interesting question. Everyone seems to agree that the connection is important, but it is not clear how people envision the relationship. Andrea Lunsford: Well, I think most of us sense a big disconnect, and that's a point the story about Brigitte Mral underscores. Rhetoric is in the U.S. pretty firmly associated with deceptive political practices—and that impression is not being helped by a government that is all smoke and mirrors. Michael Leff: That reminds of Booth's “rhet-trickery” point [that he spoke about in his response to Jackie Royster]. One thing that needs to be done is to get some serious rhetorical analysis out to the public. I don't mean dealing with this or that point (did Bush tell the truth), but more about how his rhetoric works. Andrea Lunsford: One obvious answer is that rhetoricians need to be out in public more often -- on editorial pages, on the radio, and so on. Our problem is how to position ourselves in such a way that it is not always just one person (like Kathleen Hall Jamieson) who gets asked to comment on matters rhetorical. Beth Hewett: So, taking an informative rather than a critical/analytical perspective? Michael Leff: The press just doesn't give much of an account of how anything works except commercials. There we get some rhetorical analysis. Andrea Lunsford: I agree—an analysis that would work like Karlyn Campbell’s did of Sojourner Truth's words. Indeed, this is the very kind of work Brigitte has been asked to undertake. Michael Leff: Right! Treat the speeches, white papers, and internet messages with careful study and make them subject to public scrutiny from a rhetorical perspective. Andrea Lunsford: I’d like to say one thing off topic, and that is what a great contribution the work group leaders made to our work -- Michael Leff: Absolutely. They were terrific. But maybe rhetorical training has something to do with the success! Andrea Lunsford: No doubt! Susan Jarratt did an absolutely terrific job in our group of keeping us focused, making room for all points of view, and summing up our work. Michael Leff: Well, I think we should thank them all. Our group leaders were: • Pat Bizzell, Holy Cross; • Susan Jarratt, U.C. Irvine; • Don Bialostoksy, Pittsburgh; • Dilip Gaonkar, Northwestern; • Alisse Theodore, Michigan; • David Zarefsky, Northwestern; • Fred Antczak, Iowa; • Shirley Logan, Maryland; • Lester Olson, Pittsburgh; and • Jerry Hauser, Colorado. Beth Hewett: I'm very aware of time constraints and very appreciative of your time—both Mike and Andrea. Is there anything else you'd like to discuss in this live chat forum? Michael Leff: I wonder how we might think that rhetoric and technology fit. That is something that didn't get a lot of attention at the conference, but should. Beth Hewett: Yes, readers of Kairos will be especially interested in this issue. In the asynchronous interview conducted over email, Andrea had an initial go at that question. Michael Leff: I fear that there is a kind of techno-determinism in the heads of parts of the public and even some university administrators. Andrea Lunsford: I think always of how instantaneous worldwide communication can occur now—that should be a boon for rhetoric and rhetoricians! Michael Leff: We need to get out the message that while technology is important, the basics of expression, argument, reading, and listening remain crucial. Beth Hewett: Mike—can I get you to say more about techno-determinism? Michael Leff: I encounter university officials, for example, who say that we have to learn new technologies for teaching. And not that we should use them to supplement or help with other means but that we have to revolutionize our teaching. Also, I hear scholars talk about how new technologies are changing our very nervous systems, etc. This sort of talk occurs whenever a new technology develops. But it has become a consuming issue for some in the Academy just now. Beth Hewett: I’m trying to understand your point here, Mike. Are you saying that technology is not being considered well? Used well? Michael Leff: Yes, in part. More specifically I fear that we are letting technology dominate education rather than putting it to effective human use. I think that what we are doing here is fascinating—an interactive interview in writing and at a distance. That is something for rhetoricians to study carefully. But it doesn't change the fundamentals of communication or rhetoric. Beth Hewett: Andrea and Mike, I really appreciate your time today. If Kairos readers would like to contact any of us to respond to the interview or to ask questions about the Alliance of Rhetoric Societies (ARS), they can email at: Professor Andrea Lunsford: lunsford@stanford.edu Professor Michael Leff: m_leff@bellsouth.net Beth Hewett: kcoverweb@earthlink.net Top Main