Blog 1

When I think of rhetoric, I think of a guy I dated when I was in my very early 20’s. He was annoying because he was always looking to show how much he knew. He was pompous. He steered conversations toward a topic—usually political or religious-- that he read a lot about and tried to engage everyone around him in this sort of argument about why he was right. Right or wrong, he was boring, too philosophical, opinionated, and it wasn’t long before I told him I think this thing had run its course. So, now that I am in my late 30’s, I have long developed a new appreciation for rhetoric. It’s mostly from having completed grad school and being in Julie’s classes and seeing that smart definitely did not have to—and should not--equal pompousness. It’s also because I see that rhetoric is not supposed to be arguing or staunch opinion being forcibly pushed into a person’s brain. More importantly, it’s very much about the respect and appreciation for other’s opinions, even if you are on the complete opposite end of it. I wish my mother would realize this. Neither was persuasive or effective in their rhetoric.

That said, the Bedford article gave a very interesting timeline of the emergence of the writing curriculum, and the connection between rhetoric, expression, and its place in the teaching of writing. It’s much like fashion…comes full circle…lots of changes only to come back to what worked in the first place. Sometimes things change just for the sake of change, which is natural, but sometimes just changing the nuances of something can create big changes. Overhauls aren’t always necessary.

Changing subjects and in reference to the Kinneavy article…I remember discourse being an integral part of my first master’s course. Understanding readers and writers was not just about whether or not they did what you told them to do. It is the responsibility of the educator to consider students’ discourse. I realized that when a student writes, it is very much cultural. It is environmental, whether it be work, friend groups, family groups, or school. Page 130 talks about some scientific comparison. That threw me off. As I read, I see that there is a level of reference to writing as a “science”. Anyway, what I did like was (pages 130-133) the idea that writers and what they have to offer cannot be classified into groups. It’s emotional, it questions, it informs and persuades, it expresses, it’s scientific; it uses the same language in many different ways.

And lastly, Berlin’s piece. The parts of the whole. That’s a central idea in education. How you get to the outcome that you desire. He initially repeated the writer-reality-audience-language thing to the point that what he was trying to say got lost in the words. Speaking of words, I’m not ashamed to admit I had no idea what ineluctably meant. (256) Anyway, I was contented to read that most teachers are sort of stuck on the mechanics of writing. It gives my goal at my job major purpose and literature to back what I see all the time. While mechanics are important, there is that whole element of…whatever it is they are supposed to be writing about…that is missing when kids are forced to focus on the how instead of the why. They do not learn to…as Julie talked about last week…get the speech in their head onto paper, and worry about conventions later. And therein lies the connection of composition back to rhetoric. (260) “Rhetoric is meant to adapt the discourse to its hearers…when the individual is freed from the biases of language…the senses provide the mental faculties with a clear and distinct image of the world.” That almost sounds like psychology.