Richard Enos begins his "Recovering the Lost Art of Researching the History of Rhetoric" with an anecdote about a speech which he gave fifteen years earlier in which he used the words "rhetoric" and "oratory" (7). His audience, The National Communication Association, reacted strongly because of the words' negative connotations. He offers an explanation for their reaction: "the lack of education and understanding" led to a loss of "the knowledge of the discipline" (9). This group of people who should by all accounts embrace the history of rhetoric and oratory, reacted as if Enos were addressing methods and topics which the NCA had outgrown. Part of the problem for the NCA at the time was that they promoted a humanistic approach to the research of rhetoric. A current result of this approach has been that research has become criticism (13). Enos also realizes "that much of the work published in journals was not research but rather commentary" (11). Research has become an end to a process rather than an art that is sensitive to new growth. How do we reclaim the art? How might we keep our approaches to researching rhetoric fresh and alive? Enos suggests that we need to participate in primary research, and interview "theoreticians and practitioners of rhetoric and oratory" (17). If we do not, the result may be that history is lost forever.
In "Rhetoric and Praxis," Edward P.J. Corbett, Maxine C. Hairston, and James Kinneavy also suggest ways in which the concepts of rhetoric may be kept alive. Corbett relates that writing teachers have devoted increased attention to heuristics. He attributes the "sudden resurgence of interest in the canon of rhetoric" (43) to learning about the ways in which writers write. For the past several years, teachers have shown greater concern for process. Today's teachers are simply renewing interest in one of the classical canons originated before Aristotle. His topoi, the common and special topics, were starting places from which speech or writing could begin. Topoi served orators well for centuries, but ran into a snag when Hugh Blair devalued them. Blair referred to the Latin loci (Greek topoi) and wrote in "Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres," that the Grecian sophists gave an orator "recipes for making speeches on all manner of subjects" (50). Blair seems to be saying that it's not really invention if it's prescribed or formulaic. Blair lectured for twenty-four years at the University of Edinburgh in the 1700s, but his influence endured into the 20th century. His views likely contributed to the demise of invention, and may be the reason that "teachers today have declined to use this heuristic system in the composition classroom" (51). Fortunately for today's writers, heuristics have reappeared. Some students need a place to begin.
Maxine C. Hairston promotes reintroducing the enthymeme as an invention. It is a strategy she and other scholars believe incorporates rational, ethical, and emotional appeal in rhetoric and personal discourse (59). Hairston identifies problems she believes have had a harmful influence in the history of the enthymeme, including that many people involved in rhetoric have misunderstood or oversimplified it, ignored its importance because of their disinterest in rhetoric, and that composition courses have shifted from "product to process" (60). The enthymeme is a time-saving device from which a writer will have a place to begin. Because it addresses all the appeals, it is an effective device.
James Kinneavy also acknowledges the validity of the enthymeme, (60) and promotes kairos in today's composition classes. He notes that kairos is absent from some of the modern texts that accompany university courses. But could it be that if kairos is not directly taught, it is implicitly taught? Do we not promote timing? Are our essays not on timely subjects? We typically encourage students to compose topics on which timing is of the essence.
Enos, Corbett, Hairston, and Kinneavy promote incorporating traditional rhetorical concepts in today's composition classrooms. Yes, some are formulaic, but considering the numbers of students who lack composition skills by the time they arrive at our universities and colleges, students need invention and the timing that kairos affords, and they need to be able to obtain primary evidence. An article, "New Push Seeks to End Need for Pre-College Remedial Classes" appeared in the New York Times in May of 2009, stated that millions of students must take remedial or developmental composition courses. Perhaps if these rhetorical concepts are introduced or implemented earlier, students might have a better foundation - and one to build upon - when they begin their post-secondary education.
I liked what you said about kairos being implicitly taught. It's true that (without actually using the word "kairos) we teach our students to be aware of their audiences, to write with a sense of purpose, and to pay close attention to other aspects of the rhetorical situation. Kinneavy's article did make me think, however, that I would like to be more deliberate about teaching kairos in the classroom; that is, rather than teaching it incidentally, I would like to teach it purposefully. I want to do more to connect my students' writing to real world interests and concerns, and to help them write with full awareness of rhetorical situation. This, I think, will be supremely motivational.
ReplyDelete