Berlin, James A. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987.
Note: This note entry only covers the first 91 pages of the book. The next entry will deal with the monograph in its entirity.
Berlin’s history of the twentieth-century field of rhetoric and composition traces the discipline and its relationship to literary studies (poetics) through the numerous movements in the past hundred years, starting with current-traditionalism and progressivism. It is one of the foremost histories of the field. He divides twentieth-century rhetoric into objective, subjective, and transactional rhetorics.
Good/Bad
1. His statement that the kind of pedagogy we use to teach our students writing directly affects their attitude towards others in society. (7)
2. He is insistent that rhetoric is a tool for the masses to gain power and a voice; instruction in rhetoric should look outward, not inward.
1. I find it interesting that he chooses to use the term “rhetoric” in his title and throughout his book, which traces the history of composition, specifically the freshman composition course. Rhetoric seems to correspond to civics. does he think there is a difference between rhetoric and composition?
2. Progressive education’s use of objective tests to evaluate student writing seems remarkably un-progressive, doesn’t it? Can good writing be quantified. And even if it can, what does that tell us about how to write?
3. What is good about using literature to teach writing? I don’t like it personally, but I’d like to hear their argument, because I think it is more complicated than good literature cultures students.
Quotes
“Since the expertise of the English department is in literary criticism, and since the university exists to provide expert instruction, writing coursees should deal with matters the English faculty knows best – literary texts. Lost in departments where such arguments prevail, I would add, is the historical concern of rhetoric for practical action in areas of public conern affectin all citiznes. Where this concern is lost, rhetoric becomes subsumed by poetic and becomes a reflective disciplin rather than an active discipline.” (52)
”Democratic conceptions of language and rhetoric establish an open community for free discoures, a community where the rights of the people to express themselves are protected. This makes knowledge available to all, whereas its opposite makes ignorance the normal state of the majority.” (87)
Laura… I finally found your blog again! Somehow I lost it for a few days… But – Funny that you should point out the use of “rhetoric” in the title and subsequent lack thereof in the book. I was just reading Eileen’s comments on my blog and she asked a great question – Why did I want to send Berlin to all my loving lit theory friends who belittled my choice of rhet/comp? I guess it’s because Berlin’s text reflects the space of comp/rhet (though he’s still problematic, don’t get me wrong)…
e.g. I ask myself – Can’t the book be explicitly about composition and implicitly complicate rhetoric as well?
Maybe the habit of liminal synthesis is what makes me proud of my rhet/comp choice. Maybe that is why it took me a very long time to acknowledge the problems of the Berlin text (master narrative-like judgments, etc.). He is valorizing (the hidden polemics of) limial space. And that valorization, of course, comes from the texts appeal to social justice that drives what Berlin and others call “democratization.” They call it a political system, I’d quote Elisa as she explained composition and rhetoric to the literature TAs – Rhetoric is doing right by folks. Somehow, even with all his problematic choices, Berlin agrees. And that’s why it took me 150+ pages (and a feeling of guilty appeasement after reading Royster) to question Berlin’s divine narrative.
Comment by Trish — September 19, 2006 @ 3:36 am |