Current-Traditional Is Still Traditionally Current

I see significant value in the study of rhetoric as Corbett points out in the introduction to his book Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. An ability to analyze rhetoric is the single best defense against those "dangerous" forms he points out on pages 24-25: propaganda, demagoguery, brainwashing, and doublespeak. Certainly in our modern society of advertising and politics these skills carry significant currency. His breakdown of rhetoric and conclusions is well stated and serves to acknowledge multiple sides of the rhetorical debate. On page 26 he states, "There is no denying that formula can retard and has retarded inventiveness and creativity. But to admit that formula can inhibit writers is not to admit that it invariably does." All of this being recognized, however, it appears at times that Corbett's desire to examine pure rhetoric and its forms does prevent him from making connections that a modern reader/speaker might be in a better place to accomplish than Aristotle.

For my purposes I am looking at this article specifically how it may relate to the teaching of Freshman Composition. To that end I must ask the question what aid can this article offer in the teaching of writing to non-writers? I begin by agreeing with Corbett that "inexperienced writers need nothing so much as simple, definite principles to guide them in arrangement of material." (20) I must disagree with him, however, on the idea of "simple, definite principles." Young writers are in dire need of structure, but because writing is a composing process that is reflexive, structure is not the same thing as a how-to. And it appears at times that Corbett is discussing Aristotle et. al's "how-to" approach and how we might currently profit from it.

Finally Corbett has a great mastery of language and its parts, but he seems to have less of a mastery of the writing process. This seems illuminated by his statement on pages 19-20: "The chief reason for writers' inarticulateness on certain subjects is the lack of experience or reading background that can stock their reservoir of ideas. At other times, their inarticulateness stems from their inability to look into a subject to discover what they already know about the subject." That lack of education and vocabulary is sometimes a part in students' silence is undeniable, but as has been examined in Rose, Salvatori, and others students are often without language--that is, they have the ideas and the insights, but don't feel authoritative enough to use them. Nor do they have access to the "academic" discourse.

It is for this reason and others that I feel Corbett might be an excellent resource for teachers looking to expand their own knowledge of the parts of writing and for upper-level writers who have gained the ability to shuttle between the discourses (Bartholomae) and are now looking for greater skill in manipulating them. I do not, however, feel that his techniques are the best available to the teaching of beginning writers. They are a different breed, and studies continuously show there is no twelve-step process to better writing. It is a circular mess of recursive thinking--naming, opposing, defining as Berthoff offers in one definition. For that reason it might be more helpful, though doubtlessly more frustrating, to continue to focus on language and language-use as a whole for freshman writers and composers, and leave manipulation of language through its parts to the more experienced ones.

I really enjoy reading Berlin, especially following Corbett. After reading Berlin I am able to name what disturbed me slightly with Corbett's article--it felt as if it were treating rhetoric in a current-traditional fashion. What I find most disturbing about Berlin's article is that he is so correct, and modern universities across the nation are still teaching this way.

He says on page 62 that, "Current-traditional rhetoric is the triumph of the scientific and technical world view." That composition departments fit this mold is, I feel, beyond denial. The forms used in many programs match the forms Berlin names: description, expository, persuasion and so forth. What's more, the attempt to make writing scientific--evidentiary, rational, and impersonal, is something that is detrimental to both student and education. Berlin seems to agree when he says, "This scheme severely restricts the composing process" (63). It all seems to stem to me from an Enlightenment philosophy, "Reality surrenders its meaning readily when correctly approached, with the proper detachment" (Berlin, 63). Our problem now, as it was then, is that reality rarely gives up its truths regardless of how approached.

Subscribing to a more post-modernist theory myself, I absolutely agree with Bakhtin's definition of dialogism which states that, "everything means, is understood, as a part of a greater whole—there is a constant interaction between meanings, all of which have the potential of conditioning others." What this means is exactly what I believe Berlin is saying here, such models of Current-traditional rhetoric are reductive and do nothing to improve students' abilities to think about their own thinking. He is absolutely correct when he states that this method "was probably doing an adequate job of training students for the new technical professions, encouraging a view of reality that held them in good stead in their professional lives" (Berlin, 75-76). But I feel there is implicit judgment in Berlin's tone here. Teaching students to be machines does not seem as if it should be the ultimate goal of the teacher. Teaching them not to question but only to perform does not seem like education.

I see writing as an art, not a science, and as such I believe it should be approached with a dialogic attitude. What that means is that I do not think we should remove the personal from the political as Adrienne Rich would say, but should encourage students to use their own experiences, thoughts, feelings, and to reflect on those. I do not think freshman composition is a place for the teaching of scientific writing, but rather an environment to foster the composing process. I feel this is justified because if a student learns to be reflexive in thought, to make meaning, to see the world and all its connections (including to his/herself and his/her emotions) then s/he will be in a place that the scientific method, business writing, creative writing, and all other forms of composing will be accessible. They will be in a position to continue learning. But if they are simply taught to model they can only reproduce that which they have already seen because they have no advanced facilities with which to learn easily on their own. I feel teaching writing is as much a process of teaching to the philosophical mind as it is to the linguistic one. I believe also that I am agreeing with Berlin, Freire, Knoblauch and Brannon, Berthoff, Salvatori, Bartholomae, Summers and others and others in this view.