What I was faced with at the onset of this course was the
fact that I had no idea what rhetoric or composition meant. I mean, at this
point I have taken not only composition classes, but advanced composition
classes, grammar classes, research-focused English classes, but I had no idea of
a static definition of rhetoric. So I took to the mean streets of Google to try
to find out, and it became at once clear to me why perhaps I had yet to
encounter such a definition… there is no one standardized version of what
rhetoric is.
I began selecting the sites of American colleges and
universities, since I was able to find unanimity in the idea that rhetoric and
composition were wheelhouses of education, particularly higher education. I
found definitions that seemed to have the same foundational concept—clear/effective/persuasive
writing. From there, the definitions went tangentially, some into historical
and philosophical paradigms, others a more progressive and tech-forward
ideology, and yet others held tight to the outdated good writer/bad writer
model of rhetoric. But why tell you when I can show you…
San Diego State University (SDSU) cites rhetoric as:
https://rhetoric.sdsu.edu/resources/what_is_rhetoric.htm
Brigham Young University (BYU) offers this definition:
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Encompassing%20Terms/rhetoric.htm
The University of Iowa posits:
https://clas.uiowa.edu/rhetoric/about/what-is-rhetoric
And University of Illinois Springfield says:
https://www.uis.edu/cas/thelearninghub/writing/handouts/rhetorical-concepts/what-is-rhetoric/
SDSU and BYU seem to hold the philosophic rendering of
rhetoric. The respective web pages are even adorned with Greek lettering or
snippets of old dictionary entries for rhetoric, completed with Blackletter
font and grammar which proved that the literary world had not even passed the
first great vowel and consonant shifts. SDSU even goes as far as to include
definitions of rhetoric throughout time. From the greats of Greek philosophy,
like Plato and Isocrates, to Foucault and Roland Barthes, all the way up to
Patricia Bizzell (cited 2001), San Diego State by far includes the most
in-depth and wide-ranging definition (by way of providing 20 definitions from
proclaimed experts in the field).
University of Illinois Springfield has the most concise definition
of all the universities named here, but in its breadth, it is doing something
interesting. All the other definitions make rhetoric a rigid convention of
academic study. University of Illinois makes rhetoric an accessible, everyday
use idea. This definition, like SDSU’s, understands the cultural component of
rhetoric, but only University of Illinois Springfield expands the concept of
rhetoric to digital media. While this definition hints at its philosophic roots,
mentioning ethos, logos, and pathos, it has tone and verbiage used in
describing rhetoric is clearly meant to dispel the veil and make all inquiring
feel welcome.
By stark contrast, last and definitely most problematic is
the University of Iowa’s definition. By this definition, rhetoric is being able
to write well and give good presentations. With no mention of its philosophic or
historic origins or its use beyond the classroom, The University of Iowa
asserts claims like “rhetoric is the study and art of writing and speaking well,” and “discover wrong or weak arguments,” or my personal favorite, “rhetoric is a
fundamental building block of good
education,” written as prelude to a list of if-then-like conditional statements
that end the definition. This parochial definition confines rhetoric not only within
education, but to only the writing and speaking modes of communication.
Overall… I still don’t know how to definitively define
rhetoric. But I am starting to get a pretty good idea of what it is, and
perhaps a bit of what it’s not.
Comments
Post a Comment