Composition: History & Theory: 1990 - 1999
Connors, Robert J. Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy (1997)
Description
Connors’ introduction to his work summarizes American rhetoric and written composition studies from the 1760s through the 1960s and contextualizes the development of what he calls composition-rhetoric that his book provides. He frames his summary through an experiential lens and explains his goal to close a research gap in nineteenth-century, rather than ideologically critiquing it (17). But he does, somewhat, critique it. In the process, Connors renames current-traditional rhetoric “composition-rhetoric”; he views current-traditional rhetoric as inaccurately labeled and undeservedly demeaned. He asserts that what we call current-traditional rhetoric is “not a unified and unchanging phenomenon,” neither “current” nor “traditional,” but a modern and evolving rhetoric born of necessity and “continued by social fiat,” responsible for writing’s centrality in rhetorical studies (5-7). Connors briefly sketches “Early American” (1760-1865), “Postwar” (1866-85), “Consolidation” (1886-1910), and “Modern” (1910-1963) composition-rhetoric periods that support that claim.
Rhetoric, according to Connors, was “the property of men” from its inception 2,500 years ago until the second half of the 19th century when it shifted to a gender friendly writing form (24). Using Ong’s work, Connors’ argues that at its core, “classical rhetoric is about fighting, ritual fighting with words” (27). Discourse split into the private, silent art of letter writing and the art of public speaking in the medieval period; this allowed (some) women to read and write. Originating in 12th century Italy, the art of letter writing contained the roots of 5-paragraph essay structure and concern for audience and purpose. Public speaking remained strictly forbidden to women through the Renaissance owing, in part, to Pauline scriptures (Connors 36).
Overall, Connors paints a grim picture of what happened to rhetoric that explains how it fell from its once respected academic heights to its present “backwater” nadir. He admits that “our own understanding of our historical moment is always necessarily limited,” (17), calling himself an “epistemically conservative historian.” It is not always clear, however, that he recognizes how his perspective influences his understanding. Still, his work offers an interesting, valuable, if depressing review useful for a sense of the recent rhetorical past and how his perspective influences his understanding (20). Still, his work offers an interesting, valuable, if depressing review useful for a sense of the recent rhetorical past and how Western sexist philosophy retards the discipline.
Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy (Reviews)
Sharon Crowley: Shortly after the release of Composition-Rhetoric, Sharon Crowley (see: The Politics of Historiography), wrote a review of the book for Rhetoric Review in which she identified the usefulness of the text for composition teachers interested in understanding “the current institutional status of the first-year course,” which I don’t think was intended as a compliment to Bob’s contribution to the history of the field (340). In her review, Crowley praised Bob’s use of detail and occasional wit, but she asks a number of questions about the relevance of the text (especially when it comes to his first chapter about the movement from agonistic to irenic rhetoric which coincided with the entrance of women into the academy). Of his exploration of the subject, she asks: “What is to be gained, historiographically or pedagogically, from making the argument that composition replaced rhetoric as a school subject because of the emergence of coeducation?” (342). Overall, Crowley seemed irked by Bob’s position as a rationalist and an empiricist who based his work in “archival fact” (quotation-marks hers). To her, the book seemed to be lacking in theory/interpretation and swamped with data. [Crowley, Sharon. Rhetoric Review. 16.2 (1998): 340-343]
Kathleen Welsch: In “History as Complex Storytelling,” Kathleen Welsch responds to a distinct (softer, gentler) tone and approach to understanding history in Composition-Rhetoric that differs from Bob’s earlier work. Although Welsch sees the early work of Connors as “derisive and impatient” toward past methods of teaching composition (a black and white tale of good vs. evil), she calls Composition-Rhetoric a “complex history in which disciplinary concerns and events, cultural influences, social structure, educational values, class, economics, gender, and professionalism are all deftly woven into a tale worth listening to” (116-117). Although she praises his story and his attempts at unity, she seems skeptical of Bob’s willingness to enter into a useful dialectic with modern compositionists (117). Welsch calls this kind of isolated historical inquiry “risky” because it doesn’t foster connections between…campsites—?—(Her metaphors dealing with storytelling/theory/campfires/etc. were a bit much at times, I must admit). Overall, she praises Bob’s willingness to get out of textbooks and to look at the people behind the articles in the archives to foster a “sympathetic connection between colleagues across time” to create a dialectic between the past and the present (121). Like Crowley, Welsch questions the value of the text and Bob’s reluctance to engage in historical debate with “opposing camps” to position his history in relation to theirs (122). [Welsch, Kathleen A. “History as Complex Storytelling.” College Composition and Communication. 50:1 (Sep. 1998): 116-122]
Carol Severino: In “Archivists with Different Attitudes,” Carol Severino reviews Composition-Rhetoric alongside Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays by Sharon Crowley. She finds both historians useful to writing teachers searching for information about the origins of their field. Of their differences she writes, “Connors tends to remember more of the good times and Crowley more of the bad” (646). As she explains it, Connors focused on his goal of “professional self-knowledge” through history while Crowley focused on “institutional reform of the harmful practices originating in the past” (646). Severino also takes care to point out that Connors anticipated “the reactions of critics to the way he does history—without a controlling ideology such as Marxist theories which structure many of Crowley’s discussions” (647). Severino also calls attention to the substitution of composition-rhetoric for current-traditional in Connors’s text, but with Crowley’s continued use of the phrase in mind. What emerges in this piece is the implication of a debate or dialectic between these historians, a positioning of Connors with and against Crowley and her theoretical, Marxist, polemic approach, but then reminds the reader that Connors is often critiqued for not “taking on” other historians. [Severino, Carol. “Archivists with Different Attitudes.” College English. 62:5 (May 2000): 645-653]
Date of Upload
3/15/09