Composition: History & Theory: 1980 - 1989
Connors, Robert. “The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse.” (1981)
Description
Robert J. Connors, while situating himself in relation to the work of other Rhetoric and Composition theorists and historians like Albert Kitzhaber and James Kinneavy, argues that writing instructors need to be aware of paradigms and discourses that are easy to teach and learn but ignore the writing process and/or do not actually improve students’ writing. He executes his argument by tracing the rise and fall of the modes of discourse (Narration, Description, Exposition, and Argument), modes that he still sees rearing their ugly, unpractical heads in the composition classroom. According to Connors, modes are almost interchangeable with the categories, genres, and/or products of the writing process. Connors uses a history of the discipline, naming a seemingly infinite number of relevant texts and tracing, in as much detail as space allows, a timeline of the teaching of composition in America. The article highlights a large period of stagnation (from 1870 to roughly 1930) in which Connors believes no real change occurred in the field. Connors argues that the modes remained popular because they fit with the “abstract, mechanical nature of writing instruction at the time” (453). The writing process was thought of as a formula, completed organically within the individual, outside of social contexts. This approach to teaching composition, Connors explains, did not change until publishers started to focus on individual mode texts. From this examination of the modes, which he considers a faulty paradigm, Connors asserts that we can learn a great deal about the changes in the teaching of composition that took place from the late nineteenth century to the present and learn the “real lesson” the modes teach us: we “need always to be on guard against systems that seem convenient to teachers but that ignore the way writing is actually done” (455). Essentially, Connors is saying “good riddance” to an outdated system while carefully explaining why this is the right thing to do. Connors connects with his audience by criticizing contemporary textbooks that promote similar classification schemas and reinforces the idea that when writing is focused on purpose and process instead of emulating forms, we can look forward to the promise of new and better methods of teaching composition.
This article is helpful to read in order to understand the recent history of composition textbooks and composition pedagogy. Connors’ final comments on the ineffectiveness of using modes in teaching serves as a warning to teachers to examine paradigms’ benefits to improving student writing. This article also explains why some people call Rhetoric as a discipline a “newcomer”, since, according to Connors, it did not even begin to have its own theoretical advances until the arrival of thesis driven texts in the 1930s.
Date of Upload
3/14/09