Composition: History & Theory: 1950 - 1959
Kitzhaber, Albert R. Rhetoric in American Colleges, 1850-1900.
Description
[Note: because the dissertation was published in its original form in 1953, cementing its status as a document in Rhetoric and Composition studies, it has been included here as opposed to 1990 when the full document became available to the general public for the first time.]
Kitzhaber has no true argument or thesis. Rather, he focuses on describing “one neglected period in the history of rhetoric—not a great period, but one that is nevertheless significant” (226). He details his findings in this dissertation, which is clearly carefully researched and reported (although can come off as slightly desiccated to readers expecting a social or political slant).In the work, Kitzhaber traces the development from rhetoric instruction before the American Revolution when it was seen as superficial (a duty for and by tutors), to the movement toward oratory and debate, to the 1850s and 60s when the study of literature became increasingly important with the implementation of the elective system. In the text, Kitzhaber also outlines the importance of Harvard as the institution which, more or less, led the way in transitioning to teaching composition and rhetoric. According to Kitzhaber, while Charles W. Eliot served as the president of Harvard from 1869-1926, he made it clear that English should be studied. During this time, English departments began appearing throughout the nation; however, Kitzhaber explains that English was still marginalized to product-based areas such as grammar and spelling. Kitzhaber also credits this time period with the rise of philology and language study inspired by German scholars. The goal of studying language was driven partly because of the impression that it could be studied scientifically which helped drive education away from the study of Greek and Latin. Kitzhaber also outlines how the Harvard Reports of the 1890s shook up English instruction from the university down to the elementary level while providing a glimpse of teaching conditions at the University of Michigan (1894-5) where 1,198 students “were handled by a staff of 4 full-time instructors and 2 part-time graduate assistants” (44). In the second chapter of the work (upon which this review is based), Kitzhaber describes how the perceived deficiency of secondary schools led to a primitive form of entrance exams across the nation, leading up to the formation of the “Committee of Ten” in 1892. The committee was formed to address the differentiation of exams (since most schools had their own). Although the Harvard reports certainly did help the situation by presenting concerns, Kitzhaber describes the effect as more of a backlash. Focusing on “mechanical correctness” proved to be a major error, which “contributed in no small measure to the ideal of superficial correctness that was to dominate composition instruction for many years thereafter” (47).
By studying Kitzhaber’s methods of research, any scholar would probably learn a few things. The breadth of his coverage is comprehensive and, to be blunt, uncanny (although he was graciously assisted by a few boxes of old texts from one of his professors). Further, although the time period he covers, as he suggests, is lacking in some fashion—it clearly is not because of its literature as well as the remodeling of the entire education system (several times over it seems). Once one disregards the expected stoic nature of a 1950s history text, the excitement of that living history provides one with a timeline that appears to be complete. This work was circulated for decades on microfilm and in boxed copies of copies for a reason.
Date of Upload
3/14/09