Fortunately, the English department has survived by responding to changes in our culture. Berlin, for instance, explains that rhetoric in English studies slowly diminished in value, taken over by literature. The crisis then was displacement of rhetoric, and students still couldn't write.
Today, I see an inversion to this past crisis. Composition and rhetoric studies are challenging the eminence of literary studies. If you don't believe me, I encourage you to ask a trusted advisor or friend in which field is it easier to find a job. Comp/rhet. and literary studies seem like rival siblings that, while coming from the same home, simply can't--or don't want to--get along.
In this moment, where jobs are scarce and schools are driven by consumers' wants, it seems that the study of composition and rhetoric appeals to a practical and positivistic mindset present in our culture. The general appeal of comp/rhet., while still deeply theoretical and complex, responds to a narrative in which practical skills are valuable and get results. The theories wars of the 1980s and 1990s, by extension, don't settle well when we're pinching pennies and looking for alternatives to the mess that is postmodernism.
However, we can't altogether discount postmodernist theory. Without it, would we insist on multiple literacies as opposed to just one definition of literacy? Would we be as sensitive to discursive power over knowledge as we are? Would we look so closely at subcultures and smal communities? So, to extend my silly analogy further, comp/rhet. and literary studies are more like rival siblings--they fight, but they can't get entirely away from each other.
With Berlin's historical account in mind, this struggle is good for our discipline. Without the competition, we would not have invention and integration that makes what we do useful and, yes, even fun. So, our current crisis for intellectual legitimacy isn't really a crisis at all--it wasn't really a crisis then--but rather a familiar, ongoing process for change.
Well, I think, I wrote this awesome reply, but it didn’t save it… oh well here’s what I can remember (though it won’t feel as authentic)
ReplyDeleteWell, it’s an endless cycle, isn’t it? Perhaps, though, it’s more of widening gyre looping out to the unknown instead of looping upon itself. Not to sound like that better-than-you sibling, but I don’t see literature looping back into composition. With the economy getting worse, and the need for tangible production and results increasing, I don’t see “Literature” per se coming back. The only reason why is because there is a clear definition within departments now with Rhet/Comp holding the “expertise” on “writing.”
But don’t worry, dear brother, because we’ll join you soon enough. Though I may borrow from the “Second Coming” there will never be a second but always a first because it’s always moving (for lack of a better word) forward. Something new will come along and say, “I know writing…not you Rhet/Comp people! You and your ridiculous theories! You are so out-of-touch! Go back to your Burke and Elbow! Leave writing to the real masters.” Meanwhile, we’re all shuffling to validate ourselves to get more money and be considered legitimate by the institution because they’re looking at these new guys and gals that can teach our undergraduates how to “write.” What should be done, but no one is really going to do it, is to completely throw out this Institution’s paradigm and start with something new with new ideas that are helpful to our local communities, almost grass roots, but also tries to connect it to a bigger world on an abstract level…or do we already do that? Hmmm…I don’t know…let’s discuss it.
I really enjoyed this post. I totally agree with your analogy of comp/rhet. and literature people fighting like siblings. The English department is one big family, with several branches fighting for the most attention, love and allowance money from mom and dad. We haven't even brought in the creative writing side of things!
ReplyDeleteBut what I think is truly valuable about this analogy is, as you argue, no matter how much fighting for prominence there may be, comp/rhet. and lit can't get away from each other and, I believe, would be severely hindered in their respective work if they did. Your point about postmodernism illuminates this perfectly: while postmodern theory is generally applied to literature, the theory arises from a certain way of looking at the world and considering texts. Why then, can it not be applied to the study of writing, and how writing occurs, what counts as writing, etc? Postmodernism uses a series of questions and assumptions which can be applied to other fields.
Speaking as someone interested in Early American, I can tell you that understanding comp/rhet really makes a difference in Early American studies. The question for the future may be: how do we unite these seemingly disparate fields, to enhance both?
Todd,
ReplyDeleteYou have, indeed, read Berlin's Rhetoric and Reality as the polemical text it is. It is "canonical" in that it makes implicit tensions explicit - and makes claims about the legitimacy of composition at the same time. (Berlin will offer his vision for productive ways forward in the second half of the text. I'm curious what you'll make of his plans.) Berlin is also partially canonized because of his untimely death at a young age as a prominent, respected figure in the field, making his history beloved in ways that reach beyond actual debates in English Studies.
Beyond the polemics - what about this second narrative about many different conceptualizations of what it means to write, be literate, "teach" writing, and use language? I'm intrigued by your evocation of postmodernism. There are those who begin with statements like - In this postmodern moment... While there are others who begin with statements like... Living within the rhetorical turn in the humanities.... Are different discourse communities within English Studies using different paradigms to talk about similar/intertextual things?
The very interesting thread of conversation here between you, Trey, and Stacey also highlight sounds of the grounds of the polemical debate. Are the struggles that Berlin depicts about "expertise"? About money? About class? These questions of course all point toward one of the most pressing questions of all - what "history" is Berlin constructing? For whom? For what purposes? Who is the imagined 1987 audience? If rhetoric is inherently transactional (spoiler alert!) then what might Berlin be doing in this text, as a scholar talking about/to his field?