Since the first day of TA orientation in August, I have gotten used to doubting my knowledge and preparedness to teach: do I know enough to explain this, could I clearly describe that?
So far, nothing brought out those doubts in me more than rhetoric. I hereby offer this English major confession—please don’t take away my BA!—I haven’t learned about rhetoric in these terms before. The most simple lesson I ever received about rhetoric in college was this question: What do YOU want to tell THEM about IT?
Armed with this technically sophisticated nugget about rhetoric, I was nervous about discussing rhetoric during our first week of class. I fancied that my intimidation with rhetoric might allow me to empathize with how my students probably felt about the subject. Logos, pathos, ethos: I had heard these terms before, but I’d have been hard-pressed to define each clearly.
But as soon as I reached Chapter 2 in Keith and Lundberg, I realized, “OH! I know more than I thought I did. I just hadn’t been taught to name it this way.” My undergraduate exercise of answering that simple question—what do you want to tell them about it?—had taught me the basic concepts of sender, receiver, and message, not to mention that, as I applied the question to my writing, it forced me to acknowledge the nuances of contingency and strategy in rhetoric.
Wow. So I do bring some rhetorical knowledge with me to the classroom (that’s a relief). Rhetorical techniques and skills are not something everyone has learned to name, but they are something that most of us and most of our students, as native English speakers, just know. In terms of logic and argumentation, Jones calls it “the mystery factor,” as when you know an argument is off but can’t name why (161). Ballanger even hints at this realization. Describing a hypothetical situation in which your landlord has not returned your security deposit, he points out that a letter to your landlord about the topic would be different from the letter to your sister about the topic. “I’m pretty sure this is intuitively obvious to you. What may not be apparent is that you can use the same rhetorical knowledge to understand all kinds of writing situations…” (10).
What may not have been apparent to me when I started to teach is that I can use the same rhetorical knowledge to understand—and even teach—all kinds of writing situations. Phew! It can be done. I was intimidated by rhetoric because I hadn’t named many of the terms, but, many of them, I did know—I did understand.
The lesson for me in this process, then, is that I should return to one of my original ideas, that my intimidation might help me relate to how my students feel about rhetoric. I still like that idea, but I’ll adjust it a little now—it’s actually my knowledge that should help me relate to my students. Now that I have learned—no, am learning—more about how to name the functions of rhetoric, how to label the mystery factors that I had previously simply “felt” or intuited, I need to remember that even though my students can’t name most of it, they do know a fair bit of it already.
That said, how do we empower our students, as we introduce the names and vocabulary of rhetoric, to recognize that they already bring a highly sophisticated knowledge of rhetoric to the writing class? That, outside of the classroom, they communicate in more media than perhaps any generation prior to them, and can already navigate myriad rhetorical situations with ease and confidence? How do we help them recognize how much they already know about rhetoric, as a means to empower them as they start to name it?
Lauren, I share your reservations about teaching rhetoric. Even after having been reintroduced to the history and vocabulary surrounding rhetoric and feeling confident that I know what I’m talking about, I’m not sure that writing logos, pathos and ethos on the board would go over well. And yet, I’ve found that my students are completely understanding of the concept of rhetorical situations, especially when we talk about texting, Facebook and instant messaging; they are aware that each requires something different from them and that their intentions in using each are also different. I’m glad you point out that they have a wider variety of communication media at their disposal than any other generation before them; I think we sometimes write them off as being the “texting generation” – or something equally shallow and simplified – but because of where they stand with communication, they have a valuable knowledge that we should really make use of. They employ rhetoric in new and exciting ways, and rather than alienate them with words like logos, pathos and ethos, let’s use their experience to both validate their knowledge and teach them.
ReplyDeleteHi Lauren,
ReplyDeleteI agree that your anxiety about not having “learned about rhetoric in these terms before,” mirrors our students own insecurities about using rhetorical devices. Something that I have tried to show my students is that, even though they may not understand a concept, it doesn’t mean that they have not used it effectively in the past. I love having those moments where I let my students know that they are using something like ethos, logos, or pathos to win an argument. I think it’s important for them to see how they do have a grip on these concepts even if they don’t understand the language. I just give them the vocabulary because many of them already grasp the concepts. I think that this validates them as students and gives them agency over their subject matter. It is important to see how our own rhetoric can influence others and this is something I want my students to understand as well.
In The Essential Guide of Rhetoric Keith and Lundberg explain that “Persuasion is the glue that holds people to a common purpose and therefore facilitates collective action.” (5) Tackling an issue like sustainability forces our students to see themselves as not just individuals, but as also members of a community and I want them to realize tht with this comes responsibility. This week’s readings focus on rhetorical devices and the way they can help or mislead us. Rebecca Jones does an excellent job of explaing how our style of arguing is equivalent to that of war tactics. I like that Jones acknowledges that “While “argument is war” may be a default mode for Americans, it is not the only way to argue.” (Jones 157) The idea of arguing being more like a dance is something I think my students would be able to understand as opposed to saying something like “you’re going down a slippery slope” or “I think this is a red herring.” I could explain how these devices are dirty tricks rather than effectual methods. In war we use whatever means are at our disposal, but in a dance we work with our partner not against them.
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteI'm just as nervous as you are to introduce our students to the world of rhetoric. However, I agree with you and your notions of each student (including ourselves)that already bring knowledge and direct experiences with the rhetorical world in the 21st century. They (and we)just don't know it yet! That's why I think it would be really interesting to use differing advertisments, music videos and other media that would provide great examples of rhetorical bias, messages and influences that would directly speak to our students and the media culture they live in.
I so like your idea of "dancing" with this material. I like to think that if we can apply these rhetorical elements that transfer to our students world, perhaps the more likely they will be to try and 'dance' with these elements in their writing and daily lives.
Lauren, I think your (and perhaps all of our) doubts about some of the ideas and strategies we are teaching are useful tools in building a bridge between unfamiliar academic terms and well-known, oft-practiced concepts. Noel reminds us again about our students’ familiarity with rhetoric insomuch as the various, particular ways in which different media—different genre—(and there are many well integrated into their lives these days) call on them to communicate to distinct audiences. Your hesitation, Lauren, over applying the terms logos, pathos, and ethos to something they clearly understand in their own way aren’t without ground, but I agree with Noel and Michelle that employing the vocabulary “validates them as students and gives them agency over their subject matter” (Michelle).
ReplyDeleteThis idea goes way back to our first round of posts: respecting our students’ backgrounds and student-as-traveler status while guiding them forward with composition strategies toward lives of action and critical analysis. However, digging in deeper to the history and strategies behind the ancient terms logos, pathos, and ethos as Keith and Lundberg briefly do, we find that we can give our students more power, more agency, by making them more aware of methods they may already occasionally employ, but don’t yet thoroughly understand.
For example, my students are familiar with using examples (not to sound repetitive) to persuade, but we haven’t yet discussed enthymemes, which “involve good reasoning but are missing some steps of logic” (Keith and Lundberg 37) or topoi (40-44). And then we may not have out rightly discussed inductive reasoning before jumping in to Jones’ example of Ann Coulter taking it too far in her argument that at least one major root of problems in America is single motherhood, may not be as apparent to all students as it is too many of us (11). However, with careful analysis and discussion, I don’t doubt that our students could see the failure in her argument even before we clarify the term inductive reasoning. Then where do you stop digging and with whose ancient or most recent strategies? I think the attempt we make in this class is to find a middle ground of trusting our students’ basic understanding of concepts (and remaining aware enough to notice when this isn’t happening) and highlighting key examples and theories to look at from new perspectives.
Lauren, I think one of the most powerful aspects about learning the language of rhetoric over the last few years is that it has helped my reactions to the things I witness, watch, read and listen to. Because the basis for "rhetoric" is inherent to our language and culture and our human minds, we rub up against bad rhetoric all the time. Just having the ability to name the concepts I disagree with has changed the way I react to them. Instead of quickly dismissing the argument, I now think about it. Instead of getting frustrated and turning to over-simplification, I can articulate to myself what has been said. I found this to be really self empowering and have continued to learn more about it. I've also found that even though I categorize it in my head in the terms borrowed, I talk about them using my own language and words.
ReplyDeleteI'm really sold on classical rhetoric as a discourse worth learning and teaching, but as a means of understanding and build up, not tear down.
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your uncertainties in teaching rhetoric. I share your concerns, and have also felt unequipped to teach a concept which I didn't have a firm grasp on myself. As others have said, as I read Jones and Keith Lundberg, I realized that I understood most of the ideas, I just didn't know the terms. We glossed over rhetoric in class, but I think we will return to it this week, though I'm still not exactly how to teach the concepts (like you said, Noel, writing ethos, pathos etc on the board probably won't provoke much of a response).
Joel, I like what you said about how your understanding of the language of rhetoric has changed the way you respond to arguments. That seems significant to me, and in line with Michelle's wish to turn the war metaphor of argumentation to one of dancing. I love this branching away from binaries, shrugging off deeply ingrained cultural habits or mindsets, and finding other ways of understanding or interacting with common cultural phenomena.
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteI love the fact that you’re advocating for our students, encouraging us not to underestimate them. As I stated in my comment to Jayme, like you (and like me, too), my students are steadily discovering that they have employed rhetoric in non-academic settings. Like Noel, I think our students “have a valuable knowledge that we should really make use of” in their writing; now, as you said, it’s a matter of us helping them transfer those valuable skills to the classroom, helping them realize, as Michelle put it, that “they do have a grip on these concepts even if they don’t understand the language.” I’ve done a few exercises that attempted this, including having them think about how they compose texts or emails based on their audience. I also had them analyze their own Facebook pages in terms of the rhetorical triangle and rhetorical appeals—and I think this activity truly helped many of them realize that they are rhetoricians (given the medium, cyber- rhetoricians, if you will). As we go into the Op-Ed unit I know I’ll want to think of more “real-life” connections I can bring in to make terms such as ethos, logos, pathos and logical fallacies seem more relatable. As Michelle aptly notes, telling our students the vocabulary of rhetoric “gives them agency over their subject matter” and, I think, will also empower them. They’ll get a sense of pride in knowing that something they’ve been doing in other contexts (such as appealing to their mother’s pity by describing how sick and overwhelmed with school work they are, thereby resulting in her sending them a batch of homemade cookies and $20) has an actual academic name—pathos.
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteI agree that part of the challenge is to get our students to realize that they already have a functioning knowledge of rhetorical strategies. (Shoot, and for us to realize we already know some of this stuff too!) For some, the awareness of rhetoric seems to function on a subconscious level, hence the tendency to use affected "academic" rhetoric in their PAAs. The challenge for us as teachers is partly to help them develop control of the rhetorical skills that they already possess, and then build up a new skill set on top of that.
I also like the point that Noel, Michelle, and Grace make about vocabulary (logos, egos, pathos) being a means of giving students agency over their rhetorical strategies. As far as teaching these modes of appeal, I really like the examples that Jones uses from car commercials and I think that they could be reworked into a useful lesson. The key may be to get them to first identify different rhetorical situations/audiences they are already familiar with (i.e. Facebook and texts à la Noel's comment), then to different forms of appeals they are already familiar with (i.e. commercials).
Rhetoric is a nuanced system, and I agree with Michelle that Lakoff and Johnson's metaphor of "argument as dance" rather than "argument as warfare" is useful. This understanding of argument is reaches far outside the classroom and I think that Joel makes an important point-- that an understanding of rhetoric gives students agency not only in their writing, but also in interpreting all forms of information that come their way.
“That said, how do we empower our students, as we introduce the names and vocabulary of rhetoric, to recognize that they already bring a highly sophisticated knowledge of rhetoric to the writing class?”
ReplyDeleteIn my classroom I've sometimes found that my students come with a recognition of rhetoric, and they all come equipped with a working practice of rhetoric in a classroom situation, even if they aren't aware of this. The students want to know what is expected of them given the classroom, the assignments, the language. This is maybe the most critical and important information they want: what do you expect of me? What should I expect? When Keith and Lundberg address audience in our reading, I believe our students think of the teacher as their audience, and they want to know what individual requirements we expect. I really like your post here because you address that the students, maybe unknowingly, have a great perspective and practice of rhetoric. But why do I feel cheapened by this experience? Cheapened in the sense that the students want to cut-the-crap and find out what they need to do. So if I tell them exactly what I expect from a PAA, they do a good job of it and we move on, what have they really learned? In helping our students grow in their rhetorical knowledge, I think addressing personal voice is crucial. They want to find out what the expectation is and regurgitate rhetoric and voice they've learned in high-school, or from reading previous Writ101 essays. By encouraging students to experiment with rhetorical strategies, with ideas of sustainability, the approach becomes heuristic and I think (I hope) composition and rhetorical growth ensues. This is where inquiry comes into play. Instead of students quickly addressing the rhetorical audience (the teacher) and writing essays they think the teacher expects from them, inquiry should lead the students to ask what best rhetorical strategies will convey their ideas best. Surely this is the true benefit of WRIT 101 on their future academic careers.