O brave new pedagogy with such ambiguity in't

This pedagogy appears to be the one most applicable, so far, to my area of interest in the English M.A. program here at IUPUI in the promising insight that the study of rhetoric offers in the area of bringing awareness of how "discourse indicates the motives and desires -- the interests -- of writers, audiences, and the institutions they represent" (Covino 48) even as the definition of its focus is not agreed upon: what exactly is rhetoric?

My own position is a synthesis of Sophistic ideas and those Covino links to Aristotelian roots whose precepts seem to answer the problems raised by pedagogies that emphasize process while preserving and furthering their aim of self actualization which Robert Burnham triumphantly links to the “centrality of ethos” in Aristotle’s Rhetoric (21). Ethos, though certainly important, cannot stand alone; it is only one third of Aristotle’s triangle of rhetoric. Covino proposes a reconciliation of the expressive with its fellow foundational elements in James Kinneavy’s modernization, the “communication triangle:”

a rhetorical pedagogy consists in encouraging writing that is not restricted to self-expression or the acontextual generation of syntactic structures or the formulaic obedience to rules, but instead keeps in view the skills and contingencies that attend a variety of situations and circumstances. (37)

From this definition it follows that rhetoric is, or can be, a logical and educated means through which one may express and thereby clarify one’s own perception of truth.

Covino points out the structuralistic elements of the Sophistic ideas that challenge Aristotelian theories of rhetoric when he names truth a “contingent phenomenon” (40) and invokes Mikhail Bakhtin’s dialogical materialism that calls for “a rhetorical pedagogy that (1) recognizes that material reality is ideologically and linguistically constructed and (2) asks questions about the relation of that construction to lived experience” (47). This means of giving process pedagogies a more rigorous foundation stands opposed to Plato’s Socrates who says the way to approach an ideal rhetoric is to “first know the truth about every single subject on which he speaks or writes” (40) and appears an apt solution to the problems that arise when absolute truth is a goal for expression in a culturally diverse linguistic community, culminating in Kenneth Burke’s definition of rhetorical invention: “the process of exploiting the dialogical relationship among ideas, attitudes, and beliefs” (46). In defining rhetoric as “a mode of altering reality” (47) Lloyd Bitzer recognizes the inherent power of language over consciousness while implying the importance of structure, because, as Bakhtin says above, it is the logic within any language that gives it form and thus power.

So why is all of this important to me in my studies? My interest in language and literature stems from my deeper interest in philosophy, especially epistemology, and sociology – why is our culture the way it is today? By understanding how an author wields rhetoric in his writing process and by examining the different manifestations of the text in the separate extant versions and the circumstances of their editing, I believe I can gain insight into the philosophical development of our society. My hope is that with a clear understanding our evolution we may more productively create our future.