The Old is the New is the Old Again (but it's probably best if we don't concern ourselves with defining the term)

If the goal of rhetorical pedagogy is to empower the student to search for truth, the meaning of everything, and to examine the connection "between constructed and actual experience" (47), I have to recognize this as a laudable goal and a philosophically ambitious view of language. But rhetorical pedagogy assumes a lot about the student it is trying to liberate and refine.

First, it assumes that the same privileges afforded to the educated classes thousands of years ago which allowed rhetoric to flourish are the same held by students today. It assumes that the student comes to the class equipped with a solid educational base and a world view reinforced by a family structure which places a high value on education and the search for truth, clarity and understanding. An education interrupted by hunger, poverty, violence or simple indifference at home poses a problem to the student of rhetorical pedagogy.

It also assumes that the student has some recognition of their command of their language, that they haven't been told their language is "wrong" or that it and their thoughts need correction, and that the language and methodology they are being taught hasn't been used against them.

From what I understand of it, I admire rhetorical pedagogy for its emphasis on the power of language, but I'm worried that it simply reinforces mimicry of the language of the dominant class, ethnicity, gender, and race rather than fostering the variances of languages used within minority communities.

I'm basing this off my own experiences with rhetorical pedagogy both as a student and a teacher. As a student, I thought the rigid structure and emphasis of function over form was insulting. As I teacher, I found it insulting as well, and ultimately, seemed to appeal more to administrators and text book publishers than those in the classroom. Is that harsh? Probably.

Again, I think I see the goal and the need for what rhetorical pedagogy is trying to accomplish, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to heap this on the student (especially considering that the definition of rhetoric is a moving target- what it is exactly?). I'm not comfortable in declaring this pedagogy unusable; I'm sure it has a time and a place, but I haven't been able to figure out either (again, speaking from my experience).

The structure and discipline it offers is attractive, but when I hear those terms - "structure" "topic sentences" "controlled writing" - I can't help but interpret that as "good writing is such and such". Where does that leave writing that does not mimic the model de jour? By definition, that would mean it's considered bad, right?