Collaborative pedagogy provides an important social context in which students learn to discuss ideas in a thoughtful, constructive way. Reading the methods of employing collaborative pedagogy, I recognized that many of my methods align with this approach when it comes to classroom discussion and the “power politics” of a classroom, namely, de-centering power so the majority of the power is in the hands of the students. However, like any pedagogy, collaborative pedagogy needs to be tempered with other approaches as well, specifically when it comes to the concept of “socially justified belief.”
Case in point, today in my AP Rhetoric and Composition class, we were reading the introduction to Jeffrey Walker’s Investigating Arguments: Readings for College Writing, a book used in college for a class entitled “Texts, Subtexts, and Contexts.” The introduction is in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus, in which the two argue about what rhetoric is, both, of course, using rhetorical strategies to persuade his opponent. Upon reading a bandwagon argument, I asked the students if bandwagon arguments were a strong way to win an argument. They unanimously said “yes.” I then rephrased my question asking, “Well, is it a logical way to win an argument?” Again, they responded with the affirmative. After some discussion, they were willing to agree that bandwagon arguments are not an appeal to logos, but rather pathos. After establishing this, I then asked in the form of an example: if everyone were cheating on a certain quiz, does that mean it is okay to cheat since everyone else is doing it? Once again, the haunting “yes” returned to the room.
In a school where integrity, scholarship, and respect are the tenets of the honor code, does the collaborative approach, with the notion of “socially justified belief,” construct a community? Or does it become an excuse for dishonorable decision-making? Does socially justified belief (SJB) lead to a new kind of learning? Or does it promote an environment of bandwagoning, peer pressure, and ignorance?
While I know that the collaborative approach, generally speaking, can be very positive and very powerful, I’m not sure that SJB achieves its aim of divergent thinking. In a high school classroom, it’s possible that SJB promotes the pressure to conform and allows for misconceptions and stereotypes to breed freely rather than shedding light on misconceptions. Perhaps the concept of SJB is more successful in post-secondary institutions where students are more likely to question assumptions and to speak up, even if their beliefs seem to be in the minority. Then again, when I consider how some of my English classes were as an undergraduate, these discussions ultimately seemed to be a test of students’ rhetorical skills, and the discussions seemed to end in more of a consensus rather than difference.
Showing posts with label rhetoric. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rhetoric. Show all posts
23 September 2008
20 September 2008
Ethos, Pathos, Logos, and...Romeos???
Like Jake, I found this essay to be less than enlightening, but I must admit that this is not a concept that I’ve ever studied before. I have heard the word and I understood it enough…to keep my mouth shut.
I never seemed to be able to wrap my head around it.. So I confess that I didn’t go into the text with much in the way of prior knowledge and quite honestly, I walked away from the reading with little more. While I can certainly appreciate the ethos represented by Covino and his plethora of credits, those very same citations became cumbersome and obtrusive. Never one to be thwarted easily, I decided to do a little research on my own, hoping to find a way to make meaning of the rhetoric.
So after an hour or so on the internet, I had a better idea or at least didn’t feel quite so stupid.
In its basic form rhetoric is “the art of speaking or writing effectively and persuasively” (Merriman-Webster). Well, that seems simple enough. Why is this so complicated? It’s so complicated because no one seems to be able to agree on just what is the “real” theory of rhetoric. The concept of rhetoric is so profound that it goes back to 600 BCE with the Sophists (who are they?). In Ancient Greece guys like Aristotle and Socrates (them I know) and a bunch of their cronies sat around in their bed sheets thinking deep thoughts and waxing poetic in the original philosopher’s think tank. Here in the “cradle of civilization” is where much of our traditional theories of rhetoric originate, but even those brainiacs couldn’t agree. So while the theorists battle it out, once again, I’ll look through the eyes of my freshman for some common ground that we can use in the classroom.
Personally, I like the idea from Gerard A. Hauser (Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 1986):
“Rhetoric is an instrumental use of language…One person engages another person in an exchange of symbols to accomplish some goal. It is not communication for communication’s sake. Rhetoric is communication that attempts to coordinate social action…its goal is to influence human choices on specific matters that require immediate attention.”
Kenneth Burke agrees when he defines rhetoric as “the use of symbols to induce cooperation in those who by nature respond to symbols” (45). As human beings, we are the users of symbols. We are the writers, the speech makers, the ones who can make sense of those symbols. Ancient rhetoric focused primarily on speech, but today’s rhetoric encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also the symbols found in media such as film, radio, television, internet, etc.
Think about the recent political conventions… better examples of rhetoric can not be found.
I get the idea of the relevance of rhetoric as it, “increased professional attention to the teaching of writing… [Which legitimized the field of composition]… (37). Kinneavy posits the importance of the communication triangle of writer, audience, and context as the “relationship that attends all language use” (37) Isn’t this something we talk about with our students when they are writing? Think about your audience, the message that you, the writer, want to get across, and the best medium to present that message? If rhetoric is the talk that prompts action, then aren’t we teaching rhetoric whenever we ask kids to respond to a prompt that forces them to take a stand, support that stance with evidence, and thereby convince the audience of their idea of truth?
The last quarter of the freshman year is driven by the big idea of “Making Good Choices.” A study of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet anchors this design. At the end of the play, I ask my students to consider the following and choose either option A or B.
Friar Lawrence has been accused of involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of Romeo and Juliet. Remember that involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent.
A. You are the prosecuting attorney in the case against Friar Lawrence. It is your job to prove that the friar is guilty and deserves to be punished.
B. You are the defense attorney in the case against Friar Lawrence. It is your job to prove that the friar is not guilty and therefore deserves no punishment.
Directions: You must take a stance, establish your credibility with the jury, support your claims with evidence from the play, citing both speaker and line, and then make a passionate plea to the jury in hopes that you will persuade them of either guilt or innocence.
We are considering the writer, the audience, and the context, as students are forced to establish ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (deductive reasoning) in order to make a persuasive appeal that will instigate some action.
Geez, I guess I’ve been teaching rhetoric all along…who knew??
I never seemed to be able to wrap my head around it.. So I confess that I didn’t go into the text with much in the way of prior knowledge and quite honestly, I walked away from the reading with little more. While I can certainly appreciate the ethos represented by Covino and his plethora of credits, those very same citations became cumbersome and obtrusive. Never one to be thwarted easily, I decided to do a little research on my own, hoping to find a way to make meaning of the rhetoric.
So after an hour or so on the internet, I had a better idea or at least didn’t feel quite so stupid.
In its basic form rhetoric is “the art of speaking or writing effectively and persuasively” (Merriman-Webster). Well, that seems simple enough. Why is this so complicated? It’s so complicated because no one seems to be able to agree on just what is the “real” theory of rhetoric. The concept of rhetoric is so profound that it goes back to 600 BCE with the Sophists (who are they?). In Ancient Greece guys like Aristotle and Socrates (them I know) and a bunch of their cronies sat around in their bed sheets thinking deep thoughts and waxing poetic in the original philosopher’s think tank. Here in the “cradle of civilization” is where much of our traditional theories of rhetoric originate, but even those brainiacs couldn’t agree. So while the theorists battle it out, once again, I’ll look through the eyes of my freshman for some common ground that we can use in the classroom.
Personally, I like the idea from Gerard A. Hauser (Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 1986):
“Rhetoric is an instrumental use of language…One person engages another person in an exchange of symbols to accomplish some goal. It is not communication for communication’s sake. Rhetoric is communication that attempts to coordinate social action…its goal is to influence human choices on specific matters that require immediate attention.”
Kenneth Burke agrees when he defines rhetoric as “the use of symbols to induce cooperation in those who by nature respond to symbols” (45). As human beings, we are the users of symbols. We are the writers, the speech makers, the ones who can make sense of those symbols. Ancient rhetoric focused primarily on speech, but today’s rhetoric encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also the symbols found in media such as film, radio, television, internet, etc.
Think about the recent political conventions… better examples of rhetoric can not be found.
I get the idea of the relevance of rhetoric as it, “increased professional attention to the teaching of writing… [Which legitimized the field of composition]… (37). Kinneavy posits the importance of the communication triangle of writer, audience, and context as the “relationship that attends all language use” (37) Isn’t this something we talk about with our students when they are writing? Think about your audience, the message that you, the writer, want to get across, and the best medium to present that message? If rhetoric is the talk that prompts action, then aren’t we teaching rhetoric whenever we ask kids to respond to a prompt that forces them to take a stand, support that stance with evidence, and thereby convince the audience of their idea of truth?
The last quarter of the freshman year is driven by the big idea of “Making Good Choices.” A study of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet anchors this design. At the end of the play, I ask my students to consider the following and choose either option A or B.
Friar Lawrence has been accused of involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of Romeo and Juliet. Remember that involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent.
A. You are the prosecuting attorney in the case against Friar Lawrence. It is your job to prove that the friar is guilty and deserves to be punished.
B. You are the defense attorney in the case against Friar Lawrence. It is your job to prove that the friar is not guilty and therefore deserves no punishment.
Directions: You must take a stance, establish your credibility with the jury, support your claims with evidence from the play, citing both speaker and line, and then make a passionate plea to the jury in hopes that you will persuade them of either guilt or innocence.
We are considering the writer, the audience, and the context, as students are forced to establish ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (deductive reasoning) in order to make a persuasive appeal that will instigate some action.
Geez, I guess I’ve been teaching rhetoric all along…who knew??
16 September 2008
A Dangerous Game of Inventing Truths
"Socrates suspects rhetoric--especially as it is practiced by the sophists--as a dangerous deferral of the pursuit of ideal truth" (41).
Rhetoric:
1. the available means of persuasion
2. the study of misunderstanding and its remedies
3. the performance of literacy
4. everything
Or perhaps as Socrates suggests, rhetoric is a dangerous tool. Taking rhetoric outside of the writing classroom for a minute, since "rhetoric is everything" anyway, and examining it in the context of a medical lab, a courtroom, or a boardroom, rhetoric has the power to begin and stop research, free and imprison the innocent, and make and break billion-dollar deals. Since persuasion has become such a powerful player in everything from politics to aesthetics, has it become an obstacle to the pursuit of truth, justice, and honor? Do we turn to "base rhetoric" to rationalize poor decisions we make or poor actions we take in order to sleep more soundly at night? When did the power to persuade become the power to excuse and abuse?
In Covino's brief history of rhetoric, it is clear that over the years, scholars have favored Aristotle's notion of contingent, relative truth over Plato's notion of ideal truth. In this sense, the end point of the history of rhetoric is fairly similar to Aristotle's starting point: reality is constructed by language. By using language to define our own realities and our own truths, and eventually redefine our own realities and our own truths, this notion of rhetoric does not simply help us see ambiguity and "misunderstandings," but, more severely, it serves as a hallucinogen that distorts and manipulates.
I need to keep thinking about this...particularly as someone who is teaching a composition and rhetoric course.
In the meantime, I will enjoy reading the theories of rhetorical scholars who do what Plato warns all against: talking in circles to prove their own points rather than working together in pursuit of the truth.
Rhetoric:
1. the available means of persuasion
2. the study of misunderstanding and its remedies
3. the performance of literacy
4. everything
Or perhaps as Socrates suggests, rhetoric is a dangerous tool. Taking rhetoric outside of the writing classroom for a minute, since "rhetoric is everything" anyway, and examining it in the context of a medical lab, a courtroom, or a boardroom, rhetoric has the power to begin and stop research, free and imprison the innocent, and make and break billion-dollar deals. Since persuasion has become such a powerful player in everything from politics to aesthetics, has it become an obstacle to the pursuit of truth, justice, and honor? Do we turn to "base rhetoric" to rationalize poor decisions we make or poor actions we take in order to sleep more soundly at night? When did the power to persuade become the power to excuse and abuse?
In Covino's brief history of rhetoric, it is clear that over the years, scholars have favored Aristotle's notion of contingent, relative truth over Plato's notion of ideal truth. In this sense, the end point of the history of rhetoric is fairly similar to Aristotle's starting point: reality is constructed by language. By using language to define our own realities and our own truths, and eventually redefine our own realities and our own truths, this notion of rhetoric does not simply help us see ambiguity and "misunderstandings," but, more severely, it serves as a hallucinogen that distorts and manipulates.
I need to keep thinking about this...particularly as someone who is teaching a composition and rhetoric course.
In the meantime, I will enjoy reading the theories of rhetorical scholars who do what Plato warns all against: talking in circles to prove their own points rather than working together in pursuit of the truth.
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)