Thoughts About Rhetoric

I, like others, thought that this week’s reading was a little heavy. It was full of a lot of history. But inside the 40 pages of history, I did find some things that stuck out to me as interesting discussion points.

I’ll admit I groaned a little bit when I saw how much of the chapter was going to be about the history of rhetoric. But I agree with Williams that knowing the history is helpful and necessary when it comes to teaching. The more you know about the different ideologies and different theories, the more you can adapt them to your classroom and your different students. I want to know the most I can about what I am teaching so I can offer my students the best education possible.

I am interested in the idea of rhetoric as a “powerful tool for democratic change.” Now, more than ever, I believe this is true. Now communication occurs in many more ways than just the traditional speeches and writings. Also, many more people have access to these different means of communication than ever before. The White House now even has it’s own official Twitter account. People’s voices are being heard now more than ever, so it is important that these voices speak with clarity and purpose.

I was intrigued by the claim of Isocrates that “formal training can help those with natural aptitude and practical experience, but it can do little for those without natural ability, except give them some knowledge of the subject.” I agree, to an extent, that some people are naturally gifted at writing. But that does not mean that those without this gift cannot go on to become great writers themselves. If this is true, then why bother teaching them at all? According to Isocrates, they really won’t become great writers anyway.

I was also fascinated with the section on the Harvard composition classes and their failure to produce results. I don’t believe focusing solely on the mechanics of writing can be a successful way to teach writing. Yes, students need to know the grammar rules and how to use them, but should it be at the sake of content? A grammatically perfect paper that says nothing is just as bad as a paper filled with errors, in my opinion. Maybe these students who are entering college with unsatisfactory writing skills are frustrated with the process, too. I know for myself, I would be frustrated if I was only evaluated by mechanics. Maybe some of these students have great ideas for content but are not able to get past the grammar hurdle without some help.