Deliberative Discourse and First-Year Composition (FYC)

Braun, M.J. "The Prospects for Rhetoric in a First-Year Composition Program: Deliberative      Discourse as a Vehicle for Change?" Writing Program Administration 31.3 (2008): 89-109. EBSCOhost. Web. 24 September 2013.

M.J. Braun's article, "The Prospects for Rhetoric in a First-Year Composition Program: Deliberative Discourse as a Vehicle for Change?", presents a possible answer to the question Rhetoric or Composition? First-Year composition is a contested space due to labor issues and debates about what should and should not be a part of first-year composition. This article continues the debate about the role of FYC, its position in the university, and pedagogical approaches. This is a necessary conversation because it addresses the impact of the administration on what takes place in FYC. It also brings to light (possible) distinctions between rhetoric and composition.

Braun's article posits that FYC should break with traditional composition. Using narrative, the history of rhetoric and composition, and deliberative rhetoric, based on "agnostic and radically democratic strategies" developed by Chantal Moufee, he argues that composition programs should focus on rhetoric instead of the current-traditionalist approach to composition. The argument focuses on using deliberative discourse to challenge the current curriculum and to establish continued research in rhetoric and rhetorical pedagogy. Braun supports the argument for a return to rhetoric by identifying how, students, in significant social and political moments, were not inept at engaging in/with the issues (i.e. (9/11). Braun presents that a return to rhetoric as "theoretical discourse" would allow students to  "knowledgeably and ethically participate in opinion-making and knowledge-making discourses by developing their understanding of the multiplicity of ways persuasion takes place" (92). He presents that traditional composition's focus on aesthetics (grammar/usage) does not take into account "the living genres that circulate in everyday and academic life"(93). He positions rhetoric and composition in opposition to one another.  The latter is presented as taking place in a vacuum, wherein writing takes place individually with correct grammar and usage without being engaged with the texts/audiences that already exist in the world.

Braun engaged in deliberative discussions with instructors, adjuncts, and graduate students about disciplinary identity and pedagogy.  He presents that these discussions were agnostic and radically democratic in that the discussions did not seek consensus or compromise; the goal was to have an informed solution. Through the narrative, he shares the challenges faced from other faculty and the administration. The administration was resistant to transforming the writing program in part to what Braun identifies as "market forces." On the other hand, the writing faculty and graduate students, openly engaged in discussions about changing the goals of instruction and replacing concepts of composition with rhetorical theory. Ultimately, Braun's argument rests on his belief that current composition is "arhetorical" and does not require students to engage with existing texts and use rhetorical strategies that take into account various audiences and purposes; this approach, he argues, will develop students' abilities to examine and engage complex social and political situations.

Everything is Rhetoric...but Composition

Crowley, Sharon. "Composition Is Not Rhetoric." Enculturation 5.1 (2003). Web. 9 Sept. 2013.

            The title of Sharon Crowley’s article “Composition is not Rhetoric” presents a strong statement about the state of rhetoric and composition as disciplines. She begins with the eye-opening statement: "Composition, as it has been practiced in the required first-year course for more than 100 years, has nothing whatever to do with rhetoric." This clearly presents that rhetoric and composition are different and separate disciplines and activities. Crowley presents that invention along with civic and social discourse are essential to rhetoric. Her primary concern is that over the years rhetoric has been removed from composition and the focus shifted to choosing a subject (invention) and the five-paragraph essay (arrangement).  Because of the shift in composition, the integration of social and political discourse is also complicated. She acknowledges that composition theorist and teachers attempt to integrate civic activities and service-learning into their courses. However, Crowley argues, that their motivations lie with "Marx and neo-marxist theorists" and "the brand of cultural studies associated with the work of Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall. The move is not motivated by the study of rhetoric.  Crowley aligns herself with Charles Sears Baldwin’s argument rhetoric and rhetorical pedagogy has turned into sophistry. We, modern users of rhetoric and composition, have become focused on effectiveness of the speaker instead of the message. Basically, rhetoric cannot work, as it should, without invention and the "canon that ties it to social and public use."  Ultimately, Crowley distinguishes rhetoric from all other disciplines because of its focus on invention.

            I think Crowley's article is necessary for scholars in rhetoric and composition because it begins the conversation in regards to defining or redefining composition. She makes a clear distinction between composition of the past and "modern" composition. This is something that I never considered. The idea of a composition of the past that works well with rhetoric and the composition of the present, which pushes rhetoric to the fringes, is intriguing and worrisome. I also think it is important to question the intentions behind reintegrating rhetoric into the composition classroom. What are the motivations behind this decision? Is the desire to return rhetoric or to integrate cultural studies? This essay would be a good starting point for anyone making pedagogical decisions in regards to a first-year composition course. It would also be useful for scholars and teachers who are trying to situate themselves in rhetoric and composition. For me, it brought about questions in regards to how I define rhetoric, whether invention is essential to rhetoric, and if my use of social and civic discourse is tied to cultural theorists.