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.