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.