James A. Berlin and Social-Epistemic Rhetorics

Foreword

The IT of It All

When IT happened, I was teaching, conducting a seminar on rhetoric with a large group of humanities students. One of the students had brought copies of the NYTimes Magazine article on Jacques Derrida. We spent the opening moments of the seminar reading aloud from it. There’s a particular passage that sticks, will ever stick, in my mind. The article, if it has a topoi, is the experience of the impossible, That is, the experience of death. In the article Derrida thinks outlaid about death, his death. He says: It is true that I’m obsessed with death. I am at every minute attentive to the possibility that in the following hour I will be dead and the person I am with will say, ‘I was just in the room with I’m, and he is dead.’

About fifteen minutes later, my wife, Toni, knocked on the door of the seminar room where I was ruminating on the topos life is a tissue of contingencies (I was thinking out loud about Richard Rorty’s phrase in contingency, irony, and solidarity). I opened that door and Toni called me outside to the hall. She told me that Janice Lauer had requested that she find me immediately to let me know what? That JB had died of a heart attack.

I lost it. Now, I must find it again. But how and where? Opening. . . . You step out of a room. . . . A message is delivered. . . . You return to the room, and yet you don’t. And you say, I said, to my class, that I could not continue. I explained that I was just in my life with a friend, and now he is dead.

It will have taken me a long, long time to wrestle with this angel, left, far left unsaid. After all, you and I both know, all too well, that impossibility will by necessity remain, even if said, will remain undelivered. In a sense—but I hope not in all senses, undelivered. I would prefer not to not think that what remains unsaid stays undelivered.

In these situations that we find ourselves thrown into, by chance? We (should I simply say I) need to try to get our (my) bearings. Both public and private.

Public and private: In a piece of epideictic discourse that Jim had most recently written about the journal and me, he says: PRE/TEXT is a forum where we can all get together to disagree, establishing relationships, as V.V. and I have done, on mutual and heartfelt disrespect. (I could never be troubled to argue with a position or person I did not genuinely dislike at least part of the time. It is out of scorn that worthwhile differences are discovered. Without rancor there is no rose.)

—/\/\/\ Published in PRE/TEXT Vol. 14 1–2

Introduction

Seminar on James A. Berlin, Rhetoric as Social-Epistemic, Offered Fall 1998 and Again Fall 2001 at University of Texas at Arlington

The two Seminars I am recalling will focus on what is called social-epistemic rhetoric as it was developed primarily by James A. Berlin. (Simply defined, a social-epistemic rhetoric is one that has as its epistemology a view that reality is socially-constructed and that has as its politics a radical socialist set of agendas.)

We will read Berlin’s three books and numerous articles as well as work done by others in support of (Patricia Bizzell, John Trimbur, etc.) and in critical response to this rhetoric (Linda Flower, Peter Elbow, etc.). To study the works of Berlin is to study the field of composition from the mid-eighties to the present day.

Berlin’s Topologies thoroughly and perpetually re-mapped the field and, therefore, determined what could be said and not said about composition theories and pedagogies; what could be thought about textbooks in the field and what could not be thought; what could be seen as ethically and politically acceptable reasons for teaching literacy and what could not.

About the plotting of the syllabus: I have arranged our study of James A. Berlin from four incremental perspectives: His constantly revised Theories and Topologies of Composition Studies, Histories/historiographies of Rhetoric and Composition; and his views on Composition Studies, Ideology, and Cultural Studies (The Social-Epistemic Paths); and his Final, Posthumous Statements.

I begin the syllabus by way of the historical context of the NEH seminar, in which JB was introduced to rhetoric/composition. (I was not only an observer but also a participant myself in this seminar.) Moreover, in the plotting of the weekly syllabus, I have referred to what I call two major articles.

Please understand that these articles are in my judgment major. Other people would, of course, plot and unfold the syllabus differently, with perhaps other articles, focuses, and emphases.

Seminar participants will be expected to write 10 one-page, single-spaced position papers specifically based on the readings; and will be expected to write one thoroughly researched paper for publication. (The topic must be approved by the instructor.) The one-page papers are to exhibit a careful understanding of JB’s arguments and an interrogation of them. These will be published on the Hyper News site and then responded to by seminar participants and any other public subscriber to the seminar and the list.

* Students and interested people could subscribe to Berlin-L — Helen Foster, Michelle Ballif, Ron Hugar, Diane Davis, Matthew Levy, Collin Brooke Janice Lauer, Cynthia Haynes, Michelle Sidler, Paul Kei Matsuda, Robert Inkster, David Rieder, Alan Taylor, Tom Rickert, Jenny Bay, Kara Robinson, Byron Hawk, Victor J. Vitanza.

Texts

Berlin, James A. Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. Paper. NCTE.

—. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900–1985. Paper. NCTE.

—. Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges. Paper. NCTE.

And numerous articles. Additional books may be required reading.

Syllabus, Short Form

First Week: Introduction to Course, detailing what will be covered in the seminar and how it will be covered, etc.

We will spend some time—though ever so briefly—establishing an ‘academic’ context with which JB ‘thought about’ writing instruction. This context was primarily established for him while participating in a nine-month NEH seminar at Carnegie-Mellon University (1978–1979) with Richard Young. Specifically, we will examine some of the initial conceptual starting places that JB studied: Daniel Fogarty’s notion of Current-Traditional Rhetoric (CTR), James Kinneavy’s theories (rather, topologies) of discourse, and Young’s topology of writing theory/instruction.

I will distribute selections from: Daniel Fogarty’s Roots for a New Rhetoric. New York: Teachers College, Columbia U, 1959. I will briefly discuss several other articles that you will have read for next week, including my introductory article on JB in Twentieth-Century Rhetorics and Rhetoricians.

Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #1

Continuing to establish the academic context, we will discuss the following two articles that JB first wrote while an NEH Fellow and published shortly thereafter (with Robert P. Inkster): Current-Traditional Rhetoric: Paradigm and Practice. Freshman English News 8.3 (Winter 1980): 1–4, 13–14.

Richard Whately and Current-Traditional Rhetoric. College English 42 (September 1980): 10–17.

Supplementary reading, which is necessary for a contextual interpretation:

Richard E. Young, Paradigms and Problems: Needed Research in Rhetorical Invention. In Research on Composing: Points of Departure, Ed. Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1978. 29–48.

—. Arts, Crafts, Gifts and Knacks: Some Disharmonies in the New Rhetoric. In Reinventing the Rhetorical Tradition. Ed. Aviva Freedman and Ian Pringle. Conway, AK: Canadian Council of Teachers of English and L&S Books, 1980. 53–60.

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #2

September 8th: JB’s first major article and its impact on theorizing and teaching writing instructions:

Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories. College English 44 (1982): 765–77.

Supplementary reading, which is necessary for a contextual interpretation:

Richard Fulkerson, Four Philosophies of Composition. CCC 30 (December 1979): 343–48.

Paul Kameen, Rewording the Rhetoric of Composition. PRE/TEXT 1. 1–2 (Spring-Fall 1980). 3–94. Though Kameen was not a member of the seminar, he attended and participated. His article was available in draft form previous to publication and was read by JB and acknowledged in the College English article.

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #3

The First Book: Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges. Carbondale, Southern Illinois UP, 1984.

Supplementary Reading

Rhetoric and Poetics in the English Department: Our Nineteenth-Century Inheritance. College English 47 (1985): 531–33.

Connors, Robert J. Rev. of Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges, James A. Berlin. College Composition and Communications 37 (1986): 247–49.

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #4

The Second Book: Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges.1900–1985. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987.

Supplementary Reading

Crowley, Sharon. Rev of Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges: 1900–1985, James A. Berlin. College Composition and Communication 39 (1986): 245–47.

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #5

Historiography, Part 1

Revisionary History: The Dialectical Method. PRE/TEXT 8.1–2 (1987): 47–61.

Berlin, James A., et al. Octalog. The Politics of Historiography. Rhetoric Review 7 (1988): 5–49.

Postmodernism, Politics, and Histories of Rhetorics. PRE/TEXT, 11.3–4 (1990): 169–87.

Supplementary Reading

Brooks, Kevin. Reviewing and Re-describing ‘The Politics of Historiography’: Octalog I, 1988. Rhetoric Review 16.1 (Fall 1997): 6–21. In the same issue, you will find Octalog II. I do recommend that you eventually read this follow up event(less).

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #6

October 6th: JB’s second major article and its impact on theorizing and teaching writing instructions:

Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class. College English 50 (1988): 477–94.

Supplementary Reading

Flower, Linda. Comments on James Berlin. ‘Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.’ College English 51 (1989): 765–69.

Schilb, John. Comments on James Berlin. ‘Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.’ College English 51 (1989): 769–70.

Scriben, Karen. Comments on James Berlin. ‘Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.’ College English 51 (1989): 764–65.

James Berlin Responds. ‘Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.’ College English 51 (1989): 770–77.

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #7

Historiography, Part 2

Revisionary Histories of Rhetoric: Politics, Power, and Plurality. Writing Histories of Rhetoric, ed. Victor J. Vitanza. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1994. 112–27.

Supplementary reading:

Sharon Crowley, Let Me Get This Straight. In Writing Histories of Rhetoric. Ed. Victor J. Vitanza. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1994. 20–37.

Hans Kellner, After the Fall: Reflections on Histories of Rhetoric. In Writing Histories of Rhetoric. Ed. Victor J. Vitanza. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1994. 38–48.

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #8

Cultural Studies, Part 1

Cultural Studies. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition. Ed. Theresa Enos. NY: Garland, 1996. 154–56.

Freirean Pedagogy in the U.S.: A Response. Journal of Advanced Composition 12 (Fall 1992): 414–21.

Poststructuralism, Cultural Studies, and the Composition Classroom. Rhetoric Review 11 (Fall 1992): 16–33. Rpt. Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart C. Brown. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994. 461–80.

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #9

Cultural Studies, Part 2

Composition and Cultural Studies. Composition and Resistance. Ed. Hurlbert, C. Mark and Michael Blitz. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1991.

Composition Studies and Cultural Studies: Collapsing Boundaries. Into the Field: Sites of Composition Studies. Ed. Anne Ruggle Gere. New York: MLA,1993. 99–116.

Supplementary Reading

Bizzell, Patricia. Beyond anti-Foundationalism Rhetorical Authority: Problems Defining ‘Cultural Literacy.’ College English 52.6 (1990): 661–75. (Critique of Berlin on pp. 670, 672–673)

Notice that this article is published much earlier than the articles we read this week, but it’s a critique that stands with value and that raises important questions that we should wrestle with.

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #10

A Major Interrogation of JB’s Work

Alcorn, Marshall. Changing the Subject of Postmodernist Theory: Discourse, Ideology, and Therapy in the Classroom. Rhetoric Review 13.2 (1995): 331–49.

Note: JB, as an outside reviewer, had read the manuscript of this article and had sent his comments to the editor of Rhetoric Review. The notes, published posthumously, are included along with the article. Some background in Lacanian psychoanalysis will be necessary to follow the argument.

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #11

The Final Book, published posthumously.

Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1996. (Republished with an Afterword by Janice Lauer and Response Essays by Linda Brodkey, Patricia Harkin, Susan Miller, John Trimbur, and Victor J. Vitanza by Parlor Press, 2003).

Supplementary Reading

Jim Berlin’s Last Work: Future Perfect, Tense (A collection of articles by Linda Brodkey, Patricia Harkin, Susan Miller, John Trimbur, and Victor J. Vitanza on Rhetorics, Poetics, Cultures). Journal of Advanced Composition 17.3 (1997): 489–505.

VjV’s Lecture/Discussion Notes, Week #12–13

A Retrospective

Seminar participants (taking as reading course for exams/dissertation) will have composed a two-page summary of their positions vis-a-vis Berlin’s theories/pedagogies of writ instruction and their own, emphasizing what they have incorporated and/or disincorporated, and present it to the seminar.

Syllabus, Long Form

Week #1

Notes used for 25 Aug 1998 Seminar Meeting. —vjv

Introduction to Seminar: Beginning with Maps or Topologies or Cartographic Representations of Rhetoric/Composition.

Context, NEH Seminar (AY 1978–79): What is included here are Maps or Topologies for the most part given to us in lecture format by Richard Young or shared among us outside of the NEH Seminar and known or used in part by JB in articles shortly after the seminar. The maps—cognitive mappings—were used as a means of orienting the NEH participants to the field of rhetoric/composition:

Daniel Fogarty’s divisions (roots for a new rhetoric): Aristotle, Current Traditional, Newer Theories (Richards, Burke, GeneralSemanticists)

James Kinneavy’s topologies of discourse (theory of discourse): Expressive, Persuasive, Referential,Literary

Frank D’Angelo’s topics/topologies of discourse (a conceptual theory of rhetoric): Logical (Static, Progressive, Repetitive) and Nonlogical (Imagining, condensation, symbolizing, displacement, free association, transformation, nonlogical repetition), etc. (See A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop,1975.)

Hal Rivers Weidner (doctoral dissertation): Traditional, Mechanical, and Vital. (This dissertation—Three Models of Rhetoric: Traditional, Mechanical and Vital, U of Michigan, 1975—was read by members of the NEH seminar. The model of Vitalism is applied to Romanticism, specifically Coleridge, and then later The New Romantics. See Kameen’s Article in Syllabus, third week, September8th.)