Reading James Berlin’s essay, I wondered why Berlin ordered the categories of rhetoric they way he did. Why is cognitive first, expressionistic second, and social-epistemic third? I think his essay mirrors the evolution of composition philosophy, moving from the early idea to the modern idea. I agree with his basic reasoning, but I think the terms he defines are less clear-cut than he posits, and that an effective writing instructor can blend all three.
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting our readings for this class, but isn’t cognitive rhetoric another form of formalism? After all, it stresses linear, logical progressions, hierarchy, and an adherence to form. Cognitive rhetoric reinforces some of the dated ways of teaching composition. While cognition and adherence to form is a part of writing, it isn’t the whole thing.
Berlin names expressionistic rhetoric second. Expressionism happened further along in the development of teaching composition, but it too is inadequate to explain the whole of writing. I think Berlin named expressionistic rhetoric second to serve as a bridge between cognitive and social/epistemic rhetoric.
Social/epistemic rhetoric serves as a kind of next-level hybridization of the two previously discussed forms of rhetoric. It incorporates logic and cognition with the writer’s self to make a third other, a social environment, which includes self, others, and a logical/material foundation.
Berlin argues that social/epistemic is the most responsible route to take when teaching (okay, so I’m oversimplifying him a bit), but I feel like each rhetorical form has its place, and that they don’t need to be necessarily separate. A skilled writing instructor will use the correct type of rhetoric for the correct teaching occasion.
The one hope I have for the social epistemic rhetoric is that I hope it's the one that can actually CREATE ideology as opposed to one that is only supplements an ideology. Where the others stem away from the ideology on which they were founded, the social epistemic might be flexible enough to work on a web in order to meld to different situations.
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying here. I felt like Berlin's article traced a really wide arc that encompasses a lot more than simply composition. While it is certainly applicable to composition instruction, I think it could be applied to any number of topics as a method of instruction. I guess I view social epistemic rhetoric as more of a pedagogy than an ideology, if that makes sense. So, to me, it seems like you could use a social epistemic approach to teach the values of cognitive and expressionist approaches to writing, because I also think they are useful. The problems arise when one or the other is focused on too much.
ReplyDelete