1. I think Yancey makes an excellent point in his text when he notes that even with the shift in composition instruction to focus on process, our current model of teaching--even one-on-one conferences--still emphasizes the relationship between the writer and the teacher, and only this (309). Based on my reading, he poses this as a negative thing. Do you have any ideas about how we can give students a greater scope of relationship and audience in the context of a composition classroom, while still abiding by institutional expectations that we are the ones reading and grading our students' work? Do you even agree with Yancey that this is an issue? Or do you think this is just part of what it means to be a teacher?
2. Bitzer describes at the end of his piece ways in which the structure of a rhetorical situation can be weakened. I'm not sure what this signifies in the discussion of rhetorical discourse. What are the implications of a 'weak rhetorical situation' for the possibility of rhetorical discourse as a response to it? Does it mean that rhetorical discourse becomes less of an option? Would that make the situation itself less rhetorical?
Hi Esther!
ReplyDeleteI like your question about what Yancey proposes. I think I do agree with her, ideally. I think it would be wonderful for students to interact with and share their work on a larger platform, having them create a blog, for instance. Or to even write to each other as a class, who is mostly of the same generation, but of varying backgrounds and experiences, to have a better grasp of audience. But then, do students grade each other's work? How do we measure their growth? And again, this is the ideal situation. Do students want to do this? Will they begrudge their professors and drag their feet through the entire process? Granted how students feel about assignments shouldn't be the deciding factor for how we teach, but shouldn't it be taken into consideration?
Great thoughts!
Kelsey
Hi Esther,
ReplyDeleteIf I'm reading Bitzer correctly, I think you answered your question. He describes two ways in which the structure of a rhetorical situation can be weakened to further differentiate between the necessary components of the rhetorical situation versus any other--be it persuasive, for example, or similar. Since his is a first attempt at defining the core and necessary elements that provide for the situation from which rhetoric arises, I read his decision to end on another illustration of a "weakening" or weakened situation as further emphasizing what he demonstrates throughout the essay: namely, he appears to say, So long as these elements exist, this situation is rhetorical. But all of the elements must exist. But all of them can exist, if only weakly, and still be rhetorical. It is only that the situation is no longer rhetorical when the relative "weakness" of one element (exigence, for example) is SO weak as to affect no influence on any other element (rhetor, audience, or constraint, for further examples).