QQC2

Bitzer asserts that the ideal world is one that lacks rhetoric, but since our world is not ideal it presents us with exigencies that demand a rhetorical response. He then draws the parallel of rhetoric and scientific investigation. I wonder if you think this implies a that Bitzer thinks that his approach can be used as a system similar to the scientific method to investigate and create and respond to these situtations? Do you think he is advocating for a strict adherence to what he is putting forward as a set of “steps” to complete in order to have a proper and unfettered investigation? Would he agree if challenged that writing is highly individualistic and processes vary wildly (unlike a scientific method, which must be followed stringently)?

Yancey discusses the loss/consolidation of English departments within academic institutions into other fields of study due to a rise in technology and the subsequent expansion of what it means to write. Obviously, we all value the English department as we have chosen it over those other fields that have subsumed them, but do you think it might be reasonable to move the departments toward more technologically-focused fields (ie communications) since so much of reading and writing take place in digital spheres? What would you argue is the importance of an English-centric education in reading and writing as opposed to something that might be more focused on communication/technologies in other departments? In your opinion/experience, what does an English department bring to the table that these other departments cannot?