Working Rhetoric and Composition

The constitution of rhetoric and composition as a discipline is the subject of a long-standing and ongoing debate that grapples with what each of the terms might be said to signify in relation to the other, and why.' There is, of course, an inevitable politics to these grappling’s that merits investigation: what seems to matter, why, to whom, with what histories, and most important, with Links Of London Charms what consequences. Often investigation of these politics focuses on power plays and competing interests. Here, however, we pursue those politics that aim at defining, and redefining, the meaning(s) of rhetoric and composition as a discipline in ways responsive to the ever-changing, specific material conditions of its formation and social reception. We aim, in other words, to approach rhetoric and composition as something that necessarily and rightly needs to be continuously "worked" (and reworked) to articulate alternatives and forms of resistance to hegemonic forces and relations.

To highlight possible points of departure for such a politics, we begin by mapping the main questions embedded in particular definitions we see operating in common discourse about rhetoric and composition. We delineate the ways in which specific definitions address some of these questions in light or disregard of others; the material conditions shaping particular notions of rhetoric and composition; and the ways in which individual notions impede or advance efforts to build more equitable and mutually constitutive relations across a rich array of strands working rhetoric and composition. Finally, we propose lines of inquiry by which such Links Of London Bracelets relations might be developed. These include, importantly, recognizing, and making more productive use of, relationships that rhetoric and composition might have with rhetorical study not affiliated with composition, and also with education and applied linguistics. Neglect of the relationship of rhetoric and composition with these last two areas of study—coded most commonly by the terms literacy and English—has, we argue, limited the scope, insights, and effects of contemporary work in rhetoric and composition.

We can get a sense of current tensions and assumptions regarding the work of rhetoric and composition in the discourse of listserv postings, job advertisements, the naming of courses and programs of study and the positions of those responsible for them, and publication practices. These reveal three complicating tendencies in debate over the nature and function of rhetoric, composition, and rhetoric and composition: the tendency to use all three terms interchangeably with one another and with writing, English, and literacy the tendency to treat the meaning of each term as stable and self-evident the tendency to treat rhetoric and composition as mutually exclusive and/or in hierarchical order.

The constitution of rhetoric and composition as a discipline is the subject of a long-standing and ongoing debate that grapples with what each of the terms might be said to signify in relation to the other, and why.' There is, of course, an inevitable politics to these grappling’s that merits investigation: what seems to matter, why, to whom, with what histories, and most important, with Links Of London Charms what consequences. Often investigation of these politics focuses on power plays and competing interests. Here, however, we pursue those politics that aim at defining, and redefining, the meaning(s) of rhetoric and composition as a discipline in ways responsive to the ever-changing, specific material conditions of its formation and social reception. We aim, in other words, to approach rhetoric and composition as something that necessarily and rightly needs to be continuously "worked" (and reworked) to articulate alternatives and forms of resistance to hegemonic forces and relations.

To highlight possible points of departure for such a politics, we begin by mapping the main questions embedded in particular definitions we see operating in common discourse about rhetoric and composition. We delineate the ways in which specific definitions address some of these questions in light or disregard of others; the material conditions shaping particular notions of rhetoric and composition; and the ways in which individual notions impede or advance efforts to build more equitable and mutually constitutive relations across a rich array of strands working rhetoric and composition.

Finally, we propose lines of inquiry by which such Links Of London Bracelets relations might be developed. These include, importantly, recognizing, and making more productive use of, relationships that rhetoric and composition might have with rhetorical study not affiliated with composition, and also with education and applied linguistics. Neglect of the relationship of rhetoric and composition with these last two areas of study—coded most commonly by the terms literacy and English—has, we argue, limited the scope, insights, and effects of contemporary work in rhetoric and composition.

Posted in: Working Rhetoric and Composition