If both rhetoric and composition have a range of possible denotations, some of which are incompatible, then the words used together denote a corresponding variety of relations. I'll summarize some of the meanings in order to get at some of these potential relations. The following list is not meant to be complete. I make it, in fact, only half-seriously. | | composition I: The act or practice of composing. | | composition I-A: The act or practice of composing nonfiction prose. |
| | | composition II: The theory of composing. | | composition II-A: The theory of composing nonfiction prose. |
| | | composition III: The prescriptive teaching of composing. | | composition III-A: The prescriptive teaching of nonfiction prose. | | | composition III-A-a: The prescriptive teaching of some limited aspect of nonfiction prose (such as correctness or paragraph structure). |
| | | rhetoric I: The (prescriptive) art of composing. | | rhetoric I-A: The art of composing any kind of discourse. | | rhetoric I-A-a: The art of fashioning the sentences of any kind of discourse by means of figurative ornamentation. | | | rhetoric I-A-b: The art of thinking up arguments to be used in any piece of discourse. |
| | | rhetoric I-B: The art of composing public, persuasive discourse. | | rhetoric I-B-a: The art of composing argumentation. |
|
| | | rhetoric II: The products of the art of composing. | | rhetoric II-A: All composed discourse. | | rhetoric II-A-a: The style or figures of speech present in all composed discourse. |
| | | rhetoric II-B: All public, persuasive discourse. | | rhetoric II-B-a: All argumentative discourse. |
|
| | | rhetoric III: Any specific piece of discourse. | | rhetoric III-A: Any aspect of that work. | | rhetoric III-A-a: The specific style or figures in that work. |
| | | rhetoric III-B: Any specific work of public, persuasive discourse. | | rhetoric III-B-a: Any specific work of argumentation. |
|
| | | rhetoric IV: Any aspect of discourse. | | rhetoric IV-A: The stylistic aspect of discourse. | | | rhetoric IV-B: The argumentative aspect of discourse. |
| | | rhetoric V: Deceptive discourse. |
And so on. Given this variety, the phrase rhetoric and composition could express a mere redundancy (as in rhetoric I and composition III), it could express a kind of non-sequitur (as in rhetoric III-A-a and composition I), it could express a contradiction in terms (as in rhetoric II-A and composition III-A), or it could express a moral outrage (as in rhetoric V and composition II). Many of the combinations, however, will result in nothing more than a null-set, insofar as no one who uses the phrase intends such a combination. Without any further absurd pretense to schematize meanings and combinations of meanings, certain possibilities are nevertheless salient. The phrase rhetoric and composition can be the redundant expression of synonyms; it can express different concepts in relation; it can express concepts that do not belong together; or it can express concepts that cancel each other out. If the terms are synonymous, for instance, if they both mean the prescriptive teaching of nonfiction prose, then we probably ought to drop one or the other. If the terms purport to relate concepts that do not belong together, for instance, if composition means teaching correctness at the expense of invention and if rhetoric means the analysis of argumentative validity and effectiveness, then we probably ought to rethink the field to which the phrase is applied. If the terms cancel each other out--for instance, if composition means practicing specific prefabricated forms of expression and rhetoric means inventing forms according to the needs of specific occasions--then we probably ought to decide which of the two we wish to teach or practice and let the other go begging. If, however, the phrase is to relate different concepts in a meaningful and useful way, then we ought to decide which of the various meanings of each term can complement and strengthen the other. In search of such a preferred relation, perhaps it will help to determine whether the phrase rhetoric and composition implies subordinate or coordinate relations. Is rhetoric a subcategory of composition, is composition a subcategory of rhetoric, or is there no hierarchy implicit in their relation? Just what are we looking at when we look at one alleged concept through the spectacles of another? If rhetoric is a subcategory of composition, certain implications follow. Composition, as the superordinate category, would, I presume, take in all aspects of the art of composing, of which rhetoric would be one. In this sense, rhetoric could mean the art of composing a certain kind of discourse, such as, say, persuasive. This has precedence in some historical definitions of rhetoric as "the art of persuasion." The implication is, of course, that much, if not most, discourse is not persuasive. Consider, for instance, one of the long-standing commonplaces of composition manuals, the classification of discourse into modes of narration, description, exposition, argument and persuasion. If rhetoric is the art of persuasion, then the student of composition is presumed to encounter "rhetoric" only after having worked up to it by practicing something else first. The same result occurs when rhetoric is taken to signify that part of composition having to do with stylistic embellishment, as was once typically the case in textbooks, such as Blaisdell Steps in English: Composition-Rhetoric ( 1906) in which Part One consists of discussions of letter writing, word meanings, forms of expression, the essay, etc., and Part Two begins with "A Digest of the Principles of Rhetoric," defined as "the science that deals with the placing together of words in such a way as to express, in the best possible manner, the thoughts and feelings which the writer wishes to express" (327-28), and follows with a list of figures of speech. These usages are not incorrect, as I have tried to suggest in the preceding section of this essay, but they lead to absurdities. As a student, you can't practice composing (through hundreds of pages of textbook) without also practicing rhetoric, whether the word denotes persuasion or style. Try writing without style, or without persuasion. I can't even imagine it. But linear separations, such as textbooks frequently require, often imply that composition and rhetoric can each command one's exclusive attention. If composition is a subcategory of rhetoric less absurd consequences follow. It would imply that rhetoric, as the superordinate category, relates to the theory and practice of composing all kinds of discourse, while composition is restricted, possibly, to the specific teaching of written discourse of certain kinds. We have already seen problems with such a view related to the way in which those kinds of discourse are distinguished from others. E. D. Hirsch adduced a different kind of objection to this relationship: Rhetoric, then, is the subject closest to composition, both because the concerns of the two subjects overlap in many places and because they are both practical arts. All the more reason, therefore, to warn against a premature subsumption of composition under rhetoric. The nearness of the fit makes the subsumption of composition under rhetoric all the more misleading. A legal statute may be well or badly written, while remaining indifferent to its emotive or persuasive effects on readers. The same is true of many instructional manuals and even many technical articles. That does not put these genres beyond the pale. They are highly important kinds of writing, and it is highly important that they should be well-written. (143) What Hirsch illustrates here is that the enlargement of the category rhetoric, in order to subsume composition under it, will give rise, ironically, to a diminished sense of what rhetoric is (as a genre of writing) so that it won't contain the enlarged sense of what composition is. What a strange outcome. Hirsch wants composition, then, to be "not a part of another subject matter but a branch of practical knowledge in its own right" (143). Just what that is, as a separate thing from rhetoric, is never clear.
|