Rhetoric, as stated by Foss, is the unique human ability to use symbols to communicate with one another. We have an innate sense to interact by means of different modes depending on what exactly we want to share. This definition is quite wide, and is meant to be that way to demonstrate that each person will use rhetoric differently; it is not a one-size-fits-all situation. Though, it may not seem that way on the surface, especially when someone is taught this idea by means of checking a box from the long, fictitious yet somewhat realistic, list titled, “Things Writing Students Should Know”. Though, who has the credibility to make that list, and why should we, the writerly populace, accept such a list of prerequisites to in turn feel like accomplished writers that know what we are doing?
This point seamlessly digresses into the teaching of writing and how we go about it. Instruction of writing has not been claimed, at least at Kean University, by any one discipline. Though, it is something that is required of everyone to do. If it is required, and we must do it in a way that fulfills the reader, and in a school setting, a grade of sorts, then how are we supposed to know exactly how to change our process? Russel discusses the Writing Across the Curriculum framework, which exemplifies the need to create space for flexibility and experimentation within the realm of writing, as each discipline differs by means of information, purpose, and community. Returning to the issue of credibility of who asserts such rules and regulations concerning the writing process, it seems, at this point, each discipline must create their own terms. Though from there, will students be able to fill in the gaps? Can anyone? Where is step one, and who will take responsibility for that?
Sure, there is no cookie-cutter way of writing when working within the collegiate level, which was something that I learned and started to experiment with beginning my sophomore year of undergrad. Though, as I reflect, I realize that the way I learned to write (the monster sandwich outline, respectively) helped my ability to tear down any notion of requirement within my writing. By having parameters, and learning to hate them and feel boxed in by them, I was able to break them down with permanence and confidence. That, in itself, is rhetoric, I suppose. I am communicating through means of ignoring the pretenses of the monster sandwich outline, and embodying my thoughts in ways that transcend what was once expected, and creating something inherently playful and divergent. Nothing can truly serve each and every person the exact same way due to each and every human being’s original life experiences. This is what makes way for rhetoric, and does not make way for the monster sandwich outline (now serving as a symbol of the one-size-fits-all notion). Yes, students need to be able to cultivate ideas and connections in regards to themselves and the world around them, but they also need to be able to navigate that process for themselves when the purpose of the writing changes, and the current instruction of writing is not allowing students to do such a thing. How we get to a point where they always can and always will, is blurry at this point in time.
Leave a Reply