On The Ideological Underpinnings Of Rhetorical Thought

Agnes Fidelis Gloria-Pinzon, 1987-15240 ENG 262 TMA 3 Page 1 of 3 pages ON THE IDEOLOGICAL UNDERPININGS OF RHETORICAL THOUGHT AND PRACTICE

Studying the different epistemologies in the unit and the different rhetorical systems under each was a laborious task that took several readings and rereadings. I wanted to truly understand and appreciate the underlying assumptions on which rhetorical theories and practices are founded. In coming up with an answer to this assignment’s query on alternatives to the currenttraditional rhetoric as a paradigm in the Philippine classroom, I first sought to understand why this is so in the first place; why “the Philippine context, with its own historical, social and political concerns, warrants the current-traditional paradigm”. By understanding thus, I hoped to be able to explore the other epistemologies as alternative approaches.

I can only speculate that the reason why it is the current-traditional rhetoric that is dominant in the Philippine setting is because historically, our earliest universities were founded along the traditions of the old American universities like Harvard. In fact, as we have learned in our discussions on Philippine Literature in English, the University of the Philippines, founded in 1908, was established by the new American colonial government to produce a new English speaking intelligentsia that would not only establish the beginnings of a more benign middle class but pattern higher education after Western models. Since then, the teaching of writing and language use have been focused on the teaching of grammar, sentence structure, correct usage and organization, outlining, paragraph development and expository forms – all elements of current-traditional rhetorical practice. But more than its preoccupation with correctness of form, this paradigm insured the growth of a placid class that looked at realities in society with the intention of merely recording it. Their view of the world and the knowledge they derived from observing it thus became the accepted truth, the practiced rhetoric and the standard of good writing. Students of writing and English become simple scribes, plugging in what they perceive into already established patterns of discourse.

Thus, it is the current-traditional model that is widely used in the teaching of writing and language use because education as a whole has always been used to placate dissent, discourage critical thought and systematically insure that conflict seldom arises. Education as it has been handed down to us by our colonial benefactors has always been geared towards restricting the freedom of the individual to think outside of prescribed standards and oppress the very first stirrings of a discordant soul, so the teaching of writing and language use is no different.

Agnes Fidelis Gloria-Pinzon Page 2 of 4 In my years in university, I remember my general education subjects on writing and language use as being institutionalized courses on mastering form and style. The focus of these subjects was on giving students a broad but exhaustive knowledge base on different forms while developing necessary minimum skills on language use like vocabulary building, grammar, sentence structure, paragraph development, and summary skills. Language proficiency was the objective and instruction on writing was limited to using skills already learned in efficiently and coherently writing about a given topic. I can remember that in Communication 3, we were asked to write a short but rousing speech about a topic of our choice. I was in my freshman year and still enjoying my first brushes with the more radically appealing tendencies of the second floor AS lobby and I chose to write about activism and my impressions that bordered a little on euphoria. My professor, a young woman who came to class in mini-skirts, hooped earrings and bummed a smoke every now and then, found our choices in class as whole amusing and a source of delight: there were the more mundane speeches on fashion, drugs, sex, family, rock music and the more “correct” topics on imperialism, poverty and oppression. I have always wondered about this tolerance; only now do I realize that it wasn’t about the topics we chose to speak about, it wasn’t even about our opinions on those topics – it was simply how we spoke about them, how we packaged our thoughts, written our lines and delivered our speeches. She looked at the trappings and scrutinized our fledgling abilities to write; whether we wrote about the truth was not in question. I think even if my professor had been a wizened, more distinguished and more scholarly looking woman of 50, that class wouldn’t have been handled differently; we would still have focused not on the what’s and why’s but only on the how’s.

This was the UP, so now I understand why it is the current-traditional rhetoric that works in the Philippine setting. Always has been, but will it always be? On exploring the possibility of using the other two epistemologies in the teaching of writing and language use, I can only attempt to offer suppositions based on my understanding of the readings.

The Subjective Theories seem like a better place to start in teaching writing and developing language abilities. Its take on truth as coming from within an individual writer/interlocutor appeals to me because that very individual assumes a more active role in the discovery and communication of that truth. More so because readers or the audience have to validate and confirm such truth as it also emerges from their consciousness and experiences – the whole process becomes an experience in self-determination which sounds a bit more proactive as writers and readers too, act on what they have come to understand for themselves and that becomes “truth” as it is validated or rejected by others’ experience. With the subjectivist epistemology, it feels like the individual is indeed master of his own personal universe and is not a mere outsider, existing without consequence nor purpose since knowledge and truth is found and endures outside of his experience. Specifically the rhetoric of Liberal Culture uses the study and reading of literature as a means to teaching writing; in the belief that literature acts as a spiritual guide that brings the individual to contemplation and reflection and finally, to the understanding and realization of the sought after truth. Students learning how to write and become more adept at using English,

Agnes Fidelis Gloria-Pinzon Page 3 of 4 under this epistemology, are immersed in literature, in works of great writers and speakers because it is believed that these individuals have already uncovered their personal vision and it is by closely studying their work that one is inspired and motivated to do and achieve the same. Even the Expressionistic Rhetoric’s belief (from its progressive education influences) that each individual has uniquely creative potentialities and that writing is a “self-actualizing” process is more attractive a pursuit than the current-traditional rhetoric’s writing as documentation.

I could imagine a writing class that prescribes to subjectivist models, though I’ve never had one, but writing has always been a personal endeavor for me. I’ve been published a few times and my name has appeared as a by-line on several publications but I still can’t honestly call myself a writer. I believe that I can only call myself that once I finally get that illusive masterpiece out from inside of me; I know it exists in the moving, throbbing recesses of my consciousness and I firmly believe that one of my predestined purposes in this life is to find it and bring it out into the world. I’ve tried to write it out on several occasions but it has always escaped me and I have always put it down as bad timing or plain blocks. Anyway, I agree with the subjectivist thought that writing is a process of self-discovery and it is a very personal one because the writer searches nowhere else but within herself.

Fascinating as it may sound however and personally vindicating, I believe that the subjectivist epistemology still lacks perspective. We have the subjective theories in the opposite extreme of the objective theories and just as I believe that the truth is not confined only to what is seen and perceived as put forward by objectivism, the truth is also not just an egocentric product of an individual’s mind. Nothing exists in a vacuum and each person’s experience, no matter how personal and exclusive to his or her existent understanding, schema or belief system transpires in the more complex, more intricate web of experiences of society. Since all human beings are in society, in that maze of interaction, cooperation, and competition that occurs in human relationships, truth can also be discovered, studies and communicated in the intersections and tangents of these diverse and overlapping connections. This is where the Transactional Theories become more significant.

This epistemology believes that truth arises out of the interaction of the elements of the rhetorical situation; from the interplay between the writer, the reader, the subject matter and the language used. Under the Transactional Theories is Classical Rhetoric which simply reaffirms the desired adherence to logic of arguments, form and style but with focus on real social problems in the belief that when students confront real problems and have a sense of real purpose, then their writing becomes more authentic and its readers become more connected with it. According to Edward Corbett in the readings, “Classical rhetoric is especially relevant to the modern political and social context in that it is equipped to examine, make sense of and provide solutions to contemporary political and social problems. The goal of classical rhetoric is to offer rational discourse which would allow people to examine the issues and concerns that surround them,

Agnes Fidelis Gloria-Pinzon Page 4 of 4 explore solutions to these and come up with an informed choice agreed upon by everybody concerned.” While Cognitive Rhetoric (still under this epistemology) considers the role of the mind at play and the thinking processes with which students attempt to write, Epistemic Rhetoric, on the other hand, stresses the role of language in the discovery and communication of the truth. All rhetorical systems under the Transactional Epistemology however, point to the role of rhetoric as that of affecting change in a bigger, more politically and socially involved way. This, I believe, is the most appropriate epistemology that we could use in teaching writing and language use in the classroom.

By studying literature and works by notable writers both past and present under Transactional thought, students are given a glimpse of that which is not only desirable but that which is needed by the times. Studying literature stirs the imagination and evokes creativity while offering correct and accurate models in terms of structure and form. Being aware of how language forms our own conceptions of truth and knowledge (as put forward by Epistemic Rhetoric) by studying the examples in great literature, makes one aware of one’s potential to do the same. Knowing that one’s writing exists and is borne out of one’s social and political awareness and influences and affects the same in return gives the task of writing more meaning and purpose and consequently the writer more responsibility and worth. In the Philippine classroom, the study of Philippine literature, the story of our people as they struggled throughout history against domination, oppression and aggression both from colonial and foreign powers to the home-grown ruling elite, as a means to developing language skills and knowing how to write becomes a more significant and more critical learning encounter.