Current-Traditional Rhetoric: Paradigm and Practice by James Berlin and Robert Inkster

Berlin and Inkster address the problems of different theories being taught in composition. I find this interesting because I think this can sometimes be at the heart of what ails the English program where I am studying for my Ph.D. right now: What is the right way to teach composition?

The article points out that what is included in the discipline is as important as what is excluded in it (1). So we must remember to strike a balance, even though some instructors could be more comfortable with writing about "common sense" issues and others about emotional, or expressionistic, ones. I wonder if this is part of what causes the split between composition and creative writing, although I'd argue that both belong in both writing practices.

The authors looked at George Campbell's "Philosophy of Rhetoric" which states that thinkers of the "common sense" school of philosophy believe that the external world existed independent of the mind and that direct knowledge of this world was obtainable. Rhetoric, for Campbell, dealt not with certainties but with probabilities (43-46). Also, another definition of rhetoric, this one by Campbell: "Rhetoric is concerned with communication and is defined as "that art of talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end".

Whately's "Elements of Rhetoric" in part responds to Campbell's book (2). He defines rhetoric as the "finding of suitable arguments to prove a given point, and the skillful arrangement of them" (39). His is a rhetoric based on logic (2). I find this interesting because I feel that a large part of persuasive argument involves the affective appeal, or pulling on the heartstrings of the writer. This wouldn't work for Whately, who depends more on logic, or rational and credibility appeals.