syllabus
calendar
blackboard
student.email resources

last.updated 9.9.07

 


The Scottish Common Sense Realists

Purpose

The composition course in the American academy has a direct lineage to the Scottish academies and the Scottish Common Sense Realist's influence on rhetoric. By discussing their rhetorical philosophies and their influence, we will have a better understanding of writing pedagogy in our current age.

Before Class

  • Read Horner "The Roots of Modern Writing Instruction" [Rhetoric Review, 8.2]
  • Read Blair pp. 23-47, 66-87 [Rhet]
  • Read Whately pp. 273-275, 279-302, 388-396 [Rhet]
  • Submit PAB #1 to the Blackboard Discussion Board by the beginning of class

FreeWrite

How has Blair's and Whately's rhetorics influenced your writing pedagogy or a writing pedagogy you experienced as a student?

Questions and Discussion

Horner (by Daniel Cutshaw)

  • Horner makes many mentions of the studying of Latin to establish a standardized English grammar. What is the value of a “universal” grammar? Or since this is not realizable without a universal language, even in Campbell’s sense of grammar, what is the value of what Ong calls a “grapholect,” a national language and grammar?
  • Horner quotes John Nichol:

    • The study of our literature encourages the best sort of patriotism—our pride in our great men [sic]. It enlarges our ideas by enabling us to penetrate in their minds, and stimulates us to emulate by setting forth the qualities that made them great. (323)

In a pedagogy, we could appropriately file this statement under a mimeticist heading. How do other pedagogical approaches such as expressivism, formalism, or rhetorical (although the latter could easily be shown to be a part of the rest), as denominated by Fulkerson, approach the qualities and values, explicit and implicit, in Nichol’s statement? Are these qualities and values worth having/keeping? How does what Lewis refers to as “chronological arrogance,” the tendency to look upon past ages as characterized by ignorance, especially compared to our “enlightenment” (although the reverse could also be termed chronological arrogance) affect our answers to these questions in Nichol’s time and in ours?

  • How did the membership in non-Anglican denominations held by teachers such as Whately contribute to a more English focused teaching of composition. How do the corresponding and/or resulting values show up in the rhetoric of Blair, Whately, Campbell, or even Kenneth Burke?

Blair (by Matthew Oliver)

  • Is taste an internal sense leaning more toward “feeling,” than judgment?
    For example, is a gay person attracted to, in the category of “taste,” someone of the same sex because of rhetoric? Or does what is arguably the most powerful motivating and persuasive human desire lie outside of the purview of rhetoric?
  • Do humans have a “natural sense of beauty”? For example, is a Beethoven
    symphony inherently more beautiful than a Britney Spears pop song, or is my sense of that beauty a result of rhetoric? Can we at least imagine the possibility for “beauty” outside of that which is rhetorically determined?
  • Blair consistently uses the term “genius” to describe those with refined
    sensibilities of art and nature. Back to Beethoven: Did Beethoven possess a greater “genius” than Britney Spears? And if so, whence came that “genius”? Is “genius” entirely rhetorical, or do some people have a greater capacity to express themselves in art than others? How we respond to this question will depend largely on how we respond to the previous question.
  • If style is indicative of one’s character, as Blair suggests, when we assess
    student writing are we assessing students’ character? If so, how might that change the way we go about articulating our grading policies?
  • Does Blair violate his own rule for style, “The introduction of foreign and
    learned words, unless where necessity requires them, should always be avoided,” when he quotes Quintilian in Latin on the previous page? This seems especially strange considering he translates a Quintilian quote on the following page. When do ostentation's affectations add to one’s ethos, and when do they detract? Does Blair give us any indication of when “foreign or learned” words are necessary?

Whately (by Daniel Cutshaw)

  • Bearing in mind the topics discussed from 289 to 295, where would Whately come down in favor of an expressivist pedagogy?
  • Does the shifting of the meaning of invention from “to find” to “to create” affect Whately’s rhetoric? If yes, how so?