Rhetoric/Poetic Split Resources

Resources on the Rhetoric/Poetic Split: Its History and Implications, Including the Implications of Using Literature to Teach Composition

Overview

The Split

Using Literature

This page is maintained by:
Stuart Barbier (sibarbie@alpha.delta.edu)

Created: March 4, 2002
Last Revised: August 21, 2002
Base URL: http://www.delta.edu/sibarbie

Study for the Monument to Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier by Dalou. Seusse Fr., Paris, c. 1890-1910.

Overview
A discussion of the relevance of this issue to me and to the field, the
scope of the topic, and my selection criteria for the resources

| Top | Overview | The Split | Using Literature

Relevance to Me Back to: Overview Top	As a freshman composition instructor, I am constantly seeking ways to improve my teaching. How can I best help my students become better writers? There is certainly no lack of opinion on how to teach composition, opinion backed by myriad and often competing theories. My first exposure to these theories was during my master's program six years ago. One such theory that stands out in my mind deals with using/not using literature to teach composition. I left my master's program with the sense that one should not teach composition using literature, a sense reinforced in my first composition teaching position. I recall talking to the director of writing about the "us [composition teachers] versus them [literature teachers]" atmosphere in the department. Later, at my second and present job, I noticed that even though there wasn't such an atmosphere in the department, there were those who taught the freshman composition course using all literature, those who taught with some literature, and those who taught without using any literature.
Relevance to the Field Back to: Overview Top	Since then, I have talked to some colleagues who have also been questioning this issue, but didn't have any answers. I also enrolled in a graduate class in studies in rhetoric. The class gave me a better context for the debate; I now realize that the issue stems from the rhetoric/poetic split--the separation of literature and rhetoric/composition that happened towards the end of the nineteenth century--a topic discussed in several of the course's texts (especially those by Berlin [1996] and Bizzell & Herzberg [2001]). Some rhetoricians may say that "the field concluded a long time ago that teaching literature and teaching composition are two different teaching tasks" (as did James Porter, my rhetoric course professor, in an email to me, 2/12/02). However, some researchers in the field are still discussing the issue (explicitly as well as in terms of the rhetoric/poetic split), and teachers are still facing it. As Porter added in his email, one can "certainly say that . . . a large percentage of college teachers [is] still using literary works to teach composition." Why? To find out, I gathered various resources.
Scope of the Topic Back to: Overview Top	My goal for this project is to gather in one place key resources--both current and historical, print and electronic--related to the rhetoric/poetic split and the issue of using literature in composition classes from pedagogical and rhetorical perspectives, thus saving interested parties some time in gathering resources themselves. My audience includes those teachers like me who want to better understand the issues (especially those who weren't around for the original debates in the 1960s and 70s), as well as those who would like to see the direction the debates have recently gone.
Selection Criteria Back to: Overview Top	I chose the following resources because I felt they represented the key terms of the debates well, past and present--in other words, they were quite relevant to both questions. I would welcome any comments about the resources and/or the covered issues from others (email me).

The Split
A brief history of the
rhetoric/poetic split
and its implications

Articles	Annotation
Crowley, Sharon. "Histories of Pedagogy, English Studies, and Composition." CCC 49 (1998): 109-114.	In this review, Crowley discusses three books published by the University of Pittsburgh Press's Series in Composition, Literacy, & Culture: John C. Brereton's edited collection, The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College, 1975-1925: A Documentary History (1995); Thomas P. Miller's The Formation of College English: Rhetoric and Belles Lettres in the British Cultural Provinces (1995); and Mariolina Rizzi Salvatori's edited collection, Pedagogy: Disturbing History, 1819-1929 (1996). She calls the first (which, in a way, historically sets up the split) useful, even though it adds nothing new (111). Crowley deems the second an "original work stuffed with data and scholarship about early college-level instruction in the English language" (113) and explains that Miller "uses his historical findings to speculate on the future of English studies" (114). And she concludes that the third is an "eye-opening reading" about the history of the term "pedagogy" (113). All three would contribute to one's understanding of the split; however, reading Crowley's review would give one a quicker insight into the issues.
Gill, David. "Split up the English Curriculum for Better Writing Skills." Education Digest 65.8 (Apr. 2000): 61-63.	In this "condensed" version from Schools in the Middle: Theory into Practice 9 (Mar. 2000, 45-47), Gill advocates that high schools emulate those university English departments that split literature and composition classes (61). He feels such a split frees up literature instructors "from the schizophrenic burden of planning for writing and reading and grammar, [so] they can dig into the stuff they love--intense literary analysis" (63). This article is interesting in that it shows a recent application of the debate, one that crosses college borders. In the article, Gill also succinctly defines the essence of the debate: "composition pedagogues are concerned with analysis of the act of writing and themes of knowledge, culture, technology, and style that determine how writing is evaluated. Literature courses, conversely, analyze the final product, employing such literary theories as new criticism, reader response, and feminist theory" (62).
Hariston, Maxine. "Some Speculations about the Future of Writing Programs." WPA 11 (Spring 1988): 9-16.	According to the CCCC Bibliography, this article "considers the relationship between composition studies and literary studies [and] argues that, while writing and literature faculty may work together well in liberal arts colleges and urban universities, separate graduate programs in writing and rhetoric may be necessary at research universities."
Hariston, Maxine. "Breaking Our Bonds and Reaffirming Our Connections." CCC 36 (October 1985): 272-282. "Breaking our Bonds and Reaffirming Our Connections." BADE 81 (Fall 1985): 1-5.	According to the CCCC Bibliography, this CCCC address "advocates that rhetoricians and writing teachers make a psychological break from literary critics"; the related article "calls for rhetoricians and writing teachers to stand on their own as professionals who no longer need the approval of those who teach literature."
McClellend, Ben W., and Timothy R. Donovan. "Where are English Departments Going?" Perspectives on Research and Scholarship in Composition. Eds. Ben W. McClellend and Timothy R. Donovan. New York: MLA, 1985. 1-5.	The editors begin their text with a brief essay that contextualizes the split by drawing on the work of William Riley Parker of the MLA in the 1960s. Parker, the editors explain, declared that English studies had devolved by the start of the 1900s when English and speech split and the medieval trivium became trivialized, and when New Criticism advocates turned to using literature exclusively to prompt writing (about literature) (2). The editors then move to a brief history of the emergence of composition as a field and call for greater unity with literary theory via "common points of interest" (4). The collection of essays revolves around this idea to one extent or another (see Clifford and Schilb, below).
Schneider, Alison. "Bad Blood in the English Department: The Rift Between Composition and Literature." The Chronicle of Higher Education 13 (Feb. 1998): A14-16.	Leave it to The Chronicle of Higher Education to very succinctly lay out the issues related to the split (though with a slight bias towards the compositionists, like when she quotes Sledd observing that compositionists are "not theorizing about the lastest [sic] thing some French dandy said" [A15]). Typos aside, drawing on interviews with Peter Elbow, James Sledd, David Bartholomae, and Gerald Graff, among others, Schneider declares that the issue in not new, but what is different is how "people--from elite academics to angry adjuncts--are talking about the problem and, in fits and starts, trying to remedy it," including the MLA (A14). Schneider warns of the "intellectual impact" and "fiscal realities" of the split: "institutionaliz[ed] divorce" and literature departments going "the way of classics departments, turning into small operations, with an even smaller student clientele" and thus less funding (A15). Further realities she lays out include the exploitation of part-time and graduate student teachers in composition and the problem compositionists face in English departments that emphasize theory over pedagogy (A15).
Trimbur, John. "Literature and Composition: Separatism or Convergence?" JTW 3 (Spring 1984): 109-115.	According to the CCCC Bibliography, Trimbur "analyzes the reasons for viewing reading as the 'convergence of literacy and literature under the rubric of writing.'"
Books	Annotation
Berlin, James A. Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. Urbana: NCTE, 1996.	In his introduction, Berlin asserts that "English studies is in crisis" (xi) and to fix it, one must understand the "intellectual and political issues at stake" (xii). He proceeds to explain the issues "from the rhetoric side of the department corridor" (xiii) and begins by explaining the historical background. It is this section that I highly recommend (pp. 3 - 37) as an accessible entry into understanding the split. The other sections are useful, too; he explains theories such as postmodernism and social-epistemic rhetoric and argues that whether a teacher uses literature or not, he or she must explore "the conflicts and contradictions" (91) and the "conditions of production, distribution, exchange, and reception" (105). Ultimately, he argues that the important goal of teachers should be "developing a measure of facility in reading and writing practices so as to prepare students for public discourse in a democratic political community" (110). He concludes by providing examples of programs that do this, programs that rely heavily on literature.
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd. ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001.	A rich resource for understanding many rhetorical issues, Bizzell and Herzberg's anthology includes reviews of the main periods of rhetoric, providing important background information for approaching an understanding of the split in general. For example, they point out that the split did not exist in the classical period, during which "the study of literature was thought to provide resources for the orator, and writers often showed their rhetorical training in their literary works" (38).
Web Sites	Annotation
http://www.uta.edu/ HyperNews/get/ berlin/12.html http://www.uta.edu/ HyperNews/get/ berlin/17.html	For his Fall 1998 seminar, “James A. Berlin and Social-Epistemic Rhetoric” (at the University of Texas at Arlington), Victor J. Vitanza set up a forum for class members and others to discuss Berlin’s work. These two linked postings in particular by Byron Hawk interestingly discuss the rhetoric/poetic split, drawing on Berlin; the first in terms of the 1960s and 70s, and the second in terms of the 19th century. To read the postings, scroll down past Vitanza’s introduction.
http://jac.gsu.edu/ jac/3/Reviews/5.htm	At this web site, Jane R. Walpole, Piedmont Virginia Community College, concisely reviews James J. Murphy’s anthology The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing (NY: MLA, 1982). She explains that the essays are “strong in historical, philosophical overviews and weak in practical, hands-on advice” and points out the text’s thesis: “rhetoric and literature need to be reunited, and it is literature that is offering its service to rhetoric.” She then discusses the essays, including ones by James Murphy, Ed Hirsch Jr., Susan Miller, and James Kinneavy. This text provides good background for why the split should be mended.
http://www.samla.org/ sar/sadoff64-3.html	At this web site, Dianne F. Sadoff, Miami University of Ohio, reviews The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline, by Robert Scholes (New Haven: Yale UP, 1998) and The English Department: A Personal and Institutional History, by W. Ross Winterowd (Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1998). Sadoff explains that both texts “link the rise and fall of the English department with the fate of rhetoric.” She then gives details. Her review gives readers important insight into two key texts.

Using Literature
A list of resources related
to using literature to teach
composition

Articles	Annotation
Bizzaro, Patrick. "What I Learned in Grad School, or Literary Training and the Theorizing of Composition." CCC 50 (June 1999): 722-742.	This is a study of the literature backgrounds of seven well-known composition theorists: Erika Lindemann, David Bartholomae, Lisa Ede, Art Young, Peter Elbow, Linda Flower, and Toby Fullwiler. Readers of this article will have a better understanding of "the role literary training has played in the development of composition theory" (724), including its influence on research methods. While this article is not specifically about using literature to teach composition, it contributes to the debate in the sense that one might argue if literary training worked for them, why wouldn't it work for our students? (See Crowley and Miller, below, for why it might not work.)
Clifford, John, and John Schilb. "Composition Theory and Literary Theory." Perspectives on Research and Scholarship in Composition. Eds. Ben W. McClellend and Timothy R. Donovan. New York: MLA, 1985. 45-67.	As the editors state, Clifford and Schilb contribute to "a rapprochement" of the "long standing" literature/composition split by surveying "recent theories about the relation of writer and reader to written texts . . . ., especially approaches that use writing to understand literature and vice versa" (vi). Thus, this article is "pro" literature. Clifford and Schilb discuss reader-response theory, poststructuralist theory and various "unified theories of reading and writing" (58), before discussing the issue of which types of texts to use by pointing out the Hirsch/Eagleton binary (multidisciplinary high cultural canonical work vs. noncanonical mass cultural as well as high cultural work, including non-text works) (66-67).
Giuliano, Cheryl Fallon. "The Writing Connection: Composing the Learner's Classroom." Pedagogy 1 (2001): 387-398.	I have included Fallon's article because she significantly reverses the debate of teaching writing using literature, as well as shows where the debate is currently. She declares that "the English department culture sometimes exacerbates a split between literature and composition-- reading and writing" (388). Instead of focusing on this debate, she asserts that the questions should be "Why aren't questions about writing in the reading classroom posed? What kind of writing should be done in the reading classroom?" (389). In her essay, as she answers these questions, she seeks to fill in some "gaps" (389) in the recent work of Jerome McGann, whom she defines as being "immersed in Bakhtin's and Althusser's theories" and within "various schools of rhetoric and composition: Marxist, poststructuralist, postmodern, and antifoundationalist" (388).
Lutz, Barbara Gaal. "The Syncretistic Theory: Bridging Composition and Literature through Immersions." The Clearing House (Sept.-Oct. 1995): 3 pp. Online. InfoTrac. 19 Feb. 2002.	In her article, Lutz outlines what she calls the "Syncretistic Theory of Composition," which combines her many years of classroom experience, composition theory, literary theory, and "educational research in reading/writing/ thinking skills" (par. 7). In short, she uses novels and Fulkerson's "grouping of composition theories--expressivism, rhetoricism, mimeticism, and formalism" (par. 13). She attributes this approach as the reason her students "produce insightful prose" (par. 26).
Miller, Robert Keith. "The Use of Literature in English Composition." English Journal 69 (Dec. 1980): 54-55.	Even though his article is a bit dated, Miller concisely sets out the main objections to teaching writing using literature and then refutes them (in only two pages). His main idea is that literature "best exemplifies the characteristics of great prose" (54). He concludes by setting out various advantages to using literature to teach writing. Even though the article is written from the "pro" literature side, a reader would see where the arguments were and could disagree with Miller's refutations.
Peritz, Janice Haney. "Making a Place for the Poetic in Academic Writing." CCC 44 (1993): 380-385.	Haney, drawing on Bartholomae & Petrosky, sets out her course design for using literature to teach writing. The article is interesting because it highlights one of the main issues in the debate. Peritz states that "reading and writing are as inseparable as two sides of the same coin" (382). The debate seems to boil down to the issue of what type of reading students should do (for example, see Salvatore, below). For Peritz, it is literature, and she explains why in this article.
Roosevelt, Barbara, et al. "Exploring Connections Among Art, Literature, and Writing." English Journal 81 (Nov. 1992): 84-87.	In this Round Table discussion, various high school and college teachers call for a better integration of literature, writing, and the visual arts and provide ideas for doing so. What is particularly interesting about this debate is not that they advocate using literature (it is assumed), but that they expand the debate by including visual arts. In a sense, they are arguing that literature is not enough. Thus, in a sense, they highlight a much more current issue than simply using or not using literature to teach writing--the issue of visual rhetoric.
Salvatore, Mariolina. "Conversations with Texts: Reading in the Teaching of Composition." College English 58 (1996): 440-54.	Salvatore's article highlights an important and related debate to the debate of using literature to teach writing: whether to use reading at all and if so, what kind. She begins by exploring the background of the debate, beginning with William E. Coles in the 1970s and moving to the 1980s with John Clifford and John Schilb (see above). She then explores the "theories of reading and writing as interconnected activities" (443). An understanding of this debate is important to understanding the literature/no literature debate (and this debate is currently more active; see Giuliano, above).
Tate, Gary. "A Place for Literature in Freshman Composition." College English 55 (Mar. 1993): 317-21.	According to the ERIC database, this article "describes how rhetoric replaced literature as the prevalent focus for teaching composition [and] [q]uestions why teachers neglect the use of literature in composition classrooms."
Tritt, Michael. "Straddling Two Worlds: Teaching Composition and Literature in the Colleges." CEA Forum 21.2 (Sum 1991): 4-7.	According to the ERIC database, this article "discusses the problem of integrating reading, writing, literature, and composition courses."
Books	Annotation
Crowley, Sharon. Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburg P, 1998.	Sharon Crowley clearly and concisely overviews the arguments for and against using literature to teach composition and takes the side of those opposed. In particular, on pages 10 - 15, Crowley discusses the issues in relation to "who owns composition" and provides a general overview on literature and composition. Then in chapters 2 and 5, she sets out the historical arguments (and related theories) for using literature to teach composition and refutes them.
Web Sites	Annotation
http://www.brown.edu/ Departments/MCM/people/ scholes/MyLifInT.html Note: This was also published in John Clifford and John Schilb's anthology Writing Theory and Critical Theory (NY: MLA, 1994, 300-305).	Robert Scholes, Research Professor at Brown University, provides a fascinating account of his “Life in Theory,” the title of his web page. He recounts how he has spent his “life in ‘literature,’” beginning as an undergraduate and culminating as a professor at Brown, all the while cultivating the “rebellious ‘writer’ inside” him. He discusses how he ended up on the MLA’s Commission on Writing and Literature, “charged with exploring ways of reconciling the split between composition and literature in the profession.” He found that “English Departments need composition as the "other" of literature in order to function as they have functioned.” He concludes by “make[ing] a case for the importance of literariness--and the usefulness of many texts we call ‘literary’--precisely by denying the special mystical privileges we have accorded to ‘literature.’”
http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/ bookbind/pubbooks/barnetlfc_awl/ chapter0/deluxe.html	Go to this web site to see an example of a textbook designed to teach writing using literature: Literature for Composition: Essays, Fiction, Poetry, and Drama, 5e.