I have been teaching CMST 350: Foundations of Rhetorical Communication Theories & Practices for six years now. It is a required course for all Communication Studies majors intended to introduce them to the origin of our discipline. Across institutions, textbooks, and lore, the Discipline of Rhetoric began in Ancient Greece amidst a cast of familiar characters: Socrates, Aristotle, Plato.

That origin story is cringingly and conveniently exclusionary, incomplete, and myopic. Nonetheless, those attributes have shaped the trajectory of the discipline in terms of what counts as knowledge, what types of questions are worth pursuing, and who gets to participate in scholarship, politics, etc. In 2019, as a discipline, Rhetoric started to grapple with these realities, to the demise of some big names, big egos, and the dismantling of some important organizations and paradigms.

I’ve known that the history of rhetoric has been incomplete and problematic for some time; I myself as a female, first generation college student felt left out from the start. And yet, semester after semester, I continue to teach “The History of Rhetoric” in well worn, predictable, and privileged ways. In no small part me repeating this pattern has been because the task of overhauling a whole history felt overwhelming and arrogant: if well-established scholars in the field can’t figure a better way, what makes me think I can?

This FLC helped to confirm my concerns and provided some space and tools for starting to implement changes in my course. Perhaps beyond any specific skill or tool or panacea, participation in this FLC encouraged me to start small and emboldened me to try something. This ‘small’ and ‘something’ combo counters the “all or nothing” sentiment that, I think, is what has inhibited me from tackling the inequity that is embedded in my discipline and, subsequently, my course.

What resources, policies, and co-conspirators do you believe are already available to support your plan?

I definitely feel like I can turn to this FLC for support and resources. And through my experience with this group, I was also reminded that many of my co-conspirators, friends, and/or colleagues can be found in and through written ideas. Here I mean that I feel reminded that reading about these sorts of issues and prioritizing time to think about and through issues that arise is important, valuable work that is central to my job, not an addition to my job. If/when I need a reminder that reading or thinking about these things is not indulgent and selfish but, instead, responsible and important I plan to reach out to my in department colleague, Nick Burk, who also completed this FLC.

What challenges do you anticipate?

Honestly, the biggest challenge I anticipate is my own discomfort with regard to the uncertainty that comes with not being able to tell students exactly what I want them to do and what they should learn and takeaway from the course. After this FLC, while preparing my materials for this semester, I was (in a great way!) made to feel uncomfortable with just how much of ME and MY needs were written into each assignment description and activity design, and really how much those needs that I call my own were shaped and authored by a tradition that didn’t have my best interests at heart. I was born and raised in New York and am an anxious individual. This combination means, most of the time, I talk a lot. I talk to reduce uncertainty. I talk to ensure others understand my intentions. Etc. My biggest challenge to implementing this approach will be to open up space and time for students to get in the driver seat and decide where we are headed. (And then, of course, figuring out how to merry that model with the requirements of a higher education infrastructure that still very much reflects the inequitable conditions I hope to challenge and revise in my course.)