Comp from 1900-1949

Critical Question #1: According to Berlin and Inkster, “Campbell agreed with the thinkers of the ‘common sense’ school of philosophy that the external world existed independent of the mind and that direct knowledge of this world was attainable” (1). How does this idea of “absolute truth” compare to “relative truth”? How does teaching theory, more specifically composition teaching theory, reflect the institutions/instructor's perception of truth?

Critical Question #2: How is CTR tied to American nationalism? How does CTR uphold racists and supremacist/elitist ideals?

Discussion Post:

Current traditional rhetoric is a paradigm that dominated composition teaching and research until the 1950s. Current traditional rhetoric emphasizes the product over the process and focuses on accuracy, clarity, and precision of grammar and spelling. According to Inkster and Berlin, CTR has a “strong concern with usage (syntax, spelling, punctuation) and with style (economy, clarity, emphasis)” (1). Current traditional rhetoric stemmed from the idea that truth is inherent, absolute, and external and requires its students to cultivate and discipline their “genius” and their ability to extract the truth. Because of this idea of external truth, skilled writers were considered mere vessels of factual information. Inkster and Berlin claim that “The underlying assumption of this presentation is that both the experienced and inexperienced writers are responding to an identical experience and that they should then be writing in the nearly identical way” (3). CTR reflects a worldview and value system that puts objectivity on a pedestal. But, ironically, their hyper-fixation on objectivity and specificity created a curriculum that we now would call vague, shallow, discriminatory, and un-enriching. In the CTR pedagogical model, there is no room for individual expression or perspective. When considering the audience/rhetor relationship, Inkster and Berlin identify how “In short, then, the current-traditional paradigm tends to reduce the entire communication model to neutral observers in a neutral world exchanging neutral messages” (4). CTR is a reflection of the values, beliefs, views, culture, and class division at the turn of the century. In the current day composition classroom, you can still see the effects of CTR in the way teachers teach and what they literature they decide to highlight. 

Inkster and Berlin state, “if we are correct in our analysis of the metaphysical and epistemological assumptions informing the paradigm and the implications of those assumptions, then the current-traditional paradigm represents a danger to teachers, students, the wider puposes of our educational enterprise, and even our social and human fabric” (13). This strong claim has real implications for today’s freshman composition classroom. CTR’s epistemology is grounded in extreme discipline, error-free correctness and adheres to the “genius fallacy.” In the 1900s, these three pillars worked as extreme gate-keeping mechanisms to keep non-white and middle to lower-class individuals outside the institution's doors. But, as our societal values, philosophy, and epistemology have shifted in the 21st century, we claim that we are working to actively diversify our academic institutions by breaking down these systemic, outdated, racist, and unjust gate-keeping mechanisms. But, if our composition classes still teach writing with CTR undertones, these pillars established by academics in the 1900s will continue to set students up for failure. CTR strove to place tradition over originality in writing and rhetoric. According to Crowley, CTR assumed that composition students were “well-bred gentlemen” who were interested in classic, literary canon and would already have experience in reading literature (53). Even today, freshman composition courses require “prior knowledge” from the K-12 system, which is often lacking and incomplete. There is an intense frustration amongst freshman composition teachers who blame the high school system for failing to create “college-ready students.” And this frustration is often reflected in the way that professors tear apart student writing for grammar, citations, spelling, and vague “style.”