Straight, No Chaser

–Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. Fourth Edition.

–By Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee.  Pearson Education, 2009.

First and foremost, this textbook defied nearly all of the assumptions that I had formed simply (and narrow-mindedly) based on the notion of “ancient rhetorics.”

I initially assumed that this textbook would be conservative – a proponent of the “philosophical rhetoric” outlined and bludgeoned by Victor Vitanza.

I was wrong. This textbook is forward-thinking and rooted in cultural studies, adopting the ancient premise “that nobody thinks or writes without reference to the culture in which he or she lives” (xii). (I shouldn’t have ignored the key phrase “for contemporary students” located in the title.)

Indeed, this textbook does consistently delve into facets and terminology of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, but the book does not treat Aristotle as the “be-all, end-all.” (The editors even call him “grumpy” at one point.) Furthermore, the textbook abundantly cites the sophists (i.e. Protagoras, Gorgias, Isocrates, etc.) and lauds their enormous contributions to rhetoric.

The editors openly disparage what they call “modern rhetoric,” that is, the generic formulas, outlines, thesis statements, and conventional approaches to essay writing. “For example, modern rhetoric textbooks insist that every composition display a thesis. Ancient teachers, in contrast, were not so sure that every discourse has a thesis to display” (9). The predominant emphasis of this textbook remains focused on invention rather convention, and this attitude reflects a process-oriented pedagogy rather than a product-oriented pedagogy.

In ancient times, the study of rhetoric was equivalent to the study of citizenship. Thus, the editors avoid an ego-driven pedagogy that begins and ends with the self, and instead argue for the importance of inserting one’s voice within the discourse of a community.

As a result, this textbook never asks students to write personal essays or to generate expressive discourse. “We do not accept the assumption that writing should begin with personal expression and move outward into expository and persuasive modes” (xv).

The book is openly political at times. The editors acknowledge that “power is distributed unequally in our culture… that men have more power than women and that white people have more power than people of color” (page 6). Accordingly, the editors assert that rhetoric has the potential to remedy these inequities among citizens.

The language of the textbook is accessible and lucid (“An ancient teacher of rhetoric named Aristotle defined rhetoric as…”), perhaps meant to accommodate the freshman level of understanding and to “balance out” the foreignness of ideas like kairos and stasis theory. Moreover, the book frequently cites current events (e.g., the shooting at Virginia Tech) and popular figures (e.g., Jon Stewart of the Daily Show) to appeal to the typical freshman’s sense of relevance and taste.

Show me another textbook that employs a comparison of Achilles and Hector, followed by a comparison of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to help elucidate the meaning of ethos and ethical proof.

Each of the twelve chapters ends with a number of “Rhetorical Activities” and progymnasmata (the elementary rhetorical exercises used in ancient schools of rhetoric). Interestingly, the notion of thesis was the last, and most difficult, of the progymnasmata completed by ancient students of rhetoric.

But you want to know: Is the book useful? Would you use it in your class?

The text is long (over 400 pages) with few pictures and illustrations. Some of the concepts are dense and probably not worth introducing to an incoming freshman. Therefore, I probably wouldn’t use the book as a whole. Nevertheless, the three central chapters on logos, ethos, and pathos could prove incredibly useful for a freshman composition course. Is it legal for me to make photo copies of these chapters, and thus avoid having freshman buy the book?