• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

James Kinneavy Annotated Bibliography Articles and Anthologized Second Page

Articles and Anthologized

In a reaction to the 1980 publication of The Humanities in American Life by the Commission on the Humanities which reported a decline in humanities in colleges and universities, Kinneavy argues that the decline exists because of the exile of rhetoric from the humanities. He suggests that with the return of rhetoric (including the study of political speeches, religious sermons, legal persuasion in court, etc), the humanities can be restored. Detailing the rich history of rhetoric in Greek and Roman antiquities, Kinneavy shows how a traditional liberal arts education would develop students into participating members of society similar to the original intent of the Greco-Roman education. By allowing contemporary students to study the discourse of law, politics, and religion, rhetoric provides students a practical link between real life and the humanities. Furthermore, the traditional liberal arts education Kinneavy envisions would also emphasize the importance of persuasion. He suggests that this approach works well with minority students in particular because they grasp the effects of commercial, racial, and political rhetoric better as it applies to their real life situations.

Examining theory, history, and practice, Kinneavy discusses the “Writing Across the Curriculum” approach and how he envisions the implementation in the university setting. A university can implement the WAC approach in two different manners, the single subject approach or the centralized writing department approach. In the single subject approach, each discipline develops its own composition course wherein students learns to write in their field of study, possibly causing their writing to be too esoteric. The second alternative, the centralized writing department approach, keeps composition courses limited to the English department, causing the students’ writing to be too generalized for their particular field of study. Kinneavy argues for the implementation of both options where students will learn the discourse in their fields of study while still retaining the ability to write for a general audience. Furthermore, persuasive writing would be reincorporated into the basic course. This system would require more training on the part of faculty and the ability of different departments to communicate with each other.

Kinneavy examines a “rhetoric debate” in ancient Greece which developed from the competing theories of the Sophists, Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle. Historically, Isocrates won the “rhetorical debate’ since his philosophy endured the longest of all the others. The debate centers around the emphasis on theory or practice in which Isocrates emphasized practice and Plato, theory. The tension between practice and theory still exists today, and Kinneavy questions how much of old theory should be injected into classroom practice today. Essentially, the Sophists did not accept theory or certainty in knowledge while Plato reacts against the Sophist’s relativism seeking the ultimate truth. However, Plato does accept the concept of kairos, most notably linked to the Sophists, Gorgia, and Isocrates. Later, Aristotle incorporates kairos into his own philosophy which synthesizes both practice and theory, the Platonic certainty and the Sophists’ probability. In the end, Kinneavy observes that the current debate between theory and practice reflects that of old.