A Little Bit of History

So, who knew? We’re all German. Well, at least academically.

This week, aptly titled Comp Studies Origins, gives varied scholarly insights as to the beginnings and brief (but complex!) history of contemporary comp studies, with a bit of looking to the future of comp theory on behalf of Yancey. I also was extremely grateful to Nystrand, Greene, and Wiemelt for what felt like a recap of a critical theory course. It’s important to see critical theory as an evolution, a dialogue, of thought and it was nice to once again but it (and comp studies) in that context.

Brereton gives us the most ancient of comp/rhet’s modern influence on the college scene. Linked up well with Hill’s primary address to secondary school teachers in 1898, An Answer to the Cry for More English, Brereton’s Introduction paints early twentieth-century comp as that all-too-familiar grammatical policeperson whose primary joy in life is to cut deep gashes into a student’s paper, making it drip red with ink. But what I found particularly interesting in Brereton’s outline of comp studies circa 1875-1925 were the fissures he claims began to develop between comp studies programs and other areas of the academy and beyond which till now I had understood developed much later. As an example, Brereton early on cites the transformation that overtakes the American college at this time (a move toward diversified specialization, intense research, and a departure from singularity in education) as the product of more and more scholars earning their degrees in Germany, thus adopting a German educational mindset. While I recall learning about the “baptizing” of American education in the waters of German structure, this event is one I had always seen as taking its deepest effects in English departments not until the 1950s, 1960s—right around open admissions, the GI Bill, and the infinite reactions to New Criticism. But after reading Brereton, it becomes clear that Germanized ideals of research and specialization were already developing in comp studies at this time, even if they were a bit harder to find.

Another topic which caught me off guard in Brereton was the brief discussion about whether or not rhet studies should be considered an art or a science. This is an important question I think we should still be asking ourselves today, because I feel too often we take for granted that the study of composition is a study of the arts. Yes: composition is undoubtedly artistic, and there is much to gain from teaching the skill at an elementary level. But I recall (uh-oh … allusion time) a time when I was an upperclassman at my undergraduate college, Pepperdine, and was asked by a couple professors to kind of “talk-up” the English rhet/comp major to prospective students at a kind of preview day the university hosts annually. I recall in great detail one parent asking me why I was so happy with my major and I responded because I loved the research. She, of course, kind of looked at me funny and asked what could possibly be left in the field of English left to research. Unfortunately, at the time I was caught off guard and I responded sheepishly “… uh … stuff.” But if I could meet with that parent today, I would shout right at her: “EVERYTHING! … in comp/rhet, at least!” Perhaps—and I suppose this is going to reveal my true colors—there is nothing left to research in literature. We can apply Marxist theory to Joan Didion until our hands fall off, and what will we have accomplished? A whole lot of practice and exercising of Marxist criticism, but probably not much else. And while I suppose that’s all and well … that’s old rhetoric, hearkening back to the days when education prided itself on perform the same mundane act countless times. But there is much more to be discovered in the field of comp/rhet. Just to name a few areas (which personally interest me), what’s up with: hypertext, the Internet, writing with technologies, web 2.0, secondary orality, and visual rhetoric? Not much, though much more it seems every day, is being said … being researched in these areas. Perhaps this is the answer to Yancey’s bewilderment (though I suppose she’s slightly being ironic here) that there is an ever decreasing amount of jobs in the English department for literature scholars while an ever increasing amount of jobs becoming available for comp scholars. But in any case, you make the call: is comp studies an art or a science?

One final, quick question … and totally shifting gears. Hill claims, and Juzwik (et al.) support with research, that there is a vast gap in the place high school seniors are with writing proficiency with where college freshmen need to be. The answer, as commented on by Yancey and also briefly mentioned in all three histories of Brereton, Phelps, and Nystrand, is freshman composition courses. I suspect that this gap has something to do not with the stupidity of the majority of students but rather the educational “mission statements” of secondary education vs. that of the college/university. What does secondary education want to teach their students and what does the university aim at teaching their students? I think the answers are not, as some might expect, the same.