Poststructuralism, Cultural Studies, and the Composition Classroom: Postmodern Theory in

Practice
Author(s): James A. Berlin
Source: Rhetoric Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 16-33
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/465877 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 12:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rhetoric Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JAMES A. BERLIN
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Purdue
University

Poststructuralism,
CulturalStudies,
and theCompositionClassroom:
PostmodernTheoryin Practice
The usesofpostmodern theory inrhetoricandcomposition studieshavebeen
theobjectofconsiderable abuseoflate.Figuresof somereputein thefield-the
likesofMaxineHairston andPeterElbow-as wellas anonymous voicesfromthe
BurkeanParlorsectionofRhetoric Review-mostrecently, TS, a graduatestudent,
and KF, a voice speakingfor"a generalEnglishteacheraudience"(192)-have
joined thechorusof protest.The chargeshave includedwillfulobscurity, self-
indulgence, elitism,
pomposity, intellectualimpoverishment, anda hostofrelated
offenses.Although mynameusuallyappearsamongtheaccused,I amsympathetic
withthoseundergoing thedifficultiesofthefirst encounter withthisdiscussion.(I
excludeProfessor Hairstoninherirresponsible chargethatitsrecentcontributors
in CollegeEnglishare"low-riskMarxistswhowriteverybadly"[695] and who
shouldbe bannedfromNCTE publications.) I experienced thesame frustration
whenI firstencountered thedifferent butcloselyrelatedlanguageofrhetoric and
composition studiessomefifteen yearsago. I wondered, forexample,ifI would
evergraspthecomplexities of Aristotleor Quintilian or KennethBurkeor I. A.
Richards, nottomention thenewlanguageofthewriting process.A bitlaterI was
introduced toFrenchpoststructuralism, andonceagainI foundmyselfwandering
in strangeseas,andthistimealone.In readingrhetoric, afterall,I hadthebenefit
of numerous commentators to helpme along-the workof KinneavyandLauer
and Corbettand Emig,forexample.In readingFoucaultand Derridain thelate
seventies,ontheotherhand,I waslargelyonmyownsincethecommentaries were
as difficult
as theoriginals,andthosefewthatwerereadablewereoften(as even
I couldsee) wrong.Nonetheless, withthehelpof informal readinggroupsmade
up ofcolleaguesandstudents, I persistedinmyefforts tocometotermswiththis
difficult
bodyofthought. I was then,as now,convinced thatbothrhetorical studies
and postmodern speculationoffered strikinglyconvergent and remarkably com-
pellingvisionsforconducting mylifeas a teacheranda citizen.It is clearto me
thatrhetoricandcomposition studieshasarrived as a seriousfieldofstudybecause
ithastakenintoaccountthebestthathasbeenthought andsaidaboutitsconcerns
fromthepastandthepresent, andI havefoundthatpostmodern workinhistorical
andcontemporary rhetoricaltheory has donemuchtofurther thiseffort.
16 Rhetoric
Review,Vol.11,No. 1, Fall 1992

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Poststructuralism
and CulturalStudies 17

I willreadilyadmitthatdiscussants in postmodern theoriesofrhetoric have

beenmoreconcerned withadvancingthisimmensely richveinofspeculation than
theyhave withcommunicating withthenovice.But I thinkit is a mistaketo
condemnthemforthis.Contrary to whatKF, thehard-working generalEnglish
teacher, has asserted, teachingwriting is nota "relatively simpleand straightfor-
wardtask"(192). As theintenseeffort thathas been giventhisactivityin the
2500-yearhistoryof Westerneducationindicates,communication is at once
extremely important in the life of a societyand extremely complex(see the
historiesofKennedyorCorbett orVickers, forexample).Thosewhowishtocome
to gripswiththiscomplexity cannotbe expectedto writeexclusivelyforthe
uninitiated,a movethatwouldhopelesslyretardthedevelopment ofanydiscus-
sion. A new rhetoric requiresa new languageif we are to developdevicesfor
producing andinterpreting discoursethatareadequatetoourhistorical moment. I
wouldarguethatthoseworking todayattheintersections ofrhetoric andpostmod-
erntheory arebeginning to generate rhetorics thatinconception andpedagogical
applicationpromiseto be counterparts to thegreatestaccomplishments of the
past-of anAristotle (whooncesoundedstrange nexttoPlato)oranIsocrates(who
soundedstrangenextto Gorgias)or to Campbell(who soundedstrangenextto
Ward).Eventually (andsoonerthanwe mightimagine,I expect),thoseinterested
in rhetoricwillbe talkingandthinking in thenewterminologies emerging today,
finding themjustas comfortable as thelanguageofcognitive rhetoricor expres-
sionistrhetoric.Still,thisdoesnothelptheoverworked composition teacherorthe
newgraduatestudent whois eagerto explorethesignificance ofthisnewspecu-
lationfortheory andtheclassroombutis notsurewhereto start.
In thisessayI wantto presentas clearlyas I knowhow someof thecentral
featuresof postmodern theorythatworkersin rhetoric have foundespecially
relevantto theirefforts. Since coveringthefieldas wholewouldrequiremore
spacethanI havehere,however, I wanttorestrict myselftoconsidering theways
thesepostmodern conceptions arecounterparts to discussionsin social-epistemic
rhetoric.I willalso includea description ofa freshman courseI havedesignedthat
is theresultofmytheoretical studies,a coursethatcombinesmethodsofcultural
studies(itselfa product ofpostmodern thought coupledwitha progressive politics)
withthemethodsof social-epistemic rhetoric in a beginning composition class.
My intentis to demonstrate thatthe complexitiesof theoryhave immediate
pedagogicalapplications, andthatone oftheefforts ofcomposition teachers must
be to discoverthese.Indeed,I willarguethatthemerger oftheory andclassroom
practicein a uniquelynewrelationis one oftheresultsof(whatI shouldperhaps
nowcall) postmodern rhetorical theory.

The Postmodern
JohnSchilbhas explainedthatpostmodernism "can designatea critiqueof
traditional a setofartistic
epistemology, andanensembleoflargersocial
practices,

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18 Rhetoric
Review

conditions" (174). Herethefocuswillbe on thefirst, particularlyon thatbodyof

thought thathasemerged inwhatis looselycalledstructuralist andpoststructuralist
theory(sometimes calledthe"languagedivision"ofpostmodern speculation). In
"Rhetoric Programs afterWorldWarII: Ideology,Power,andConflict," I attempt
tooutlinethewayscertainbranchesofrhetorical studiesintheUS, particularly of
theepistemicvariety, haveparalleledthetrajectory andpoststruc-
of structuralist
turalistdevelopments bothat homeand abroad.In thissectionI wouldlike to
exploretheimportant features of postmodernism in whichthisis mostapparent;
in the nextI will tracetheiruses in social-epistemic rhetoric.The significant
postmodern developments fall intothreegeneralcategories:the statusof the
subject;thecharacteristics of signifying practices;theroleof mastertheoriesin
explaining humanaffairs.
The unified, coherent, autonomous, self-present subjectoftheEnlightenment
hasbeenthecenterpiece ofliberalhumanism. Fromthisperspective thesubjectis
a transcendent consciousness thatfunctionsunencumbered bysocialandmaterial
conditionsof experience,actingas a freeand rationalagentwho adjudicates
competingclaimsforaction.In otherwords,the individualis regardedas the
authorof all heractions,movingin completefreedomin decidinghow she will
live. This perception has been challengedby thepostmodern conceptionof the
subjectas the productof social and materialconditions.Here the subjectis
consideredtheconstruction of thevarioussignifying practices, theuses of lan-
guage, of a givenhistoricalmoment(see, forexample,Benveniste,Barthes,
Foucault).Thismeansthateach personis formed bythevariousdiscourses, sign
systems, thatsurround her.These includebotheveryday uses oflanguagein the
home,school,themedia,andotherinstitutions, as wellas thematerial conditions
thatare arrangedin themannerof languages-thatis, semiotically (like a sign
system),suchas theclotheswe wear,thewaywe carryourbodies,thewayour
schoolandhomeenvironments arearranged.Thesesignifying practicesthenare
languagesthattellus who we are and how we shouldbehavein termsof such
categories as gender, race,class,age,ethnicity,andthelike.Theresultis thateach
ofus is heterogeneously madeup ofvariouscompeting discourses,conflicted and
contradictory thatmakeourconsciousness
scripts, anything butunified, coherent,
and autonomous. At themosteveryday level,forexample,thediscoursesof the
school and thehome aboutappropriate genderbehavior("Justsay 'No"') are
frequently at odds withthediscourseprovidedby peersand themedia("Go for
it").The resultis thatwe aremadeup of subjectformations or subjectpositions
thatdo notalwayssquarewitheach other.
Signifying practicesthenare at thecenterof theformation of the"subject"
and of "subjectivities"-terms madenecessaryto avoid all theliberalhumanist
implications of talkingaboutthe"individual."But theconceptionof signifying
practices,oflanguage,is itselfradicallyalteredinthisscheme.A givenlanguage
is no longertakento be a transparent mediumthatrecordsan externally present

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Poststructuralism
and CulturalStudies 19

thing-in-itself,thatis, it is not a simplesignalingdevice thatstandsforand

corresponds totheseparaterealities thatlenditmeaning. Languageis insteadtaken
to be a pluralisticand complexsystemof signifying practicesthatconstruct
realitiesratherthansimplypresenting or re-presenting them.Our conceptionof
materialandsocialphenomena thenarefabrications ofsignifying, theproducts of
culturallycoded signs.Saussure,theprimeoriginator ofstructuralism in Europe,
firstdemonstrated thewayslanguagefunctions as a setof differences: Signifiers
derivemeaningnotinrelation to signifieds,toexternal referents, butinrelation to
othersignifiers, thesemioticsystems in whichtheyarefunctioning. Forexample,
justas thesound"t" is significant inEnglishbecauseitcontrasts with"d"-making
fora difference in meaningbetween"to" and "do"-a term,suchas "man,"has
significance in a givendiscoursebecauseitcontrasts withanotherterm,suchas
"woman"or "boy or "ape." Andjustas thesoundsof a languageare culturally
variable,so areitstermsandtheirstructural relations. A signthushasmeaningby
virtueofitspositionrelativeto another signorsignswithina givensystem, notto
externally verifiablecertainties. Most important, thesesignsare arrangedin a
hierarchy so thatone is "privileged,"' thatis, consideredmoreimportant thanits
relatedterm.Forexample,AlleenPace NilsenhasshownthattermsinEnglishthat
aregenderspecificalmostinvariably involvepositiveconnotations in thecase of
males and negative connotationin the case of females (master/mistress,
sir/madam, chef/cook, forexample).Suchhierarchies, onceagain,arenotuniver-
sal butareculturally specific.
RolandBartheshas shownthewaysthatsignsformsystems(semioticsys-
tems)thatextendbeyondnaturallanguageto all realmsofa culture, forexample,
film,television,photography, food,fashion,automobiles, and on and on (see
Mythologies). He presentsa methodforanalyzingand discussingthesemiosis
(signproduction) oftextsas theyappearinvirtually all features ofhumanbehavior.
MichelFoucaulthasindicated themanner inwhichdifferent "discursive regimes,"
elaboratesystemsof signifying systems, forgeknowledge/power formations that
governactionduringsuccessivestagesofhistory. (He does so,furthermore, while
denyingany masterregimeor narrative unfoldingover time,a matterto be
considered shortly.)Finally, JacquesDerridahas showntheattempt ofphilosophy
to establisha foundation, an essentialpresence,foritssystems in a realmoutside
oflanguage,an effort to avoidtheroleofsignification, ofdiscourse, inall human
undertakings. Fromthepostmodern perspective, then,signifying practicesshape
thesubject,thesocial,andthematerial-theperceiver andtheperceived.
These antifoundational, antiessentialist assaultson Enlightenment concep-
tionsofthesubjectsandobjectsofexperience areextendedtopostulates ofgrand
narrativesofthepastorpresent-that is,thestorieswe tellaboutourexperiences
thatattempt to accountforall features of it(itstotality) in a comprehensive way.
Jean-Franqois Lyotard has been the central figure in denying the possibilityof any
grandmetanarrative thatmightexhaustively accountforhumanconditions inthe

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20 Rhetoric
Review

past or present.Like Foucault,he renouncesthe totalizingdiscourseof such

schemesas Hegelianismor Marxismor thefaithin scientific progressor the
invisiblehandof economiclaw. All are declaredlanguagegamesthatare inher-
entlypartialand interested,
intended to endorseparticularrelationsofpowerand
to privilegecertaingroupsin historicalstruggles. Againstthistotalizing move,
Lyotardarguesfora plurality of particularnarratives,limitedand localizedac-
countsthatattempt toexplainfeatures ofexperience thatgrandnarrativesexclude.
The structuralist
andpoststructuralistanalysesofsignsystems lookforthebinary
oppositesof keyterms,themarginalized termsthatoftengo unmentioned. (This
is why theyuse the termforeground: it refersto puttingthe concealedand
unacknowledged termin a binarystructure forward so thatthecompletesignifi-
cance of thetermcan be examinedin a givendiscourse.)Similarly, postmodern
studiesofculturesofthepastandpresentlookforwhatis leftout,whatexistson
theunspokenmarginsof theculture.Thismovesattention to suchcategoriesas
class,race,gender,andethnicityintheunfolding ofhistoricalevents.Thisis often
historyfromthebottomup,tellingthestoriesof thepeopleandeventsnormally
excludedfromtotalizing accounts.

Social-EpistemicRhetoric
Thosefamiliar withsocial-epistemic rhetoric can readilysee itsconvergence
withpostmodern conclusionsaboutlanguageand culture.I have discussedthis
rhetoricat lengthinRhetoricand Reality,"Rhetoricand Ideologyin theWriting
Class,"andelsewhere. HereI wishtooffer a lookatthewaysinwhichitconverges
withpostmodern speculation inproviding a mutually enriching theoretical
synthe-
sis.To saythisdifferently,poststructuralismprovidesa wayofmorefullydiscuss-
ingelementsof social-epistemic rhetoric
thatare fullyoperativewithinit;at the
sametime,social-epistemic rhetoric providespoststructuralism withmethodsfor
discussingtheproduction andreception oftexts-andespeciallytheformer-that
have been a partof itseffort. I will showtheseconvergences in discussingthe
elementsof therhetorical situation-interlocutor, conceptions of thereal,audi-
ence, and language-as theyare beingconceivedin social-epistemic rhetoric
informed by poststructuralism. I shouldalso mentionthatthisdevelopment is
bringing social-epistemicrhetoric, as I will show,in theclassroom,
particularly,
veryclose to theworkofculturalstudiesas ithas beendiscussedbytheBirming-
hamCenterforContemporary CulturalStudies.
We havealreadyseenthatthesubjectoftherhetorical actcannotbe regarded
as theunified,coherent, autonomous, transcendent subjectof liberalhumanism.
The subjectis insteadmultipleand conflicted, composedof numeroussubject
formations or positions.Fromone perspective thisis a standard featureof many
historical
rhetoricsintheirconcernwiththeethosofthespeaker, herpresentation
oftheappropriate imageofhercharacter through language,voice,bearing, andthe
like.Fora contemporary rhetoric,thewriter and reader,thespeakerand listener

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and CulturalStudies
Poststructuralism 21

(andmoreoftheircommutability offunction shortly),mustlikewisebe awarethat

thesubject(theproducer) ofdiscourseis a construction, established
a fabrication,
through thedevicesof signifying practices.This meansthatgreatcare mustbe
takenin choosingthesubjectpositionthattheinterlocutor wishesto present, and
equallygreatcaremustbe takeninteachingstudents thewaythisis done.In other
words,itwillnotdo to say,"Be yourself," sinceall ofus possessmultiple selves,
notall of whichareappropriate fortheparticular discoursesituation.This is not,
itshouldbe noted,to denythatall ofus displaya measureofsingularity. As Paul
Smithargues,the uniqueplace of each of us in the networkof intersecting
discoursesassuresdifferences amongus as wellas possibilities fororiginalityand
politicalagency.Thisdoes notmean,however, thatanyonecan totallyescapethe
discursiveregimes,thepower/knowledge formations, of thehistorical moment.
Politicalagencybutnevercompleteautonomy is theguidingformulation here.
Butifthesubject,thesender,is a construct of signifyingpracticesin social-
epistemicrhetoric, so are thematerialconditions to whichthesubjectresponds,
theprimeconstituents of themessageof discourse.(I am of courserelyingon
Burke'sformulation of languageas symbolicactionto be distinguished fromthe
sheermotionofthematerial, as wellas on theworkofBarthesandFoucault).This
is nottodenytheforceofthematerial inhumanaffairs: peopledo needtoprovide
forphysiologicalneeds,to arrangerefugefromtheelements,and to deal with
eventualphysicalextinction. However,all ofthesematerial experiences aremedi-
atedthrough signifying practices.
Onlythrough languagedo weknowandactupon
theconditions of ourexperience. Waysof livinganddyingarefinallynegotiated
through discourse,theculturalcodes thatare partof our historical conditions.
Theseconditions areofan economic,social,andpoliticalnature, andtheychange
overtime.Buttheytoocan onlybe knownandacteduponthrough thediscourses
availableat any historicalmoment.Thus thesubjectwho experiencesand the
materialand socialconditions experienced arediscursively constitutedin histori-
callyspecificterms.
The mediationof signifying practicesin therelations of subjectsto material
conditionsis especiallycrucial.Fromthe perspective offeredhere,signifying
practicesarealwaysat thecenterofconflict andcontention. In theefforttoname
experience,differentgroupsareconstantly vyingforsupremacy, forownership and
controlof termsand theirmeaningsin anydiscoursesituation. As StuartHall,a
past directorof the Birmingham Center,has pointedout,a givenlanguageor
discoursedoes notautomatically belongto anyclass,race,or gender.Following
VolosinovandGramsci,he arguesthatlanguageis alwaysan arenaofstruggle to
make certainmeanings-certainideological formulations-prevail. Cultural
codes thusare constantly theycontendforhegemony
in conflict: in defining and
directingthematerial conditionsofexperience as wellas consciousness itself.The
signifying practicesof different groupsthuscompetein forwarding different
agendasfortheways people are to regardtheirhistoricalconditionsand their

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22 Rhetoric
Review

modesof responding to them,and thesesignifying practicesare thusalwaysa

sceneofbattle(Hall,"The Rediscovery of 'Ideology"').
Thereceiverofmessages,theaudienceofdiscourse, obviouslycannotescape
of
theconsequences signifying practices. The audience'spossibleresponsesto
textsare in parta function of itsdiscursively constituted socialroles.Theseroles
with of
areoftenconstructed somemeasure specificity as membership ina specific
discoursecommunity-in a particular unionorprofession, forexample.Butthese
rolesareneverdiscretely separatefromothersubjectpositionsthemembers ofan
audiencemayshareor,on theotherhand,occupyindependent of each other.In
otherwords,members ofan audiencecannotsimplyactivateone subjectposition
andswitchoffall others.Thus,audiencesmustbe considered bothas members of
communities and as separatesubjectformations. The resultis thattheresponses
oftheaudienceas a collectiveandas separatesubjectsarenevertotally predictable,
nevercompletely in thecontrolofthesenderofa codedmessageorofthecoded
messageitself.As StuartHall hasdemonstrated, audiencesarecapableofa range
ofpossibleresponses toanymessage.Theycan simplyaccommodate themessage,
sharingin the codes of the senderand assentingto them.The audiencecan
completely resistthemessage,rejecting itscodes and purposesandturning them
to otherends.Finally,thereceivercan engagein a processofnegotiation, neither
accommodating alonenorresisting alone,insteadengagingin a measureof both
(Hall,"Encoding/Decoding").
The workofrhetoric, then,is to studytheproduction andreception of these
historicallyspecificsignifying practices. In otherwords,social-epistemic rhetoric
will enablesendersand receiversto arriveat a formulation of theconception of
theentirerhetorical contextinanygivendiscoursesituation, andthiswillbe done
through an analysisof thesignifying practicesoperating withinit.Thusin com-
posinga text,a writer willengageinan analysisofthecultural codesoperating in
defining herrole,therolesoftheaudience,andtheconstructions ofthematter to
be considered.These function in a dialecticalrelationto each otherso thatthe
writermustengagein complexdecision-making in shapingthetextto be pre-
sented.By dialecticI meantheychangeinresponsetoeachotherinwaysthatare
notmechanically predictable-notpresenting, forexample,simplya cause-effect
relationbuta shifting affiliationin whichcausesandeffects aremutually interac-
tive,witheffects becomingcausesand causeseffects simultaneously. The reader
ofthetextmustalso engagein a dialecticalprocessinvolving codedconceptions
ofthewriter, thematter underconsideration, andtheroleofthereceiver ofthetext
in arrivingat an interpretation of thetext.Writing andreadingarethusbothacts
oftextualinterpretation andconstruction, andbotharecentralto social-epistemic
rhetoric.More of thisreading/writing relationship will be takenup later.FirstI
wouldliketo considertheroleofideologyin rhetoric.
As I haveindicatedthroughout, signifying practicesareneverinnocent: they
arealwaysinvolvedin ideologicaldesignations, conceptions ofeconomic,social,

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Poststructuralism
and CulturalStudies 23

political,and culturalarrangements and theirrelationsto thesubjectsof history

withinconcretepowerrelations. Ideologyis notheredeclareda mystification to
be placed in binaryoppositionto truthor science.The formulation invokedis
insteadderivedfromLouis Althusseras elaboratedin GoranTherborn'sThe
IdeologyofPowerand thePowerofIdeology.Thisconception places ideology
withinthe categoryof discourse,describingit as an inevitablefeatureof all
signifying practices.Ideologythenbecomescloselyimbricated withrhetoric, the
two inseparably overlappedhoweverdistinguished forpurposesof discussion.
Fromthisperspective, no claimscan be offered as absolute,timelesstruths since
all arehistorically
specific,arisinginresponsetotheconditions ofa particulartime
and place. Choicesin theeconomic,social,political,andculturalarethusbased
on discursivepracticesthatare interpretations-not meretranscriptions of some
external,verifiablecertainty. Thus the choice is neverbetweenideologyand
absolutetruth, butbetweendifferent ideologies.Some are finallyjudgedbetter
("truer")thanotherson thebasisoftheirabilityto fulfill thepromisesofdemoc-
racyatall levelsofexperience-theeconomic,social,political, andcultural-pro-
vidingan equal share of authorityin decision-making and a tolerancefor
difference.
Ideologyaddressesorinterpellates humanbeings.Itprovidesthelanguageto
definethesubject,othersubjects,thematerial andsocial,andtherelation ofall of
theseto eachother.Ideologyaddressesthreequestions:whatexists,whatis good,
whatis possible?Thefirst, explainsTherborn, tellsus "whowe are,whattheworld
is, whatnature,society, menand womenarelike.In thiswaywe acquirea sense
of identity,becomingconsciousof whatis realandtrue."Ideologyalso provides
thesubjectwithstandards formakingethicaland aestheticdecisions:"whatis
good,right, just,beautiful, enjoyable,anditsopposites.In thiswayour
attractive,
desiresbecomestructured and normalized." The veryconfigurations of ourde-
sires,whatwe will long forand pursue,are thusshapedby ideology.Finally,
ideologydefinestheelementsof expectation: "whatis possibleand impossible:
our sense of themutability of our being-in-the-world and theconsequencesof
changeare herebypatterned, and ourhopes,ambitions, and fearsgivenshape."
(18). This is especiallyimportant since the recognitionof the existenceof a
condition(homelessness, forexample)and thedesireforitschangewill go for
nothingifideologyindicatesthata changeis simplynotpossible(thehomeless
freelychooseto live in thestreetandcannotbe forcedtocomeinside).All three
arefurther implicated inpowerrelations ingroupsandin society,indecidingwho
has powerandin determining whatpowercan be expectedto achieve.
Finally,ideologyalwaysbringswithit strongsocial and culturalreinforce-
ment,so thatwhatwe taketo exist,to have value,and to be possibleseems
necessary, normal, andinevitable-inthenature ofthings.Andthisgoesforpower
as wellsinceideologynaturalizes certainauthority regimes-thoseofclass,race,
andgender, forexample-and renders alternatives
unthinkable,inthiswaydeter-

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 Rhetoric
Review

miningwho can act and whatcan be accomplished. Finally,ideologyis always

inscribed in thediscoursesofdailypracticeandis pluralistic andconflicted. Any
historicalmomentdisplaysa wide varietyof competingideologiesand each
subjectdisplayspermutations of theseconflicts, althoughtheoveralleffectis to
support thehegemony ofdominant groups.
All of thishas greatconsequencesforthe writingclassroom.Given the
ubiquitous roleofdiscourseinhumanaffairs, instructors
cannotbe content tofocus
exclusively on teaching theproduction ofacademictexts.Ourbusinessmustbe to
instruct students in signifying practicesbroadlyconceived-to see notonlythe
rhetoric ofthecollegeessaybuttherhetoric oftheinstitution ofschooling, ofthe
workplace,and of themedia.We musttakeas ourprovincetheproduction and
reception of semioticcodes broadlyconceived,providing students withtheheu-
risticsto penetrate thesecodes and theirideologicaldesignson ourformation as
thesubjectsofourexperience. Students mustcometo see thatthelanguagesthey
areexpectedtospeak,write, andembraceas waysofthinking andactingarenever
disinterested, alwaysbringing withthemstrictures on theexistent, thegood,the
possible,andregimesofpower.
Ifrhetoric is tobe a consideration ofsignifying practices andtheirideological
involvement-that is,theirimbrication ineconomic,social,political,andcultural
conditions andsubjectformation-then thestudyofsignswillofcoursebe central.
A large partof the businessof thisrhetoricwill be to providemethodsfor
describing andanalyzingtheoperations of signification.
Justas successiverheto-
rics forcenturiesfurnished the termsto name the elementsinvolvedin text
productionand interpretation forthe past (inventionaldevices, arrangement
schemes,stylistic labelsfortropesandfigures), social-epistemic rhetoricwilloffer
a terminology todiscusstheseactivities forcontemporary conditions andconcep-
tualformulations. Structuralism, poststructuralism,andrhetoric haveall begunthis
effort, and workers in semiotics have profited from them. It is composition
teachers, however, who arebestsituated to of
developways analyzing anddiscuss-
to to
ingdiscourse enablestudents becomebetter writers and readers.(Afterall,
mostof theimportant rhetoricsof thepast werewritten by teachers:Socrates,
Plato,andAristotle all taughtthecounterpart offreshman composition.) Thisleads
toa consideration oftherelation ofreadingandwriting, oftextproduction andtext
interpretation.
As I havealreadyindicated, social-epistemicrhetoric demandsrevisedmodels
of readingand writing. Bothcomposingand interpreting textsbecomeinstances
of discourseanalysisand, significantly, negotiation.Indeed,the veryacts of
writing and readingare themselves verballycoded discursiveprocedures which
guidetheproduction andinterpretation ofmeanings, makinga certainrangemore
likelytoappearandothersmoreimprobable. Thisexclusionary codingis apparent,
forexample,in reflecting on the directivesfortextproduction and reception
providedin certainexpressionist rhetorics. For these,onlypersonaland meta-

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Poststructuralism
and CulturalStudies 25

phonicaccountscan be regarded as authentic

discourse,and,unlikecurrent-tradi-
tionalrhetoric,
anyattempt to be rational,
objective,anddispassionateis consid-
ereda violationoftheselfandofgenuinewriting. In addition,
forsocial-epistemic
rhetoric,writingandreadingbecomeactsofdiscourseanalysisas boththesender
andreceiver attempttonegotiate thesemiotic codesinwhicheachis situated-that
is, thesignifyingpracticesthatmakeup theentirerhetorical context.Composing
and receptionare thusinteractive since bothare performances of production,
requiring theactiveconstruction of meaningaccordingto one or anothercoded
procedure.The oppositionbetweentheactivewriterand thepassivereaderis
displacedsincebothreadingandwriting areconsidered constructive.
Itwillbe the
workofrhetoric and composition teachers,then,to developlexiconsto articulate
thecomplexcodingactivity involvedin writingandreading,andthisleads us to
theclassroom.

The Classroom
The recommendations ofthenewrhetoric proposedherebecomeclearestin
considering pedagogy.For social-epistemic rhetoric, teachingis central,notan
afterthoughtthrough whichpracticeis madeto conform withthemoreimportant
workof theory. Instead,theclassroombecomesthepointat whichtheoryand
practiceengagein a dialecticalinteraction, working outa rhetoricmoreadequate
to thehistorical moment and theactualconditions of teacherand students. From
thisperspective, all teachersofrhetoric andcomposition areregarded as intellec-
tualsengagingintheoretical andempirical research, thetwocomingtofruition in
theirinteraction withinthe classroom.Indeed,as PatriciaDonahue and Ellen
Quandahlhaveargued,composition teachersarethrough thisinteraction striving
to createa newvariety ofacademicdiscourse.The teacher'sdutyhereis to bring
to bearrhetorical theory as broadlydefinedin thisessaywithintheconditions of
herstudents' lives.The teacherwillinthisactdevelopmethods forproducing and
receivingtexts,including strategiesfornegotiating andresisting signifying prac-
that
tices, arebestsuited the for situationsofher students. of
These course willbe
recommended tootherteachers, butonlyas exampleandguideline, notpronounce-
mentsfromon (theoretical) high.The uses ofpostmodern theory in rhetoricwill
thenbe in thehandsofteachers, notprescribed inadvanceby"outsideexperts."
This roleas intellectual,furthermore, has an important politicaldimension,
involvingthe transformation and improvement of presentsocial and political
arrangements. As I haveemphasizedelsewhere,social-epistemic rhetoric grows
outoftheexperienceofdemocracy in theUS, carrying withita strong antifoun-
dational impulse(Rhetoricand Reality,"Rhetoricand Ideology"). Knowl-
edge/power relationships are regardedas humanconstructions, notnaturaland
inevitablefactsoflife.All institutional
arrangements arehumanly madeandso can
be unmade,and thecoreof thisproductive act is foundin democracy and open
discussion.

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26 Rhetoric
Review

The social-epistemic classroomthusoffers a lessonindemocracy intended to

preparestudents in publiclife.It is dedicatedto making
forcriticalparticipation
schoolsplacesforindividual andsocialempowerment. Schoolsafterall areplaces,
as Aronowitzand Girouxremindus, "of struggle overwhatformsof authority,
ordersofrepresentation, forms ofmoralregulation, andversionsofthepastshould
be legitimated,passedon,anddebated"(32). Theteachermustthenrecognizeand
resistinequitiesin our society-theeconomicand social injusticesinscribedin
race,ethnic,andgenderrelations, thatprivilege
relations thefewanddiscriminate
againstthemany.Thisclassroomis dialogic,situating learning within
therealities
of thestudents' own experience, particularlytheirpoliticalexperience. The dia-
logic classroomis designedto encouragestudentsto become transformative
intheirownright.
intellectuals Studyingsignifying practices willrequirea "critical
literacy."As Ira Shorexplains:"Criticalliteracyinvitesteachersand students to
problematize all subjectsof study,thatis, to understand existingknowledgeas
historicalproductsdeeplyinvestedwiththevalue of thosewhodevelopedsuch
knowledge."For thisteacher,all learningis based in ideology,and signifying
practices-theproduction andreception oftexts-mustchallengedominant ideo-
logicalformations. In Shor'sterms,thestudyofdiscoursemustgo "beneaththe
surfaceto understand the origin,structure,and consequencesof any body of
knowledge, technicalprocess,orobjectunderstudy"(24). Students thusresearch
theirown language,theirown society,theirown learning, examining thevalues
inscribedin themand thewaysthesevaluesare shapingtheirsubjectivities and
theirconceptions oftheirmaterial and socialconditions.

The Course
I would now like to turnto a course in freshman compositionthatwill
demonstrate theoperations of thesocial-epistemicrhetoricdescribedhere.This
effortlocatesthe composingprocesswithinits social context,combiningthe
methodsofsemioticanalysisinconsidering codeswiththerecommenda-
cultural
tionsoftherhetoric I haveoutlined.As willbe apparent,itis alliedwithattempts
to refigureEnglishstudiesalong the lines of culturalstudies,a matterI have
discussedin "Composition Studiesand CulturalStudies"and "Composition and
CulturalStudies:CollapsingtheBoundaries."SinceI devisedthesyllabusforthis
courseto be sharedwithteachingassistantsin mymentorgroupat Purdueand
sincemyreporthereis basedon oursharedexperienceoverthepastthreeyears,
I willuse thepluralpronounin referring (I wouldalso liketo thank
to theeffort.
themfortheircooperation throughout.)
The courseis organizedaroundan examination of theculturalcodes-the
socialsemiotics-thatareworking themselves outinshapingconsciousness inour
studentsandourselves.We startwiththepersonalexperienceofthestudents, but
theemphasisis on thepositionofthisexperience withinitsformative context.
Our
mainconcernis therelationof current signifyingpracticesto thestructuring of

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Poststructuralism
and CulturalStudies 27

subjectivities-of race,class,andgenderformations, forexample-inourstudents

andourselves.The effort is tomakestudents awareofcultural codes,thecompet-
ingdiscoursesthatareinfluencing theirformations as thesubjectsofexperience.
Our largerpurposeis to encouragestudentsto resistand to negotiatethese
codes-these hegemonic discourses-inordertobringaboutmoredemocratic and
personallyhumaneeconomic,social,and politicalarrangements. Fromourper-
spective,only in thisway can theybecomegenuinelycompetent writersand
readers.
We thusguidestudents to locatein theirexperiencethepointsat whichthey
arenowengagingin resistance andnegotiation withtheculturalcodes theydaily
encounter. These are thenused as avenuesof departure fora dialogue.It is our
hope thatstudents who can demystify thesubtledevicesof persuasionin these
culturalcodeswillbe motivated tobeginthere-forming ofsubjectivitiesandsocial
arrangements, a re-forming whichis a normalpartofdemocratic politicalarrange-
ments.We also wantto explorethewide rangeof codes thatstudents confront
daily-print,film,television-inorderto preparethemto critiquetheirexperi-
enceswiththesecodes.As Donald Mortonand Mas'ud Zavarzadehexplain,this
"critique(notto be confusedwithcriticism)is an investigation of theenabling
conditionsof discursivepractices"(7). Its purposeis to locate theideological
predispositions of thesemioticcodes thatwe encounter and enactin our lives,
seeingtheircommitment to certainconceptions oftheexistent, thegood,andthe
possible.The coursethenexploresthesecoded discoursesin the institutional
forms-thefamily, theschool,theworkplace,themedia-thatmakethemseem
naturalandtimelessrather thanhistorically situatedsocialconstructions.
The courseconsistsof six units:advertising, work,play,education,gender,
andindividuality. Each unitbeginswitha readingofessaysdealingwithcompet-
ingversionsof thesignificance of thetopicoftheunit.Forexample,theuniton
educationincludesan analysisof US schoolsby a diverserangeof observers:
WilliamBennett, Jonathon Kozol,JohnDewey,andJamesThurber. Theseessays
are oftenfollowedwitha filmdealingwithschoolexperiences-forexample,
RiskyBusinessorSixteenCandlesorTheBreakfast Club.A videotapeofa current
televisionprogramaboutschools-for example,BeverlyHills, 90210-is also
oftenincluded.The important consideration is notthetextsin themselves butthe
textsin relationto certainmethodsofinterpreting them.
Studentsareprovideda setof heuristics (invention thatgrowout
strategies)
of the interaction of rhetoric, structuralism, poststructuralism,semiotics,and
culturalstudies(again,especiallyoftheBirmingham Centervariety). Whilethose
outlinedherehave been developedas a resultof readingin Saussure,Peirce,
Levi-Strauss, Barthes,Gramsci,RaymondWilliams,StuartHall, and others,an
excellentintroduction to themforteachersand studentscan be foundin John
Fiske'sIntroduction to Communication Studies.(Diana Georgeand JohnTrim-
bur's Reading Culturewill perform a similarfunctionforcompositionclass-

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28 Rhetoric
Review

rooms.)In examiningany text-print,film,television-students are asked to

locatethekeytermsin thediscourseand to situatethesewithinthestructure of
meaningof whichtheyforma part.These termsof courseare made up of the
centralpreoccupations of the text,but to determine how theyare workingto
constitute experiencetheirfunctions as partsof coded structures-asemiotic
system-mustbe examined.The termsare firstset in relationto theirbinary
oppositesas suggestedby the textitself.(This of course followsSaussure's
description of the centralplace of contrastin signification and Levi-Strauss's
application of it.)Sometimes thisopposition is indicatedexplicitly,
butoftenitis
not.It is also important to notethata termcommonlyoccupiesa positionin
opposition to morethanone otherterm.
For example,we sometimes beginwitha 1981 essay fromThe WallStreet
Journal,"TheDaysofa CowboyareMarkedbyDanger,Drudgery, andLow Pay,"
byWilliamBlundell.(Thisessayis mostappropriate fortheuniton work,butits
codes are at once so variedand so accessibleto studentsthatit is a useful
introduction to anyunit.)We first considerthecontextofthepiece,exploring the
characteristics of thereadership of thenewspaperand thehistorical eventssur-
roundingtheessay's production, particularlyas indicatedwithinthetext.The
purposeof thisis to decide whatprobablyactedas keytermsfortheoriginal
readers.The essayfocuseson thecowboss,theranchforeman whorunsthecattle
operation. Themeaningof"cowboss"is established byseeingitinbinaryopposi-
tiontothecowboyswhoworkforhimas wellas theownerswhoworkawayfrom
theranchin cities.At othertimesin theessay,thecowbossis groupedtogether
withthecowboysinopposition toofficeworkers. Through thedescription oflabor
relationson theranch,thecowboysare also situatedin contrast to urbanunion
workers, but thelatterare neverexplicitlymentioned. Finally,theexclusively
masculinenatureof ranching is suggestedonlyat theend of theessaywhenthe
cowboss's wifeis describedin passingas livingapartfromthe ranchon the
cowboss'sown smallspread,creatingmale/female domainbinary.All of these
binariessuggestothers, suchas theopposition ofnature/civilization,
country/city,
cowboy/urban cowboy,andthelike.Students beginto see thatthesebinariesare
arranged hierarchically,withonetermprivileged overtheother. Theyalso see how
unstablethesehierarchies can be, however,witha termfrequently shiftingva-
lencesas itmovesfromonebinary toanother-for example,cowboy/union worker
butcowboss/cowboy. It is also important topointoutthatthislocationofbinaries
is of coursenotan exactoperationand thatgreatdiversity appearsas students
negotiate thetextdifferently. Theirreasonsfordoingso becomeclearat thenext
levelofanalysis.
Thesetermsare thenplacedwithinthenarrative formssuggested
structural
bythetext,theculturally codedstoriesaboutpatterns ofbehaviorappropriate for
peoplewithincertainsituations. Thesecodesdeal withsuchsocialdesignations as
race,class,gender, age,ethnicity, andthelike.Thepositionofthekeyterms within

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Poststructuralism
and CulturalStudies 29

thesesociallyconstructed narrative codes are analyzed,discussed,and written

about.It is nottoo difficult to imaginehow theseare at workin thebinaries
indicated above.The narratives thatclusteraroundthefigure ofthecowboyinour
cultureare quicklydetectedin thisessay-for example,patterns of behavior
involving individuality, freedom, andindependence. These,however, aresimulta-
neouslycoupledwithself-discipline, respectforauthority (good cowboysnever
complain),andsubmission tothewillofthecowboss.Students havelittledifficulty
in pointing outthewaysthesenarratives are conflicted whileconcurrently rein-
forcing differences in class andgenderroleexpectations. Of particularvalueis to
see theway theessayemploysnarratives thatat once disparagetheWallStreet
Journalreadersbecausetheyare urbanofficeworkerswhileenablingthemto
identifywiththeruggedfreedom andadventure ofthecowboys,seeingthemselves
as metaphorically enacting themasculinenarrative ofthecowbossintheirseparate
domains.In otherwords,students discoverthattheessayattempts topositionthe
readerin theroleofa certainkindofmasculinesubject.
Thesenarrative patterns atthelevelofthesocialrolearethensituatedwithin
largernarrative structures thathave to do witheconomic,political,and cultural
formulations. Here students examinecapitalisteconomicnarratives as demon-
stratedin thisessayand theirconsequencesforclass,gender,and racerelations
and rolesbothin theworkplace and elsewhere.Theylook,forexample,at the
distribution of workin beefproduction withitsdivisionsbetweenmanagersand
workers, thinkers and doers,producersand consumers. Theyalso considerthe
placeofnarratives ofdemocracy intheessay,discussing thenatureofthepolitical
relationsthatareimpliedinthehierarchies oftermsandsocialrelations presented.
It shouldbe clearthatat thesetwonarrative levelsconsiderable debateresultsas
students disagreeaboutthenarratives thatoughtto be invokedin interpreting the
text,theirrelativeworthas modelsforemulation, andthedegreeto whichthese
narratives areconflicted. In otherwords,thediscussionemerging fromtheuse of
theseheuristics is itselfconflicted andunpredictable.
Thus,thetermas itis designated within a hierarchicalbinaryis situatedwithin
narratives of socialroles,andtheserolesarelocatedwithinmorecomprehensive
narratives ofeconomicandpoliticalformations in thelargersociety.The pointof
theinterpretation is to see thattexts-whether rhetoricalorpoetic-are ideologi-
callyinvested intheconstruction ofsubjectivitieswithin recommended economic,
social,andpoliticalarrangements. Finally,as shouldnowbe clear,thishermeneu-
tic processis open-ended, leadingin diverseand unpredictable directionsin the
classroom.And thisis one of its strengths as it encouragesopen debateand
wide-ranging speculation.
Aftersome experiencewithwritten and video texts,studentsapplythese
heuristics totheirpersonalexperiences inordertoanalyzeinessayformtheeffect
of an important culturalcode on theirlives. The studentsselectthetopicand
content oftheessay,buttheymustdo so withinthecontextofthelargerthemeof

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30 Rhetoric
Review

each unit.Thus,in theuniton education,students mustchoosesomefeatureof

theirschoolexperience fromthepastorpresent thathasbeenofparticular personal
significance. Thestudents mustthenlocatepointsofconflict anddissonanceinthe
culturalcodes discovered,althoughtheyare notexpectedto resolvethem.For
example,studentsoftenchoose to writeabouttheirexperiencesin highschool
athleticsin orderto discusstheconflicted codes involvedin theemphasison
personalversusteamsuccess,winning versuslearning toacceptdefeat,discipline
versusplay,and thelike. The roles the studentslearnto assumein sportsare
examinedintermsofsuchcategories as gender, age,race,andgroupmembership.
Somestudents haveexploredthedifferences intheexperiences ofmaleandfemale
athletes.Heretheycommonly examinethenarratives appropriate tothebehavior
of each as recommended by dominantculturalcodes aboutsports.These role
definitionsandperformances arethenplacedwithinlargernarratives havingtodo
withlifeexperiences, suchas vocationalaspirations, careerobjectives,marriage
plans,andthelike.Students at thispointoftendiscovertheparallelsbetweenthe
contrasting experiencesof males and femalesin high school sportsand the
contrasting experiencesof males and femalesin careertracks.Once again,the
variouslevelsofconflict areexplored, bothwithin theexpectations foreachgender
andacrossthegenders, although, onceagain,students arenotexpectedtoresolve
them.It shouldalso be notedthatconflictsalso appearas students disagreein
discussionsabout the codes thatare being recommended withinthesesports
activities.These incidentsreinforcethe pointthatculturalcodes are always
negotiated so thatstudentsproducethemas well as simplyre-produce them;that
is, studentsdo notalwayssimplysubmitto thesecodes,oftenreshaping themto
servetheirown agendas.And of courseincidentsof resistanceare frequently
discussedas studentsreport theirdefianceofrequired roles-forexample,refusing
to engagein somehumiliating hazingritualagainstthosedeclared"losers."
As students developmaterialthrough theuse of theheuristic and beginto
writeinitialdraftsof theiressays,theydiscovertheculturally codedcharacter of
all partsof composing.Students mustlearnto arrangetheirmaterials to conform
to thegenrecodes of theformof theessaytheyare writing-thepersonalessay,
theacademicessay,thenewspaperessay,forexample.(Studentscould also be
askedto createotherkindsof texts-shortstories,poems,videos-althoughwe
havenotdoneso in ourcomposition course.Herethegenrecodes ofeach would
againbe foregrounded.) Theseessaygenresconform to sociallyindicatedformal
codes thatstudentsmustidentify and enact,and they,of course,carrygreat
consequencesformeaning.A givengenreencouragescertainkindsof messages
whilediscouraging others.Next,at thelevelofthesentence, formcomes
stylistic
intoplay,and the studentmustagain learnto generatesentencestructures and
patterns of dictionthatare expectedof thegenreemployed.It is important that
students be madeawareof thepurposesof thesecodes,bothpracticaland ideo-
logical.Inotherwords,expecting certainformalandstylisticpatternsis notalways

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and CulturalStudies
Poststructuralism 31

a matterof securing "clearandeffective communication." As all writing teachers

know,mosterrors ingrammar andspellingdo notinthemselves interfere withthe
reader'sunderstanding. The use of "who" for"whom,"forexample,seldom
createsanyconfusion in reference.Theseerrorsinsteadcreateinterferences of a
socialandpoliticalnature.
Finally,I wouldliketorestatea pointon theinterchangability ofreadingand
writing madeearlier.In enacting thecomposing process,students arelearning that
all experienceis situatedwithinsignifying practices, and thatlearningto under-
standpersonaland social experienceinvolvesacts of discourseproduction and
interpretation, thetwoactingreciprocally in readingandwriting codes.Students
in theclass cometo see thatinterpretation involvesproduction as well as repro-
duction,andis as constructive as composing itself.Atthesametime,theydiscover
thatthemoreone knowsabouta text-itsauthor, place ofpublication, audience,
historicalcontext-theless indeterminate itbecomesandthemoreconfident the
readercan be ininterpreting andnegotiating itsintentions.
Similarly, themorethe
writerunderstands theentiresemioticcontextin whichshe is functioning, the
greaterwillbe thelikelihoodthathertextwill serveas a successfulintervention
in an ongoingdiscussion.Afterall,despitetheinevitable slippagesthatappearin
theproduction and interpretation of codes,peopledo in factcommunicate with
each otherdailyto getall sortsofworkdoneeffectively. Atthesametime,even
these"effective" exchangescanbe seentoharbor contradictionsthatareconcealed
orignored. Thesecontradictions areimportant todiscoverforthereaderandwriter
becausetheyforeground thepoliticalunconscious ofdecisionmaking,a levelof
unspoken assumptions thatareoftenrepressed inordinarydiscourse.Itis herethat
thebetrayals ofdemocracy andthevalueoftheindividual arediscovered despite
themoreobviousclaimstothecontrary.
The purposeof social-epistemic rhetoricis finallypolitical,an effortto
preparestudents forcriticalcitizenship ina democracy. Wewantstudents tobegin
to understand thatlanguageis neverinnocent, insteadconstituting a terrain of
ideologicalbattle.Language-textuality-isthustheterrain on whichdifferent
conceptions ofeconomic,social,andpoliticalconditions arecontested withcon-
sequencesfortheformation of thesubjectsofhistory, theveryconsciousness of
thehistorical agent.We arethuscommitted to teachingwriting as an inescapably
politicalact,theworking outofcontested culturalcodesthataffecteveryfeature
ofexperience. Thisinvolvesteachersin an effort to problematize students'expe-
riences,requiring themtochallengetheideologicalcodestheybringtocollegeby
placingtheirsignifying practicesagainstalternatives. Sometimes thisis donein a
cooperative effort withteachersandstudents agreeingabouttheconflicts thatare
apparentin considering a particularculturalformation-for example,theelitist
and oftenruthlessly competitive organization of varsitysportsin highschools.
Students areable tolocatepointsofpersonalresistance andnegotiation indealing
withtheinjusticesof thiscommonsocial practice.At othertimes,students and

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32 Review
Rhetoric

teachersare at odds witheach otheror,justas often,thestudents arethemselves

dividedabouttheoperation andeffects ofconflictingcodes.Thisoftenresultsin
spirited exchange.The roleof theteacheris to act as a mediatorwhileensuring
thatno code,including herown,goes unchallenged.
This has been a lengthyintroduction to the intersections
of postmodern
discoursetheoryandrhetoric. Even so, itonlybeginsto explorethepossibilities,
as can be seen,forexample,in theexcellentnew collection,Contending with
Words:Composition andRhetoricina Postmodern Age,editedbyPatriciaHarkin
and JohnSchilb.(ThisvolumearrivedwhileI was putting thefinishing
touches
on thispiece.) These essays sharewithminethe confidencethatpostmodern
speculation hasmuchtooffer writingteachers.None,furthermore,suggeststhatit
is a saviorcometoredeemus fromourfallenways.All see rhetoric andcomposi-
tion as engagedin a dialecticwiththe new speculation,the resultbeingthe
enrichment ofboth.Indeed,theseessaysconfirm whatI havelongmaintained: The
postmodern turnin recentdiscussionsin theacademyis an attempt to restorethe
placeofrhetoric inthehumansciences.In itwe findan allyinourworkofcreating
a criticallyliterate andwe oughtnotto rejectitjustbecauseitspeaksa
citizenry,
nonstandard dialect.

WorksCited
Aronowitz,Stanley,and HenryA. Giroux.EducationUnderSiege. SouthHadley,MA: Berginand
Garvey,1985.
Barthes,Roland.Mythologies. Trans.Annette Lavers.NewYork:Hill andWang,1972.
Benveniste,Emil.Problemsin GeneralLinguistics. Trans.MaryElizabethMeek.CoralGables:U of
MiamiP. 1971.
Berlin,JamesA. "Composition andCulturalStudies."Composition andResistance.Ed. MarkHurlbert
and MichaelBlitz.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook, 1991.47-55.
"CompositionStudiesand CulturalStudies:CollapsingtheBoundaries."IntotheField: TheSite
ofComposition Studies.Ed. AnneRugglesGere.NewYork:MLA, 1992.
"RhetoricandIdeologyin theWriting Class." CollegeEnglish50 (1988): 477-94.
Rhetoricand Reality:Writing Instructionin AmericanColleges,1900-1985.Carbondale,IL:
Southern IllinoisUP, 1987.
"RhetoricPrograms AfterWorldWarII: Ideology,Power,and Conflict." Rhetoricand Ideology:
Compositions and Criticisms ofPower.Ed. CharlesW. Kneupper. Arlington, TX: RhetoricSociety
ofAmerica,1989.
Blundell,WilliamE. "The Days of a Cowboyare Markedby Danger,Drudgery, andLow Pay."Wall
StreetJournal10June1981,sec. A: 1+.
Burke,Kenneth. Languageas SymbolicAction.Berkeley:U ofCalifornia PR1966.
Corbett,EdwardP.J.Classical Rhetoric fortheModernStudent. New York:OxfordUP, 1965.
Derrida,Jacques.OfGrammatology. Trans.GayatriSpivak.Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUP, 1976.
Donahue,Patricia,and Ellen Quandahl.ReclaimingPedagogy: The Rhetoricof the Classroom.
Carbondale,IL: Southern IllinoisUP, 1989.
Dowst,Kenneth."The EpistemicApproach:Writing, Knowing,and Learning."EightApproachesto
TeachingComposition. Ed. Timothy Donovanand Ben W. McClelland.Urbana:NCTE, 1980.
Elbow,Peter."Reflections on AcademicDiscourse."CollegeEnglish53 (1991): 135-55.
Fiske,John.Introduction to Communication Studies.2nded. London:Routledge,1990.

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Poststructuralism
and CulturalStudies 33

Foucault,Michel.Power/Knowledge: SelectedInterviews and OtherWritings; 1972-1977.Ed. Colin

Gordon.Trans.ColinGordonet al. New York:Pantheon, 1980.
George,Diana,andJohnTrimbur. ReadingCulture.New York:HarperCollins, 1992.
Hairston, MaxineC. "Comment andResponse."CollegeEnglish52 (1990): 694-96.
Hall,Stuart. "Encoding/Decoding." Culture, Media,Language.Ed. StuartHall etal. London:Hutchin-
son, 1980.
"The Rediscovery of 'Ideology':ReturnoftheRepressedin Media Studies."Culture, Societyand
theMedia. Ed. MichaelGurevitch et al. London:Routledge,1982.
Harkin,Patricia,and JohnSchilb,eds. ContendingwithWords:Compositionand Rhetoricin a
Postmodern Age.New York:MLA, 1991.
Hodge,Robert,andGunther Kress.Social Semiotics.Ithaca,NY: CornellUP, 1988.
Johnson, Richard."Whatis CulturalStudiesAnyway?"Social Text16 (1986-87):38-80.
Kennedy, GeorgeA. ClassicalRhetoric and itsChristianandSecularTradition fromAncienttoModern
Times.ChapelHill: U of NorthCarolinaP, 1980.
KF. "Puttingon the Dog: Heuristics, Paradigms,and Hermeneutics." RhetoricReview10 (1991):
187-93.
Knoblauch,C. H., and Lil Brannon.RhetoricalTraditionsand the Teachingof Writing. Upper
Montclair, NJ:Boynton/Cook, 1984.
Morton, Donald,andMas'ud Zavarzadeh.TheorylPedagogyl forChange.Urbana:U of
Politics:Texts
IllinoisP, 1991.
Nilsen,Alleen Pace. "Sexism in English:A FeministView." Perspectives:TurningReadinginto
Writing. Ed. JosephJ.Comprone. Boston:Houghton, 1987.
Schilb,John."CulturalStudies,Postmodernism, andComposition." Contending withWords:Compo-
sitionand Rhetoricin a Postmodern Age.Ed. PatriciaHarkinandJohnSchilb.New York:MLA,
1991. 173-88.
Scott,RobertL. "On ViewingRhetoric as Epistemic."CentralStatesSpeechJournal18 (1967): 9-16.
Shor,Ira. "EducatingtheEducators:A FreireanApproachto theCrisisin Education."Freireforthe
Classroom.Ed. Ira Shor.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook, 1987.7-32.
Smith,Paul. DiscerningtheSubject.Minneapolis:U ofMinnesotaP, 1988.
Therborn, Goran.TheIdeologyofPowerand thePowerofIdeology.London:Verso,1980.
TS. "Joining theConversation."RhetoricReview10 (1991): 175-86.
Vickers,Brian.In DefenceofRhetoric. Oxford:Clarendon,1988.

JimBerlinspentthefirstsixyearsofhisprofessionalcareerteachinginelementaryschoolsinDetroit
andFlint,Michigan.Sincereceiving hisdoctorate innineteenth-century at theUniversity
literature of
Michigan,he has taughtin rhetoric
andcomposition programs at WichitaStateUniversity
(wherehe
directedtheKansasWriting ofCincinnati
Project),at theUniversity (wherehe directedthefreshman
Englishprogram), and,as a visitor,
at theUniversityof Texas at Austin.He nowteachesat Purdue
His publishedworkin thehistoryand theoryof rhetoric
University. and compositionexploresthe
intersections
ofrhetorics,poetics,andpolitics.

This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:42:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions