Rhetoric’s Mechanics: Retooling the Equipment of Writing Production
Rice, J.E. (Dec. 2008).
Rhetoric’s mechanics: Retooling the equipment of writing production. College Composition and Communication, 60(2),
366-387. Retrieved from http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/edbauer-rice-video-ccc-2008.pdf
In this article, Rice
argues that reconceptualizing rhetorical producers as “logomechanics, or
creators who can imagine, improvise, and enact the material deployments of
meaning and its operation” (p. 372) will help us address questions regarding
the role of mechanical knowledge of technology in rhetoric and composition (p.
368).
These questions, Rice
explains, arise from the need to reconcile the mechanics of digital
communication with our resistance to grammar and mechanics in the composition
classroom. To illustrate this resistance, Rice traces the history of grammar in
writing instruction: from early concern for correctness to its role in the
rhetorical situation of self-expression to anti-mechanic sentiment. The shift
in pedagogy resulted from the influence of social constructivist theory and
concerns regarding disciplinary professionalization.
Rice posits that this
anti-mechanics attitude has influenced our approach to technology and its
proximity to writing instruction. As “the digital age has altered the demands
and possibilities of rhetorical deliver” (p. 372), it has also created new
opportunities for invention and enactment. These opportunities, however, have
been dismissed because of the mechanical knowledge necessary for imagination and
improvisation because, as Rice explains, “part of the production and
circulation of meaning depends upon a rhetorician’s ability to imagine
possibilities for those meaning’s deployment” (p. 373).
She argues, then for a shift
in mindset to a “pedagogy of writing mechanics” that emphasizes rhetorical
production (p. 374). To illustrate this pedagogy, Rice cites examples of the
Youth Document Durham project in which participants leant skills of film
production, narration, and interviewing. The project culminates in a sharing of
ideas with the community. The focus on mechanical knowledge for production,
Rice argues, is similar to the teaching of narration in a writing class but
leaves “participants with a greater potential set of tools for rhetorical production”
(p. 374). This expanded toolbox is necessary for the enactment or delivery of
ideas conceived in the invention process. A lack of mechanical knowledge and
practice, in contrast, has the potential to limit the invention of a rhetorical
production: “the potential for production lies in the ability for writer-users
to imagine what can be done with these tools” (p.378).
Rice concludes by
pointing out the responsibility of “rhetorical producers and teachers” to be
able to produce texts in various media. She calls for a “retooling” of our own
production by enacting “personal pedagogies” that encourage exploratory
learning (pp. 379-380). By exploring and experimenting with existing
experiences and technologies, teachers will gain the mechanical knowledge
necessary for invention.
While many articles on
digital composition focus on the affordances and challenges of
delivery, Rice’s article addresses the limitations we impose on invention by
shying away from mechanical knowledge. This article is helpful for those
interested in incorporating more digital composition elements in their
classroom but are scared of or have dismissed the mechanical components of
production. Rice’s personal and secondary examples of mechanical pedagogy in
action foreground the relationship mechanical skill and enactment for
rhetorical impact.
No comments:
Post a Comment