Review: History as Complex Storytelling

Reviewed Work(s): Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy by

Robert J. Connors
Review by: Kathleen A. Welsch
Source: College Composition and Communication , Sep., 1998, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Sep., 1998),
pp. 116-122
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/358359

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.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to College Composition and Communication

This content downloaded from

106.205.189.41 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:47:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Review

Kathleen A. Welsch

History as
Complex Storytelling

Robert J. Connors. Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy.

Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997. Series in Composition,
Literacy, and Culture. 347 pages. $45.00 (cloth); $19.95 (paper).

History is about storytelling. And like any good narrative invested in re-
counting tales of forebearers, its aim is not only to create an image of the
past but a way of understanding what we see. We are drawn to history be-
cause its story is our story-by gazing backwards we learn the past as well
as something of the present and possibly even something of our future. It
allows us to place ourselves as participants in an historical tradition, parts
of which we wish to claim and others which we would prefer to distance
ourselves from. In Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy,
Robert Connors describes historians as the storytellers of the field charged
with drawing the threads of the discipline into a coherent whole. "I am
trying here to build a fire," he writes, "around which we can sit and dis-
cover that we do know the same stories, and dance the same dance" (18).
For it is through our shared understanding, he claims, that composition
studies will achieve unity as a discipline. Connors has been providing us
with tales of our past for almost two decades now, uncovering stories of
composition's 19th-century heritage that explain unfamiliar practices as
well as that which has been carried down the years into current theory
and teaching. His early tales (as well as those of other historians), howev-
er, have been marked by a derisive and impatient tone that aims, as
Stephen North explains in The Making of Knowledge in Composition, to iden-
tify the "wrongheadedness" of antiquated practice that "now in the bright

Kathleen A. Welsch directs the Writing Center and teaches first-year composition as well as
courses in the history and theory of composition at Clarion University of Pennsylvania. Her
dissertation, Nineteenth-Century Composition: The Relationship between Pedagogical Concerns and Cul-
tural Values in American Colleges, 1850-1890 was a finalist for the 1996 James Berlin Outstanding
Dissertation Award.

116 CCC 50.1/September 1998

This content downloaded from

106.205.189.41 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:47:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Welsch/Storytelling 117

light of progress, is perfectly obvious to us"

scious, even patronizing chrono-centrism," No
risky approach to historical inquiry (85). Whi
community may not explicitly guide an histor
can be influenced by prevailing narratives or pre
And in the case of tales that represent our 19
"fools" and their work as "mediocre," members o
tainly be moved to leave the fireside in search
aims to understand rather than dismiss a seem
past. What Connors offers in Composition-Rheto
historical gaze. This is not a simple tale of th
present, but a complex history in which disciplin
cultural influences, social structure, educational values, class, economics,
gender, and professionalism are all deftly woven into a tale worth listening
to. However, while Connors has responded to the growing interest in po-
sitioning aspects of the history of composition studies within disciplinary,
social, and cultural contexts, and in the process abandoned what he calls
his "Manichaean vision," what he hasn't abandoned is his desire to draw
"modern" compositionists around a single fire rather than engaging in a
"communal dialectic" (North 81). Such an approach reveals that it is not
only chrono-centrism that creates potentially risky historical practice; it is
also potentially risky for historical inquiry to engage in the building of in-
dividual fires around which we huddle, not looking beyond into the dark
for connections to other campsites and stories.
The historical project Connors sets for himself resists the traditional
chronology of key figures, theories, texts, and events by creating what he
calls "thematic pictures" in which these elements are significant for what
they contribute to the complexity of the historical moment. The themes he
identifies in his history-gender influences, licensure, disciplinary identity,
workload, invention, and assignments-allow readers to examine closely
and at length issues that define 19th-century composition-rhetoric, as well
as the discipline's evolution in response to academic and cultural de-
mands. The movement from one chapter to the next is recursive as each
begins with an exploration of a theme's origins in the 19th century, and in
this repeated circling back we re-encounter certain historical figures and
elements (academic culture, pedagogical practice, economic issues, pat-
terns of change in academe and society) a number of times in different
contexts and from various perspectives. The nature and history of the old
American college, for example, appears as a thematic element in a number
of chapters: the agonistic tradition of college education-but specifically as
it manifested itself in rhetoric-as it relates to the exclusion of women
from higher education and participation in rhetorical enterprises (chapter

This content downloaded from

106.205.189.41 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:47:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
118 CCC 50/September 1998

one); the uniquely American, egalitarian nature of ed

19th century as it relates to composition-rhetoric's emp
and mechanical correctness (chapter three); the statu
old college as it relates to the impact of the German un
the decline of rhetoric as an esteemed field (chapter
cultural information regarding pre-Civil War and Civ
the history of the classical tradition in rhetoric and
century composition-rhetoric also maintain the recursiv
chapter to chapter as varying details and perspectives f
matic picture. Rhetorical topics and practices like th
composition-rhetoric (the focus of chapter five) are rev
issues in relation to the thematic pictures of other chap
each still further. As in any complex narrative that
peopled by an array of characters, unfolds in a variety o
a range of materials, and offers a set of interwoven th
tory creates a layered tale about 19th-century composit
er than produce a chronology that presents the orderly
his recursive moves allow him to return again and again
acters and scenes as a means of bringing themes forwar
nation of chapters with their interlocking themes
evolution of traditional rhetoric into what Connors has come to call "com-
position-rhetoric."
In place of "current-traditional rhetoric"-a term readily associated
with the negative connotations of outmoded and ineffective pedagogical
practices-Connors chooses to name the tradition that grew out of the 19th
century composition-rhetoric, a term that reflects the newness of the tradition
as well as its connection to the past. Renaming the term that has come to
represent the legacy of the 19th century is significant in Connors' reconsid-
eration of how to tell this story, since what we choose to name something
directly influences how we think about it. And the term current-traditiona
rhetoric, because it came to name the 19th century by default rather than
through historical inquiry, has never represented it accurately. Rather than
being recognized for any significant contribution to rhetorical tradition, the
19th century has more commonly been accused of the decline of classica
rhetoric, denounced for its utilitarian practices, and dismissed as a fallow pe-
riod in an otherwise illustrious tradition. Connors challenges this view with
his claim that the 19th century did, indeed, give us a new rhetorical tradi-
tion in response to the burgeoning demand for literate workers in a time of
growing professionalism. Unlike previous traditions with belletristic, philo-
sophical, or psychological foundations, this tradition was grounded in the
combined influences of pedagogical, societal, political, economic, and tech-
nological demands. As a tradition devoted to written discourse, it prepared

This content downloaded from

106.205.189.41 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:47:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Welsch/Storytelling 119

students to enter literate professions, as Connor

ing the elements of correct and successful writing
how to find them in extant prose, and encouragi
in their own prose" (7). This telling of the story
we have come to believe about current-traditional
to call it by this name would be to maintain the
thought. The term composition-rhetoric forces us
from how we have been taught to hear it, and pro
gin imagining familiar knowledge in new terms.
In similar fashion, Connors' use of periodiza
19th century within a new frame. While the nam
selves are not particularly instructive except f
(Early American, Postwar, Consolidation, Mod
the defining characteristics of the periods provi
for learning to read the development of 19th-cen
Each period defines the cultural, societal, and his
practices, materials, theories, and figures th
viewed within a limited academic context. Th
this periodization-unlike Berlin's theoretical divis
tion in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges-dra
composition-rhetoric was shaped more by exte
the internal forces of the discipline or the acade
ly more difficult to dismiss 19th-century the
misguided or uninformed when the story situ
narrative where we can see composition-rhetor
in relation to more powerful forces at play.
Connors broadens the scope of his inquiry b
demic culture to include textual evidence from jo
sional books, and inquiry into gender, class, polit
structure. In The Making of Knowledge, North s
textual evidence in Connors' conclusion to "The Rise and Fall of the
Modes of Discourse" in order to demonstrate how conclusions drawn out-
side of historical inquiry undermine an historian's authority. In the process
of reading from a wider range of 19th-century materials for this project,
however, Connors establishes himself as a more credible storyteller as well
as more sympathetic reader. His commitment to creating a narrative based
on archival fact leads him to resist proffering any overtly theoretical or
ideological agenda other than telling "a story of people who have studied
and taught writing in American schools since the early nineteenth centu-
ry" (3)-a story that accounts for contextual trends and pressures and
looks closely at people. Conclusions based on current knowledge and prac-
tice rather than the specifics of original context may offer a moral lesson

This content downloaded from

106.205.189.41 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:47:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
120 CCC 50/September 1998

on what not to do now, but provide no historical insigh

it imagined itself. The value of archival material-ca
lies in its ability to provide access to a time and place l
with an archival window into another time where w
and their motivations and not just theories or large eve
so easy to criticize them when we recognize a world
unlike us with challenges similar to our own.
As Connors learns to read beyond the textbook pag
their motivations instead of simply bone-headed mistak
es its accusatory edge and his gaze softens. Teachers and
are no longer the witless villains in a story of misguided
us a convenient moral lesson, they are beleaguered c
time. The recognition of himself "in the words and
1930 or 1905 or 1870" moves Connors to ponder: "W
that to understand all is to forgive all?" (20). This do
19th-century theory and practice, whether producti
should be unquestionably embraced. What it does mean
our history must be included in our sense of our field,
ward understanding how each came to be a part of the
contribution was-whether we approve or disapprove
say, "Textbooks and the Evolution of the Discipline," fo
contextual evidence allows for an easy critical stance in
ments the degraded status of college rhetoric, derides i
for their dependency on textbooks, and reprimands tex
serving a publishing industry that exerted market cont
of their books. That essay is the foundation for Conno
of textbooks in relation to the evolution of composition
ter two, "Shaping Tools." While much of the factual inf
the same, how we read it is altered by Connors' method
once 19th-century teachers were simply described as w
dertrained, and uninformed, as if they were responsib
status, Connors now broadens his examination beyo
consider the forces at the heart of the problem. W
booming college movement suffering from a shortage
there is no institutional means of training them. He w
created a pedagogical problem: who would do the te
a reasonable question, one that is open to extending the
in readers who know something of institutional pr
training. A history that characterizes teachers of anoth
may provide us with a sense of progress; however,
readers, it should raise questions of accuracy since w
certainly not how we would want someone to recount o
the face of obstacles beyond our control.

This content downloaded from

106.205.189.41 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:47:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Welsch/Storytelling 121

In a similar vein, textbooks and the predomi

discipline also cannot be directly faulted for the
rhetorical tradition in the 19th century. Again, i
Connors would have us believe that the abstract p
pline "would not let go" (184) of composition-as i
of a stubborn resistance to change. Although m
the original journal text on this matter is carried
Composition-Rhetoric, the change is in the tone. N
proposes that the practice of mental discipline
go" of composition (72). This time there is no ita
a negative judgment, nor is mental discipline r
resistant. While the revision of that phrase is sm
cant because it situates the problem within a larg
this long established practice won't give over to
lution of textbooks is unavoidably connected t
from an oral to a written discourse-a much more
stances than a general notion that change shou
er the interaction of pedagogical values establi
the expectation that a course should offer theore
lemma of teaching a skills-oriented course to a le
is no longer simply one of bad practice. It is inst
to understand pedagogical motivation, that is mo
plexity, and that fosters a sympathetic conn
across time.

Connors' rethinking of historical inquiry could be said to create a d

lectic between past and present practice in composition-studies. As
learn more of composition's 19th century beginnings through archiv
materials, we begin to recognize patterns that resonate through the year
to our current practice and institutional dilemmas. We become aware
the pervasive and continuous influence of academic, social, and cultu
pressures that have shaped composition studies from its inception;
hear the voices who teach us how to read them if we shut out the noise of
the present; and we learn to draw connections between what we discover
of the past and what we know here and now. An effective storyteller-a
historian-should leave us with something to ponder, and Connors' con-
tribution to the communal narrative of the 19th century provides us with
that. For his story, as he claims, explores the people who studied and
taught writing; it is a project that comes in for a close look at those details
of history that get swept aside in discussions of theories, movements, and
great figures. Other historians-Kitzhaber, Wozniak, Berlin, Johnson-
have provided communal narratives that consider composition studies
from these broader perspectives. But the aspect of historical inquiry
defined by North ten years ago which has as yet to be produced is the

This content downloaded from

106.205.189.41 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:47:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 122 CCC 50/September 1998

communal dialectic among historians. No historian

communal narrative of the 19th century has yet draw
narratives and confronted a fellow historian.
Connors claims he is not invested in foregrounding any particular ide-
ology but in "pin[ning] down as much textual evidence as possible, so that
further discussion from a theoretical base can proceed from shareable da-
ta" (22). In telling this history, however, Connors does more than simply
offer a catalogue of textual evidence; he recasts the story of 19th-century
composition in a new frame, with new terms, and in relation to a previ-
ously unconsidered contextual background. This is a new fire at which we
are invited to sit, at which competing narratives are acknowledged as
touchstones, but where no discussion is yet offered regarding how this
narrative relates to its predecessors. While such a commitment to narra-
tive is communal in that it tells a tale of a shared past, it is not communal
in its decision not to create a constructive dialectic. Now that Connors has
offered his version of history, what are we to make of it? Is it simply an ad
dition to the others? Does it displace them? Or is it a revision-and, if so
of whom-and what? Just how should we read Connors in relation to
other histories of the 19th-century? These are concerns that cannot be
dressed by gazing into Connors' campfire, for individual campfires are
public spaces conducive to critical dialogue. They are places for hud
against the dark and opposing camps lurking outside. But the oppos
here, isn't a stranger or enemy; it's a colleague with a shared commitm
to historical inquiry. North suggests that the absence of dialectic may
from historians' reluctance to create the type of internal debate that m
threaten the unity of such a small community (86). But historian
more than storytellers who invite listeners to sit at separate fires to l
separate tales of the past. They are also teachers. It is the historia
responsibility to teach us a variety of ways to read the past, to engage
historical debate, to position narratives in relation to each other so
gain critical perspective, to draw conclusions on and consider implicatio
of opposing historical projects, and to create constructive tension
moves us forward in our inquiry. Critically drawing in-not just dr
on-the work of fellow historians is what North claims transforms "what
would be merely stories" into "his-tory" (82), a complex and critical web of
storytelling. This is work yet to be accomplished.

Works Cited

Connors, Robert J. "Textbooks and the Evo- North, Stephen. The Making of Knowledge in
lution of the Discipline." CCC 37 (1986): Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Up-
178-94. per Montclair: Boynton, 1987.

This content downloaded from

106.205.189.41 on Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:47:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms