Notes/uses for Reason to Believe: Romanticism, Pragmatism, and the Teaching of Writing, Hephzibah Roskelly and Kate Ronald (SUNY Press, 1998).
- historical account primarily of “a movement in rhetorical theory and philosophy that composition as a discipline has overlooked” (1)–which they name romantic pragmatic rhetoric. Emerson is a key example, not their starting point (they look at Puritan rhetoric) nor their end point–Cornel West and Friere and Dewey–but a key figure in that they see his romanticism neglected for his interest in pragmatism. So first use here: a similar interest in a neglect in education–tied to Emerson. Also a work to use to bridge Emerson and Dewy (and Peirce).
- Specific focus for this work is on teaching writing. Begin with a tension (and despair: they cite Tompkins “Pedagogy of the Distressed” and Berthoff’s “Is Teaching Still Possible?”) between theory and practice that they want to argue either offers mere romanticism or mere pragmatism, and misses this tradition in which the two interact dialectically. “Romanticism and pragmatism both operate from principles of mediation, and we argue that romanticism and pragmatism together offer ways of thinking again about the debates that continue in composition and English studies” (25). So a link for me between Emerson, rethinking somewhat of his pedagogical interests, and issues of the profession, the purpose of English studies (here focused more on composition). To the extent that the teaching/practice and theory/research split has largely traced the composition/literature split in English, this is an important microcosm of larger issues. They don’t use the terms I use, nor discuss technology (or metonymy), but their focus on ‘mediation‘ can certainly open to more recent issues of technology in the teaching of English–a debate that I believe tracks to issues of pedagogy, reiterates the theory/practice split.
- Do not offer specific pedagogical practices for romantic/pragmatic rhetoric. But come close in their conclusion to surveying (briefly) some places to observe this in action–including in Matthiessen’s reading of Emerson, in which he undestands Emerson’s writing as teaching. In this, they also provide further evidence of how/why a specific Emersonian curriculum or school is not possible. They cite Whicher 158: he best part of Emerson’s program is, it breeds the giant that destroys itself. [whitman's point from Specimen Days]. So the pragmatic lessons for teachers from Emerson are always going to be resisted by the philosophy. Does this matter for teachers, for me? Or, what are the ways this romantic/pragmatic tension can be put into lessons in school? I think for one here about the ways Lanham focuses on rhetorical pedagogy (padeia) as crucially a matter of oscillation–between product and process, looking at and through: and how digital media can bring this old conception of learning to light. Lanham, as I recall, only barely cites Emerson at one point (the end of Electronic Word). This notion or romantic/pragmatic can connect Emerson more directly to his argument. And thereupon, to some specific lessons or methods for teaching, by way of computer mediated learning and communication.
- In terms of Emerson’s neglect: context for understanding his neglect in composition studies, perhaps more broadly in pedagogy in later 20th century. The ’specter of romanticism’ (35)–that critics locate in the ‘expressivism’ of Peter Elbow; Ross Winterowd refers to the “Emersonian ivory tower’ which they critique as stereotypical definition of romanticism. So, on the one hand, Emerson is too romantic for academics and for teaching. On the other, earlier in the century, isn’t he too pragmatic, too useful to business and to rotary? Other than Bickman’s Minding American Education, and the book on Cavell, Emerson and Dewey (Gleam of Light), this is the only book I know of to treat Emerson in an explicit context of teaching and pedagogy and education. With some understanding of how the inability to be too explicit (no Emerson’s 101 rules or lessons for education) might continue to be a problem for some.
What do teachers of English–and we shouldn’t forget, former students of English who are now in position to judge and develop education policy–remember of Emerson? My sense is too little a memory and understanding of the pragmatic engagement with education (as incipient pragmatism), his outright critique; and perhaps too much of the stereotypes; the transcendental without the machine.
Ross Winterowd, “Emerson and the Death of Pathos”
