Ohmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”
From RhetorClick
Summary
In “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric,” Richard Ohmann starts by acknowledging the past perceptions of rhetoric as a “mysterious power” and as a “calculated procedure” bond in the similar characteristic of dealing with persuasion (298). He continues by contrasting the views of many of the new rhetoricians like I.A. Richards, Daniel Fogarty, and Richard Weaver--to name a few. He then states his purpose: “suggest one way in which contemporary ideas of rhetoric...resemble each other more than any of them resembles older ideas” (300). This similarity between the contemporary ideas is that they open the term rhetoric to incorporate a broader spectrum of linguistic activity; this is different from the classical view of rhetoric as persuasion. Ohmann outlines these relationships using five aspects: the relationship between the rhetor and the audience in which new rhetoric encompasses a more mutual relationship, rhetoric as a pursuit versus the transmission of truth, candor as a necessary condition of making rhetoric, the attribution of how much a work reflects the author (only in style says new rhetoricians), and rhetoric reflecting the concepts of a world view (of the world, community, group, or an individual). Ohmann continues to discuss rhetoric in terms of teaching freshman-level college students. He states that the current methods of grammarian rules, etc. are not affective in the classroom. Rather, he proposes a “four-part framework” for teaching freshman. First, the students must understand “the relationship between a piece of writing and its content.Then, they should be taught the “relationship between a piece of writing and its author” and its relationship with the audience (304). And, final idea they should learn is that of the world views previously discussed by Ohmann.
Additional Thoughts (Feel free to add your opinions here!)
In Ohmann, I thought the section about teaching English at the college level to adhere to his ideas about Modern Rhetoric were good. I appreciated how he started off by acknowledging that many college freshman don’t have enough of a grasp on the English language to even begin thinking about rhetoric, and I appreciated that he made an attempt to propose a structured curriculum to follow. However, I disagree with the idea that, if professors explain to their freshmen the importance of mastering the English language so they can participate in a “linguistic community,” the students will have a profound respect for the language. I think that’s a wonderful theory (and I wish it would happen that way); however, I feel like many freshmen who don’t know even basic grammar won’t care about the significance of language in our culture. If they didn’t care enough in high school to learn grammar, they probably won’t care about this either. (I do concede that not all students who don’t know grammar are slackers or don’t care, but I still think his idea is better in theory. What typical college freshmen do you know who care about becoming a successful part of a linguistic community?)
I do agree with his idea that students should be made aware of all the syntactic patterns they have at their disposal. It’s always a relief to remember that there is no one way to write a sentence -- it takes some of the pressure off being “perfect” and allows me to write as an expression of myself, my ideas, and my beliefs (not some else’s).
