Leaving aside the question of who's most litigious, what Rick says strikes me as not only attractive, but right (by that I mean I _want_ it to be true, but I'm suspicious . . . and in spite of that suspicion it still seems right): > What I see is a tendency for rhetorical study to be narrowed to > stylistics (language as distinguished from thought) in less > democratic contexts, i.e., to matters of "clarity" and decoration. > In the 19th century, if I remember correctly, some literacy > scholars argue, the differences between Canada and the USA in > literacy education parallel differences in levels of democracy and > industrialization, including the greater advantage to be gained in > the US by presenting written arguments effectively. What I particularly like there is the distinction between the _effect_ of a piece of discourse and the _estimation_ of it. I think there's a strong connection here with my distinction between writing and Writing (writing _works_; Writing is _approved of_). And this connects to classroom contexts. If the piece of writing exists only to have an effect, the writer's only feedback is whether the writing effected the change she was looking for. That depends on a situation where writing -- arguing, speaking effectively -- _can_ have an effect. In situations where it can't (or, being paranoid, in situations where someone wants to make sure it can't), writing is _judged_ to be good or not. It's evaluated: is it Writing, or just writing? And when that's the response it gets, that's what it _is_; in other words, the best way to render writing ineffective is to treat it as Writing. So, it's a wonderful circle: if the context is less democratic, writing has less effect, and it's more likely to be estimated on a stylistic standard; at the same time, if you estimate writing by a stylistic standard, you exert a strong pressure to render the situation less democratic. So . . . if I were worried about the consequences of Rick's posting, the most effective way to defang it would be to compliment him on his style. Or attack him for it. Which leads me to a conclusion I'm a little worried about enunciating: grading destroys democracy. Um . . . I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm kidding. -- Russ __|~_ Russell A. Hunt __|~_)_ __)_|~_ Aquinas Chair St. Thomas University )_ __)_|_)__ __) PHONE: (506) 452-0424 Fredericton, New Brunswick | )____) | FAX: (506) 450-9615 E3B 5G3 CANADA ___|____|____|____/ [log in to unmask] \ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.StThomasU.ca/hunt/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~