Bringing Aristotle to the mix and challenging students to see where different aspects of the Rhetorical Triangle might apply to their own arguments was a very important step into what the future might bring for academic argument. According to Klayton, Kinneavy "Institutionalized" comp/rhet, which means that Kinneavy's theories and pedagogy assisted in bringing the field out of the proverbial Dark Ages.
The article by Miller emphasized the importance of A Theory of Discourse in Kinneavy's career. Klayton pointed out the discursive nature of the book, but it seems to me that a theory is meant to be disproved and looked over from every angle. Typically, this analysis is done by another person in the field, but it seems that Kinneavy's background (in the Catholic order, which--no doubt--did a lot of theorizing and re-theorizing itself) might have encouraged him to breakdown and deconstruct his own argument. To me, this speaks to a mind that is not so concerned with being "right," but being analytical.
In Miller's tribute, he quotes Jack Selzer as saying, "that 'this was going to be a great profession to be in if people like Kinneavy were the leaders'" (314). This says, to me, that Kinneavy was both beloved and revered as a teacher and revolutionary of composition, but this aspect of Kinneavy seemed to be missing from the, albeit short, presentation that was offered to us. I am aware of the tendency to canonize people, especially important people, after they die, but Kinneavy seemed to be loved by many people (313), so why was this not spoken about? Perhaps this was part of the talking points that Klayton didn't get to, but it seems to me that this might have been an important part of the history for Kinneavy.
As for the presentation, it certainly set the bar for what others of us will probably have to reach, but I like a challenge, and it gave me some good ideas for my own presentation.
Thanks, Emily! I posted more information on Kinneavy that I wasn't able to get to in my presentation, but which helps clarify my overall ambivalence regarding Kinneavy's work.
ReplyDeleteAs for talking about how much Kinneavy was loved and admired... I guess it just "ain't my style." How relevant is a person's popularity? Many of our most profound thinkers, men who will be read and reread for centuries to come, were by all accounts tremendous assholes. Also, while it appears that Kinneavy was loved and admired by those who knew him, I really don't have any quantitative evidence to demonstrate it, except for a few articles mentioning his influence. Reading excerpts from those articles seemed "good enough" at the time. Again, I don't disagree with you.... I just see the priorities differently.
I think you're right about the not being right but being analytical part. We deconstruct to find out what could be right; but once we do that, we start all over again and analyze what we thought to be right. I think once we start to breakdown our own theories, we can become 'right' to an extent.
ReplyDeleteI kind of like the fact that it wasn't Klayton's "style" to go into the love and admiration of Kinneavy; I think that is irrelevant to discussing theory. I agree with Klayton that it is not about a peron's popularity, but about their knowledge and how their knowledge influenced or impacted a culture/society.