What do you think?
Rate this book
Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies
Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures is James Berlin's most comprehensive effort to refigure the field of English Studies. Here, in his last book, Berlin both historically situates and recovers for today the tools and insights of rhetoric-displaced and marginalized, he argues, by the allegedly disinterested study of aesthetic texts in the college English department. Berlin sees rhetoric as offering a unique perspective on the current disciplinary crisis, complementing the challenging perspectives offered by postmodern literary theory and cultural studies. Taking into account the political and intellectual issues at stake and the relation of these issues to economic and social transformations, Berlin argues for a pedagogy that makes the English studies classroom the center of disciplinary activities, the point at which theory, practice, and democratic politics intersect. This new educational approach, organized around text interpretation and production-not one or the other exclusively, as before-prepares students for work, democratic politics, and consumer culture today by providing a revised conception of both reading and writing as acts of textual interpretation; it also gives students tools to critique the socially constructed, politically charged reality of classroom, college, and culture. This new edition of Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures includes JAC response essays by Linda Brodkey, Patricia Harkin, Susan Miller, John Trimbur, and Victor J. Vitanza, as well as an afterword by Janice M. Lauer. These essays situate Berlin's work in personal, pedagogical, and political contexts that highlight the continuing importance of his work for understanding contemporary disciplinary practice.
268 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1996
7 people are currently reading
34 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
April 13, 2008
sucktastically postmodern
December 1, 2008
In the first half of Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures (2003), James Berlin overviews the history of English studies in the United States since the nineteenth century, in order to historicize the current state of English studies and advance his conception of the discipline: a pedagogical field “instruct[ing:] students in signifying practices broadly conceived” that asks students to interrogate production and reception of a variety of texts, including their own, as ideological and not disinterested (100-101).
In the first section of the book, Berlin historicizes English studies, showing how the field changed in the nineteenth century from one that viewed literature as the province of rhetoric and learning to one that viewed literature as a matter of “taste” and “sensibility.” This move, along with a turn to a nationalistic tradition of literature, accompanied the development of a the bourgeoisie and created a discipline that largely made invisible its class loyalties (5).
For Berlin, English studies did not develop solely because of faculty and student interest in literature, but in concert and reaction to the material and economic conditions of historical periods. The growth and development of English departments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was largely in response to a Fordist economy that created a growing urban and middle class populace—one in which education was central to economic and social movement. Berlin argues that at this historical period there were three competing conceptions of literacy, each of which defined poetics and rhetorics in relation to each other.
1. Meritocratic-scientific: This vision of literacy, now known as “current-traditional rhetoric” saw the real as factual and able to be conveyed easily. Invention did not have to be taught, and formalism (the organization and the mechanics of an essay) was most important. One’s ability to write was directly related to the faculties of one’s mind. Literacy was a tool of the managerial class (30-33).
2. Liberal-cultural: This vision of literacy argued that there are certain liberal and humanistic values which college graduates should share, and that one’s “writing is a manifestation of one’s spiritual nature” (33). Under liberal-cultural literacy, impressionism was celebrated, scientism was suspect, and the real could never be fully conveyed in writing. Berlin sees this version of literacy as undemocratic and conservative (33-35).
3. Social-democratic: Democratic literacy advocates argued that institutions are in-process and socially constructed. They believed that in order to engage in democratic discourse, all citizens must be able to read and write, and that no one class of people owned the right to language. Berlin critiques this model of literacy for failing to see how certain power structures (economic and social) limit one’s ability to engage in public discourse (35-38).
The social and economic shifts of a post-Fordist economy (postmodernism) prompts the second section of Berlin’s book, “The Postmodern Predicament.” Berlin sees the modernist curriculum of English studies as an inadequate response to the economic and cultural conditions of postmodernism (globalized economies, changes in mass production, decentering of urban spaces, the rise of a service sector, an increase of immigration in the 1980s, and time compression) (45-50). Berlin argues that English studies cannot simply accommodate itself to the marketplace (that is, respond reactively to claims that colleges are not producing quality workers), but must place itself within the larger goals of education: creating critical citizens of a democracy (54). English studies is central to a democratic education, Berlin argues, because it is required of all students in school, from high school to college (57).
Berlin draws on postmodern theory in a way “that neither totally celebrates nor totally rejects its conclusions” (72), for he sees postmodern theory as too compelling to merely reject and sees mere celebration of the “ludic” postmodernism as dangerously undemocratic (68-71).
It is from here, as well as his description of twentieth-century social-constrionist rhetoric, that Berlin turns to social-epistemic rhetoric in Chapter 5. Social-epistemic rhetoric departs from social constructionist rhetoric in two important ways: it sees writing as a process (that is, writing is a discovering of meaning and an inventive process, not simply transmission), and the integration of postmodern critiques of “signficiation, the subject, and foundational narratives” (87). According to Berlin, postmodernism has taugh rhetoricians that subjects are unstable, not autonomous, and constituted by discourse. These insights signal a turn in rhetoric from individual autonomy to political agency as “the guiding principle” for writing (88). Being constituted subjects does not mean that we are already determined, and Berlin stresses that we are still singularities; therefore writing must be studied in specific contexts because signifying practices are dialectic: “in response to each other in ways that are not mechanically predictable” (90).
Berlin’s work thus far leads to two important conclusions: 1) Because language is constituted, the binary between creative (literature) and referential (rhetoric) work breaks down; and 2) because “[p:]roducing and consuming are both interpretations,” this binary too needs to be reconfigured (93). It is not that there is no distinction between literature and other rhetorical works (remembering that literature is rhetorical) or between production and consumption, but rather that the focus needs to be on semiotic and cultural codes (93). Neither poetic nor rhetoric texts are more important, nor are “the effects of the two [ever:] mutually exclusive” (100).
In the first section of the book, Berlin historicizes English studies, showing how the field changed in the nineteenth century from one that viewed literature as the province of rhetoric and learning to one that viewed literature as a matter of “taste” and “sensibility.” This move, along with a turn to a nationalistic tradition of literature, accompanied the development of a the bourgeoisie and created a discipline that largely made invisible its class loyalties (5).
For Berlin, English studies did not develop solely because of faculty and student interest in literature, but in concert and reaction to the material and economic conditions of historical periods. The growth and development of English departments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was largely in response to a Fordist economy that created a growing urban and middle class populace—one in which education was central to economic and social movement. Berlin argues that at this historical period there were three competing conceptions of literacy, each of which defined poetics and rhetorics in relation to each other.
1. Meritocratic-scientific: This vision of literacy, now known as “current-traditional rhetoric” saw the real as factual and able to be conveyed easily. Invention did not have to be taught, and formalism (the organization and the mechanics of an essay) was most important. One’s ability to write was directly related to the faculties of one’s mind. Literacy was a tool of the managerial class (30-33).
2. Liberal-cultural: This vision of literacy argued that there are certain liberal and humanistic values which college graduates should share, and that one’s “writing is a manifestation of one’s spiritual nature” (33). Under liberal-cultural literacy, impressionism was celebrated, scientism was suspect, and the real could never be fully conveyed in writing. Berlin sees this version of literacy as undemocratic and conservative (33-35).
3. Social-democratic: Democratic literacy advocates argued that institutions are in-process and socially constructed. They believed that in order to engage in democratic discourse, all citizens must be able to read and write, and that no one class of people owned the right to language. Berlin critiques this model of literacy for failing to see how certain power structures (economic and social) limit one’s ability to engage in public discourse (35-38).
The social and economic shifts of a post-Fordist economy (postmodernism) prompts the second section of Berlin’s book, “The Postmodern Predicament.” Berlin sees the modernist curriculum of English studies as an inadequate response to the economic and cultural conditions of postmodernism (globalized economies, changes in mass production, decentering of urban spaces, the rise of a service sector, an increase of immigration in the 1980s, and time compression) (45-50). Berlin argues that English studies cannot simply accommodate itself to the marketplace (that is, respond reactively to claims that colleges are not producing quality workers), but must place itself within the larger goals of education: creating critical citizens of a democracy (54). English studies is central to a democratic education, Berlin argues, because it is required of all students in school, from high school to college (57).
Berlin draws on postmodern theory in a way “that neither totally celebrates nor totally rejects its conclusions” (72), for he sees postmodern theory as too compelling to merely reject and sees mere celebration of the “ludic” postmodernism as dangerously undemocratic (68-71).
It is from here, as well as his description of twentieth-century social-constrionist rhetoric, that Berlin turns to social-epistemic rhetoric in Chapter 5. Social-epistemic rhetoric departs from social constructionist rhetoric in two important ways: it sees writing as a process (that is, writing is a discovering of meaning and an inventive process, not simply transmission), and the integration of postmodern critiques of “signficiation, the subject, and foundational narratives” (87). According to Berlin, postmodernism has taugh rhetoricians that subjects are unstable, not autonomous, and constituted by discourse. These insights signal a turn in rhetoric from individual autonomy to political agency as “the guiding principle” for writing (88). Being constituted subjects does not mean that we are already determined, and Berlin stresses that we are still singularities; therefore writing must be studied in specific contexts because signifying practices are dialectic: “in response to each other in ways that are not mechanically predictable” (90).
Berlin’s work thus far leads to two important conclusions: 1) Because language is constituted, the binary between creative (literature) and referential (rhetoric) work breaks down; and 2) because “[p:]roducing and consuming are both interpretations,” this binary too needs to be reconfigured (93). It is not that there is no distinction between literature and other rhetorical works (remembering that literature is rhetorical) or between production and consumption, but rather that the focus needs to be on semiotic and cultural codes (93). Neither poetic nor rhetoric texts are more important, nor are “the effects of the two [ever:] mutually exclusive” (100).
February 2, 2023
I read this while working on my Ph.D., and trying to develop the best or at least the most effective and useful way to teach general education college English courses. Berlin provides a lot of critical and inspirational material and ideas about what and how English (reading, writing, theory, literature, poetry, etc.) should be taught.
September 14, 2013
Berlin's last book is one of the clearest articulations of how rhetorical and literary theory function together within a cultural studies lens to help students become more aware of the production and reception of all kinds of texts, along with the conflicting ideologies these often entail. In fact, much of the book may seem self-evident to younger scholars of rhetoric and composition, because so much of this pedagogy has become naturalized in our field. My only critique is one I usually have of Berlin's work -- his reliance on binaries and conflict. Though binary constructions are key to understanding how discourse works, they are not the only constructions available. I'm also not sure why ideologies always have to be in conflict, vying for that one powerful hegemonic position in society. Regardless, both scholars and teachers will find a thorough consideration of the role of English studies with some very specific curricular examples . . . though perhaps a bit outdated. This would be useful for constructing a teaching philosophy or thinking through a curricular revision.
November 9, 2007
James A. Berlin has always impressed me. His work is very approachable, yet fantasically academic. In Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures Berlin looks at the the college English classroom. As the subtitle suggests, he discusses "refiguring" it.
From his historical approach to English Studies in the American Academy over the last 100 or so years, to his use of solidly based theory to propell his own ideas about what place Rhetoric has in the college English classroom, this book is worth the read. Berlin includes "response essays" from some of the more interesting names in Composition Studies, as well as discussions of how to refigure programs of study. The practical is not lost here.
I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in Composition Studies and Cultural Studies. The intersection of the two are far more possible,probably and important than many have thought.
From his historical approach to English Studies in the American Academy over the last 100 or so years, to his use of solidly based theory to propell his own ideas about what place Rhetoric has in the college English classroom, this book is worth the read. Berlin includes "response essays" from some of the more interesting names in Composition Studies, as well as discussions of how to refigure programs of study. The practical is not lost here.
I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in Composition Studies and Cultural Studies. The intersection of the two are far more possible,probably and important than many have thought.
July 19, 2013
Berlin's project--reconciling composition (production) with literary studies (interpretation) through way of cultural studies--may seem a little dated to the 90s, which its heady enthrallment with cross-disciplinary cultural studies and post-modernity everywhere as specter and savior. But there's a lot that's quite wonderful here:
1-references--Berlin gives due diligence to hosts and hosts of authors and their essays and books
2-some connection to creative writing in the form of his noting the absence of creative writing in some "integrated" English programs, and as something that can't be taught.
3-a fine example of the integrated theoretical/political/historical/pedagogic book, which chapters that include course descriptions as well as responses to leading theorists.
This volume also has responses published in JAC from some of the folks Berlin takes into his discussion. Not bad, just as 90s as Elaine's flower print dresses in Seinfeld.
1-references--Berlin gives due diligence to hosts and hosts of authors and their essays and books
2-some connection to creative writing in the form of his noting the absence of creative writing in some "integrated" English programs, and as something that can't be taught.
3-a fine example of the integrated theoretical/political/historical/pedagogic book, which chapters that include course descriptions as well as responses to leading theorists.
This volume also has responses published in JAC from some of the folks Berlin takes into his discussion. Not bad, just as 90s as Elaine's flower print dresses in Seinfeld.
February 21, 2012
Berlin's book is very informative--- a very useful text for understanding and considering the various influences present in the texts/theories/teaching approaches/discourses/etc. that are a part of our education. Berlin's call for not only an increased awareness but an increased critique and questioning of these various underpinnings and how they contribute to our very formation as individuals is an important step forward... for instruction in the humanities as well as other discipines. That said, I did find Berlin's text incredibly repetitive, and at times unneccessarily descriptive. I also found that, for all of his awareness regarding "traditional" forms of writing, rhetoric, and power formation, that his own writing conforms to these very notions-- at times so "jargony" that it is a sludging job to get through. I'd like to give it a 3 1/2, but there are no half-star ratings...
February 4, 2011
I probably need to reread this book in about a year or two. But for the time being, it has informed what I am trying to do as a teacher like no other book ever has.
August 12, 2011
Blerg. I understand that scholarly lit is going to be a bit more challenging and sometimes, not as enjoyable. However, I read the whole book, but have no idea what I read. Not fun.
July 16, 2014
So I am biased. I love Berlin but he was a man well before his time. I just love reading his work!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews