Agnes Fidelis Gloria-Pinzon, 1987-15240

ENG 262
TMA 3
Page 1 of 3 pages

ON THE IDEOLOGICAL UNDERPININGS OF RHETORICAL THOUGHT AND

PRACTICE

Studying the different epistemologies in the unit and the different rhetorical
systems under each was a laborious task that took several readings and re-
readings. I wanted to truly understand and appreciate the underlying
assumptions on which rhetorical theories and practices are founded. In coming
up with an answer to this assignment’s query on alternatives to the current-
traditional rhetoric as a paradigm in the Philippine classroom, I first sought to
understand why this is so in the first place; why “the Philippine context, with its
own historical, social and political concerns, warrants the current-traditional
paradigm”. By understanding thus, I hoped to be able to explore the other
epistemologies as alternative approaches.

I can only speculate that the reason why it is the current-traditional rhetoric that
is dominant in the Philippine setting is because historically, our earliest
universities were founded along the traditions of the old American universities like
Harvard. In fact, as we have learned in our discussions on Philippine Literature in
English, the University of the Philippines, founded in 1908, was established by the
new American colonial government to produce a new English speaking
intelligentsia that would not only establish the beginnings of a more benign
middle class but pattern higher education after Western models. Since then, the
teaching of writing and language use have been focused on the teaching of
grammar, sentence structure, correct usage and organization, outlining,
paragraph development and expository forms – all elements of current-traditional
rhetorical practice. But more than its preoccupation with correctness of form, this
paradigm insured the growth of a placid class that looked at realities in society
with the intention of merely recording it. Their view of the world and the
knowledge they derived from observing it thus became the accepted truth, the
practiced rhetoric and the standard of good writing. Students of writing and
English become simple scribes, plugging in what they perceive into already
established patterns of discourse.

Thus, it is the current-traditional model that is widely used in the teaching of

writing and language use because education as a whole has always been used to
placate dissent, discourage critical thought and systematically insure that conflict
seldom arises. Education as it has been handed down to us by our colonial
benefactors has always been geared towards restricting the freedom of the
individual to think outside of prescribed standards and oppress the very first
stirrings of a discordant soul, so the teaching of writing and language use is no
different.
Agnes Fidelis Gloria-Pinzon

Page 2 of 4

In my years in university, I remember my general education subjects on writing

and language use as being institutionalized courses on mastering form and style.
The focus of these subjects was on giving students a broad but exhaustive
knowledge base on different forms while developing necessary minimum skills on
language use like vocabulary building, grammar, sentence structure, paragraph
development, and summary skills. Language proficiency was the objective and
instruction on writing was limited to using skills already learned in efficiently and
coherently writing about a given topic. I can remember that in Communication 3,
we were asked to write a short but rousing speech about a topic of our choice. I
was in my freshman year and still enjoying my first brushes with the more
radically appealing tendencies of the second floor AS lobby and I chose to write
about activism and my impressions that bordered a little on euphoria. My
professor, a young woman who came to class in mini-skirts, hooped earrings and
bummed a smoke every now and then, found our choices in class as whole
amusing and a source of delight: there were the more mundane speeches on
fashion, drugs, sex, family, rock music and the more “correct” topics on
imperialism, poverty and oppression. I have always wondered about this
tolerance; only now do I realize that it wasn’t about the topics we chose to speak
about, it wasn’t even about our opinions on those topics – it was simply how we
spoke about them, how we packaged our thoughts, written our lines and
delivered our speeches. She looked at the trappings and scrutinized our fledgling
abilities to write; whether we wrote about the truth was not in question. I think
even if my professor had been a wizened, more distinguished and more scholarly
looking woman of 50, that class wouldn’t have been handled differently; we would
still have focused not on the what’s and why’s but only on the how’s.

This was the UP, so now I understand why it is the current-traditional rhetoric that
works in the Philippine setting. Always has been, but will it always be? On
exploring the possibility of using the other two epistemologies in the teaching of
writing and language use, I can only attempt to offer suppositions based on my
understanding of the readings.

The Subjective Theories seem like a better place to start in teaching writing and
developing language abilities. Its take on truth as coming from within an
individual writer/interlocutor appeals to me because that very individual assumes
a more active role in the discovery and communication of that truth. More so
because readers or the audience have to validate and confirm such truth as it
also emerges from their consciousness and experiences – the whole process
becomes an experience in self-determination which sounds a bit more proactive
as writers and readers too, act on what they have come to understand for
themselves and that becomes “truth” as it is validated or rejected by others’
experience. With the subjectivist epistemology, it feels like the individual is
indeed master of his own personal universe and is not a mere outsider, existing
without consequence nor purpose since knowledge and truth is found and
endures outside of his experience. Specifically the rhetoric of Liberal Culture uses
the study and reading of literature as a means to teaching writing; in the belief
that literature acts as a spiritual guide that brings the individual to contemplation
and reflection and finally, to the understanding and realization of the sought after
truth. Students learning how to write and become more adept at using English,
Agnes Fidelis Gloria-Pinzon

Page 3 of 4

under this epistemology, are immersed in literature, in works of great writers and
speakers because it is believed that these individuals have already uncovered
their personal vision and it is by closely studying their work that one is inspired
and motivated to do and achieve the same. Even the Expressionistic Rhetoric’s
belief (from its progressive education influences) that each individual has
uniquely creative potentialities and that writing is a “self-actualizing” process is
more attractive a pursuit than the current-traditional rhetoric’s writing as
documentation.

I could imagine a writing class that prescribes to subjectivist models, though I’ve
never had one, but writing has always been a personal endeavor for me. I’ve
been published a few times and my name has appeared as a by-line on several
publications but I still can’t honestly call myself a writer. I believe that I can only
call myself that once I finally get that illusive masterpiece out from inside of me; I
know it exists in the moving, throbbing recesses of my consciousness and I firmly
believe that one of my predestined purposes in this life is to find it and bring it
out into the world. I’ve tried to write it out on several occasions but it has always
escaped me and I have always put it down as bad timing or plain blocks. Anyway,
I agree with the subjectivist thought that writing is a process of self-discovery and
it is a very personal one because the writer searches nowhere else but within
herself.

Fascinating as it may sound however and personally vindicating, I believe that the
subjectivist epistemology still lacks perspective. We have the subjective theories
in the opposite extreme of the objective theories and just as I believe that the
truth is not confined only to what is seen and perceived as put forward by
objectivism, the truth is also not just an egocentric product of an individual’s
mind. Nothing exists in a vacuum and each person’s experience, no matter how
personal and exclusive to his or her existent understanding, schema or belief
system transpires in the more complex, more intricate web of experiences of
society. Since all human beings are in society, in that maze of interaction,
cooperation, and competition that occurs in human relationships, truth can also
be discovered, studies and communicated in the intersections and tangents of
these diverse and overlapping connections. This is where the Transactional
Theories become more significant.

This epistemology believes that truth arises out of the interaction of the elements
of the rhetorical situation; from the interplay between the writer, the reader, the
subject matter and the language used. Under the Transactional Theories is
Classical Rhetoric which simply reaffirms the desired adherence to logic of
arguments, form and style but with focus on real social problems in the belief that
when students confront real problems and have a sense of real purpose, then
their writing becomes more authentic and its readers become more connected
with it. According to Edward Corbett in the readings, “Classical rhetoric is
especially relevant to the modern political and social context in that it is equipped
to examine, make sense of and provide solutions to contemporary political and
social problems. The goal of classical rhetoric is to offer rational discourse which
would allow people to examine the issues and concerns that surround them,
Agnes Fidelis Gloria-Pinzon

Page 4 of 4

explore solutions to these and come up with an informed choice agreed upon by
everybody concerned.” While Cognitive Rhetoric (still under this epistemology)
considers the role of the mind at play and the thinking processes with which
students attempt to write, Epistemic Rhetoric, on the other hand, stresses the
role of language in the discovery and communication of the truth. All rhetorical
systems under the Transactional Epistemology however, point to the role of
rhetoric as that of affecting change in a bigger, more politically and socially
involved way. This, I believe, is the most appropriate epistemology that we could
use in teaching writing and language use in the classroom.

By studying literature and works by notable writers both past and present under
Transactional thought, students are given a glimpse of that which is not only
desirable but that which is needed by the times. Studying literature stirs the
imagination and evokes creativity while offering correct and accurate models in
terms of structure and form. Being aware of how language forms our own
conceptions of truth and knowledge (as put forward by Epistemic Rhetoric) by
studying the examples in great literature, makes one aware of one’s potential to
do the same. Knowing that one’s writing exists and is borne out of one’s social
and political awareness and influences and affects the same in return gives the
task of writing more meaning and purpose and consequently the writer more
responsibility and worth. In the Philippine classroom, the study of Philippine
literature, the story of our people as they struggled throughout history against
domination, oppression and aggression both from colonial and foreign powers to
the home-grown ruling elite, as a means to developing language skills and
knowing how to write becomes a more significant and more critical learning
encounter.