Disciplinarity in Rhetorical Theory
Bazerman, Dillon, Prior
Bazerman
In Shaping Written Knowledge, Charles Bazerman studies four contexts of writing that must be balanced when writing in any discipline: lexicon used, balance between explicit citation and implicit knowledge, attention to audience, and the author’s values, assumptions, expertise, and originality of claims. In particular, Bazerman compares and contrasts three essay from three different disciplines and discovers that while each discipline’s writing balances these four contexts, they do so in different measures. For example, the science-based article focused more on explicit citation and seemed to erase the context of the author and implied audience, while the humanities-based article used a more balanced approach to citation and implicit knowledge while making an argument to an audience. Thus, writing is not just a matter of “getting the words right.” Instead, one must adapt to each discipline’s communally developed linguistic resources and expectations. Bazerman also points out that these texts and genres are not just responding to disciplinary requirements; by perpetually reproducing them (or versions of them), they continue to create the same requirements over time.
Dillon
In Contending Rhetorics, George Dillon examines whether or not disciplinary language does what it claims to do. In general, disciplinary discourse is concerned with not only adding to the body of certified knowledge, but also with certifying those things that are offered. However, disciplinary discourse embodies practices and values that conflict, not only with other disciplines, but within them as well (Prior repeats this sentiment later as part of his rational for arguing for “disciplinarity”). Dillon notes that a rhetoric of objectivity is the dominant mode across all disciplines because it ostensibly shields discourse from personal bias. The text is meant to appear autonomously, without the predispositions of the authors, and it should not appeal to the audience or to authority. Dillon refers to this as a kind of “anti-rhetoric” that is supposed ignore author, audience, and kairos and does not respond to a specific rhetorical situation. But, as Dillon points out, humans are incapable of entirely erasing subjectivity; academics are “interested parties” whether they admit it or not and generally aspire to enhance authority and credibility. Dillon ultimately concludes that academic discourse differs from other discussion because it has means of reaching closure (though he does not reveal how, nor does he himself reach closure in his argument; he only gestures toward a solution via Habermas’s model of an argumentation that could produce agreement within the rhetorical constraints of particular disciplinary communities).
Prior
Prior’s Writing/Disciplinarity argues against the notion that disciplines are unified and authoritative and that “discourse community” is not a useful term for disciplinary analysis; even experts admit that they are not operating in predictable arenas of shared values and conventions. Because disciplines are so open historically, socially, and culturally, Prior finds the term “disciplinarity” more useful than “disciplinary” because it allows for multiple contexts whereas “discipline” suggests a unity that does not exist. Prior argues that writing and disciplinary enculturation are situated in specific and dynamic times and places, thus complicating the ability to create generalizations. He refers to writing and disciplinarity as “laminated,” which means they are not autonomous and every moment within them implicates multiple activities, weaves together multiple histories, and exists within the chronotopic networks of lifeworlds where boundaries of time and space are highly permeable. In other words, each person has their own “laminated” sets of objectives, identities, and contexts (thought, history, experiences, goals, dreams, fears, intentions, misperceptions, and detailed discussions) that resist generalization.
Prior also studies literacy within disciplines; he examines how graduate students journey toward gaining literacy in their fields. He also asks scholars to think beyond the notion of “discourse communities” because literacy within disciplines is more complicated, social, and multivariate than such a term allows. Writing in learning, then, are not initiation into discourse communities; instead, writing and disciplinarity are mediate activities within open and permeable networks of persons, artifacts, practices, institutions, and communities: they are functional systems of activity that intermingle person, interpersonal, and sociocultural histories. Prior argues that disciplinary enculturation is constantly ongoing through everyday mediations of activity and agency. Thus, writing in the academy is activity: it is locally situated, extensively mediated, deeply laminated, and highly heterogeneous. In other words, it is affected by contexts both inside and out of the academic situation.
How I would answer a question on this theme
I’ve really only got three people to talk about, so I’d just lay them out like I have here in order to make some sort of argument about them. For instance, all three imply that there is no such thing as a truly disciplinary form of writing; even within disciplines, scholars disagree about what makes good writing or what kind of writing can constitute new knowledge. Hence, Prior suggests a new word (disciplinarity) to describe the fact that there is no unitary way to write within any one discipline.
This has interesting implications for composition because it questions what useful knowledge we can really impart on students. Even their own fields can’t agree what good writing should be, so how are we supposed to teach students from multiple fields some sort of totalizing writing style? Devitt answers this question by suggesting that we teach genre awareness over a range of different genres. The more genres students understand and have in their repertoire of antecedent genres, the more potential ammunition they have in any new rhetorical situations.
Exam. Play. 