Rhetorics of Civility: Theory, Pedagogy, and Practice in Speaking and Writing Textbooks

Abstract

By exploring two perspectives on civility—the invitational and confrontational approaches—this article argues for revising the neoclassical model of rhetoric commonly found in introductory writing and speaking textbooks. This article further claims that a revised conception of civility—here termed “situated civility”—can help rhetors communicate ethically and practically about and across political, cultural, and personal differences.

Notes

¹I thank RR reviewers Mark Gellis and Todd McDorman for their feedback on an earlier version of this article. I am also grateful to Cheryl Glenn and my colleagues in her seminar “Rhetorical History and Historiography” who helped with this project in its initial stages; Kathryn Hume and my colleagues in her writing workshop course who helped clarify my thinking and writing, and J. Michael Hogan who offered his critical yet supportive feedback on several earlier drafts.

²For presidents, see Bill Clinton's 1997 University of California at San Diego Commencement Address, George Bush's First Inaugural Address, and Barack Obama's 2010 University of Michigan Commencement Address.

³Jim Leach, chairperson for the National Endowment for the Humanities, indicated at the outset of his fifty-state civility tour (2009–11) that “ill-chosen rhetoric” can divide the country. With the contemporary scene “bordering on a civility crisis,” Leach claims that we must foster civility through “an ethic of thoughtfulness.” The American public seems to agree. According to a 2010 Allegheny College poll, 96 percent of Americans believe that civility in politics is important for a healthy democracy, yet 48 percent of Americans have noted a decline in the levels of civility (while only 10 percent suggested civility is on the rise).

⁴Benson, Crowley, Enos, and Yancey have also recently written about civility. Outside of rhetorical studies, several political scientists and theorists have also written about the rhetorical dimensions of civility, including Barber and Herbst.

⁵Nina Lozano-Reich and Dana L. Cloud directly address civility, but they are also part of a larger intellectual tradition that emphasizes conflict and confrontation. One illustrative example is Nancy Fraser's critique of Jürgen Habermas, particularly her claim that the public sphere works to the advantage of the powerful and attempts to silence women and minorities. Noting the conflictual nature of the relationship among publics, she notes that “[v]irtually from the beginning, counterpublics contested the exclusionary norms of the bourgeois public, elaborating alternative styles of political behavior and alternative norms of public speech” (116). Another example is Chantal Mouffe's notion of agontistic pluralism. Mouffe claims that “[a] well-functioning democracy calls for a vibrant clash of democratic political positions” and that “[t]oo much emphasis on consensus and the refusal of confrontation lead to apathy and disaffection with political participation” (104). Within composition studies, Patricia Roberts-Miller describes “[a] more deliberative, and more productively conflictual, approach to the teaching of writing” that “necessitates changes in writing practices” (214).

⁶This means “being open-minded enough to consider other people's views and perhaps even change your opinion when confronted with compelling evidence” (Hogan et al. 40).

⁷Knoblauch surveyed several writing textbooks and focused on Everything's an Argument by Andrea Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters, and Writing Arguments by John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson.

⁸Fisher analyzed Public Speaking by Michael Osborn and Suzanne Osborn, The Art of Public Speaking by Stephen E. Lucas, and Public Speaking: Strategies for Success by David Zarefsky.

⁹For instance, according to a 2000 report from the Modern Language Association, “In the PhD-granting departments, graduate student instructors taught 63% of the first-year writing sections, part-timers 19%, and full-time non-tenure-track faculty members 14%, on average.”

¹⁰See Cindy L. Griffin's Invitation to Public Speaking, Sonja K. Foss and Karen A. Foss's Inviting Transformations: Presentational Speaking for a Changing World, and Josina M. Makau and Debian L. Marty's Cooperative Argumentation: A Model for Deliberative Community.

¹¹The textbooks all focus on the rhetorical situation, which shows that there is already a basis for viewing civility as rhetorical.

¹²For instance, I have taught an anthology assignment where students first complete an individually written argumentative essay; groups of three to four students who have written about a similar topic then collaboratively compose an introduction and conclusion to the anthology that explores areas of agreement, disagreement, and uncertainty among all the group members’ essays. The anthology model might be adapted to public speaking classrooms where students can present as a group and spend time in a discussion with peers. Another common example is the disagreement analysis where students research multiple sides of an issue and work to identify common concerns or values, while also considering why different parties have not—or will never be able to—resolve that conflict.

¹³Kathleen Blake Yancey, while optimistic about civility, notes that the term civility has worked to silence and oppress. She mentions blacks in antebellum South, women in colonial Boston, and Native Americans on reservations.