Anxieties of Legitimacy: The Origins and Influence of the “Classicist Stance” in American Rhetoric Studies

Abstract

This article describes an origin of the “classicist stance,” Nan Johnson's term for the emphasis on the classical past in American rhetoric historiography. It argues that adherence to the classical past arises from an anxiety about conducting research evident in the field in the early twentieth century, an anxiety that develops into fears about institutional legitimacy later in the century. The article closes by urging scholars of rhetoric in the modern era to embrace print modernity as their researh framework, rather than classicism.

Acknowledgments

This article was brought to fruition by the efforts of several generous individuals whom the author wishes to thank. First, the editor of Advances in the History of Rhetoric, Ekaterina Haskins, and two anonymous readers—your careful reading, thoughtful feedback, and unyielding belief in the merit of the ideas expressed here is greatly appreciated. Dr. Richard Graff of the University of Minnesota offered helpful suggestions that ultimately structured the article. Finally, Kimberly Thomas-Pollei, PhD of the University of Minnesota and T. Kenny Fountain of Case Western Reserve University provided insightful readings that strengthened the article in its final iterations.

Notes

1. I use the term traditional here in the same sense that Graff and Leff invoked it in “Revisionist History and Rhetorical Traditions,” meaning “to hand over” (see Graff and Leff 2005, 25).

2. See Berlin (1987); Cohen (1994); and Russell (1991).

3. It should also be noted, anecdotally, that this 1968 revision of the 1967 essay is far more recognized, cited, and recommended by scholars in the field today.

4. Of course, in the past fifteen years we have begun to see excellent work done in these areas, evident in Thomas Miller's (1997) The Formation of College English, Philippa Spoel's (1997, 2001) works on elocution, and current work being done of performativity. I am speaking here of tendencies that have shaped the field profoundly and continue to exert influence. I do not by any means wish to suggest that work outside of the classical has not been done; rather I hope to make a compelling case for why we should do more.

5. In 2010, the findings of this conference and its relevance for contemporary practice was considered in an edited collection by Mark Porrovecchio, Reengaging the Prospects of Rhetoric: Current Conversations and Contemporary Challenges. The essays in this collection do exhibit a much-needed break with the classicist stance and seem to be written in the general spirit offered in this essay: appreciation for a classical past and an imagination longing to establish what lies beyond it.

6. See, for example, Baca and Villanueva (2010); Lipson and Brinkley (2009); Lu, (2011); and Abbott (1996).

7. The literature on this topic is voluminous. One starting place to get a sense for how scholars have understood modernity as a realignment of the relationship between the ancient and the modern worlds is Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650–1750 by Jonathan Israel (2001).

8. One rhetoric scholar who has taken a holistic view of Smith's work is Stephen McKenna in his 2005 book Adam Smith: The Rhetoric of Propriety. This text provides a good model for how we might understand eighteenth-century rhetorical texts within a larger textual history that complicates our attempts to read them through a classical lens.

9. See, for example, Court (1992); Kramnick (1998); Crawford (1998); and Ross (1998).