As a historian of rhetoric, I recognize that few of my students (in history of rhetoric courses or otherwise) aspire to be historians. While their interests or research may be focused elsewhere, in my mind this does not diminish the value of learning about rhetoric’s evolution and disciplinary history. It does, however, necessitate a different pedagogical perspective. I do two things to make my courses accessible and relevant to a range of rhetoricians and writing studies scholars: first, I strive to build connections between historical rhetorical theory and contemporary culture through the framework of classical reception studies, emphasizing how pre-modern texts illuminate issues in contemporary public life and in the disciplines of rhetoric, composition, and writing studies. Second, I aim to create an equitable and accessible learning environment by drawing from research in anti-ableist pedagogy.
To build connections between historical and contemporary rhetoric, I create assignments that ask students to apply historical concepts in new settings, testing their explanatory power. For instance, in the last presidential election, Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton faced frequent criticisms for both her rhetorical delivery and the perception that she was “overly-researched,” supposedly pandering to her audience with what she thought would play well. How, then, might applying Renaissance rhetorician Baldassarre Castiglione’s concept of sprezzatura to these criticisms illuminate Clinton’s rhetorical choices and reactions to them? Roughly, sprezzatura refers to a quality that allows one to present themselves with ease and grace, and with (apparently) little labor or effort. An application of this concept to Clinton’s speech invites students to consider how rhetorical effort and preparation are interpreted in uneven and highly gendered ways in contemporary politics. Such an approach to teaching the history of rhetoric not only allows students to become familiar with historical and theoretical concepts: it actively engages them in this messy work of theory-testing and building, encouraging them to treat the history of rhetoric as more than the rote memorization of a canon. I also assign regular “Context Reports” that are researched by students and presented to the class before we begin discussions of texts. Students inform the class about elements of historical context that influence theory and practice, identifying the major trends in legal, social, political, religious, and educational practice that influence how and why people thought about rhetoric in certain ways. Through these assignments, I encourage students to look beyond the major texts and figures of the canon, asking them to consider rhetoric’s audiences, students, and interpreters, while also remaining open to many formats beyond a traditional paper or reading journal.
The move toward assignments that emphasize engagement and active theory building connects directly to my commitment to anti-ableist pedagogy. Drawing from the research of composition scholars such as Anne-Marie Womack, I see "accommodation [as] the most basic act and art of teaching," (494) and strive to create courses informed by universal design, which "proposes that inclusive design is better design for all" (Teaching Is Accommodation: Universally Designing Composition Classrooms and Syllabi, 497). My courses include flexible deadlines, multiple pathways to demonstrating knowledge of course concepts, and frequent opportunities for student to take the lead in the classroom and learn from one another.
In sum, my main pedagogical goal is to make the history of rhetoric both meaningful and accessible to students from many backgrounds (both disciplinary and personal). To me, this mean building connections between the past and contemporary issues and debates, while also insuring that my pedagogical approach emphasizes accessibility and openness.