Bizzell’s and Jarrat’s article (2004)  recaps and addresses the topics of discussion at a previous ARS conference and illuminates the merits of the opinions of the several groups involved. One detail in particular struck a chord with me. They mention that in answering a specific question, “Why Study and Teach the History of Rhetoric at All?,” there was a bit of resistance and reluctance. In a push for pluralization of rhetorical traditions, it becomes evident that there was recently and perhaps still is resistance to this by and large accepted ideal. Bizzell and Jarrat write, “It is only fair to include rhetorical works by as many people as possible, particularly those that have been victimized, marginalized and oppressed by way of redress” (24). As valuable as this push has been, it is disheartening to know that  people still resist it. This resistance brings me to an earlier point of discussion in the piece, namely the aversion to the term tradition. “Many people at the conference did not even like the term ‘”traditions,”‘ plural, because they felt that any version of the word ‘”tradition'” implies a continuity and teleology for the texts and figures under study that is tendentious and exclusionary” (20). Well, ultimately, this is the point. There is value to the term tradition, because this is what we’ve been trying to combat for quite some time. We’ve been trying to do away with the tendentious, exclusionary approach that we’ve had to rhetoric, namely our own Western Rhetoric that dominates communication on a global scale. The fact of the matter is that traditions exist in a every rhetorical context, especially on the cultural and geographical level. Traditions naturally evolve and become new traditions. At this point in time, where the idea of transnational exchange is recognized more and more as essential, it is silly to worry about the nature of tradition, as the point of transnational exchange is not replacement or changing local and regional traditions, rather bringing them to the forefront and giving them an equal, deserved part in our field, which has historically suppressed them and dismissed them as monolithic and novelty. The attention that this issue has received in recent years is extraordinary and authorities in our field have moved beyond the merely multicultural approach to embrace this idea of transnational exchange. The very term implies transaction and not amalgamation, which is ultimately what we should strive for, because in an effort to achieve unity we shouldn’t have to let go of the strategies that make various rhetorical traditions meaningful and effective in different contexts.

This will come off as a defense or rant more than a carefully thought out critique on developments in Rhet/Comp studies. A few weeks ago, I had an interesting group interview with a respected authority in academia. A sense of professional courtesy and maturity prevents me from mentioning the individual’s name. Initially, I was uncertain of whether or not I should write this. However, I couldn’t resist the desire to open up a platform for discourse involving certain potential changes in our field that could permanently alter the more traditional paths towards success in higher academia.

This individual is under the impression, perhaps rightfully so, that knowledge acquisition, development, and compilation is evolving dramatically and that more traditional means of academic discourse are rapidly dissolving due to the convergence of the online community. Consequently, the value of expertise and academic hierarchy are eroding. I’ll admit, I was scared. I am nearly done with my Master’s in English and a Graduate Certificate in Teaching Writing, and I am applying to various Rhet/Comp PhD programs throughout the country. I have a high GPA, solid GRE scores, I’m finishing up my program search, getting recommendations from reputable faculty members, and developing a critical writing sample. In addition to all these tasks, I am balancing three jobs and a full time class schedule. My grad school experience is delightfully stereotypical. I’m paying my dues with the hopes that one day I can be considered an “expert” and share my knowledge and understanding with the academic community while facilitating the development of my potential future students. To someone enduring these trials for a distant dream that might never come into fruition, expertise and connections can be the extra edge.

And so, during the interview I had a question for the individual, stemming from genuine concern, not meant in any way to be disrespectful. I simply wanted to know how fast he felt his proposed changes in knowledge compilation are occurring, because as a prospective educator and academic, I can say with confidence that traditional knowledge development is still held in high regard and considered a necessary part of advancement within any field of study in academia. In other words, I wanted to know when the path that I’m following will become obsolete. What I received as a response was a veiled negative assessment of my potential, as a student, to get accepted to doctoral programs and a lecture on how online academic discourse is becoming the best way to establishing a reputation. In fact he was hubristic enough to use himself as a prime example. Well that’s all fine and dandy for him, one of the few isolated incidents in a sea of individuals following more traditional paths towards a position of expertise. And since the rest of us might not be able to receive program offers based solely on the merits of our online publications, this new phenomenon begs my original question, just how quickly are we becoming obsolete?

Don’t get me wrong, I completely accept the value of collaborative knowledge development and understand the importance of the web in promoting this exchange on a domestic and global scale. However, as an insider in academia, I know for a fact that the expert and the concept of a canon is still important, us traditionalists ain’t goin nowhere. Obviously multimodality is becoming more and more necessary in both the class room and broader academic forums. But as in anything in life, balance is key. Just as solid recommendations can be the extra edge, online activity can admittedly be the same, but not everything. One can’t speak from the position of the “privileged minority,” as one of my professors put it, for the whole academic community. Another professor of mine suggested that this individual simply felt threatened by my question and pulled the rank card.

Clearly, I understand the value of online discourse as I have this blog and speak openly through it with my colleagues and hopefully soon, individuals in other institutions. So, to tell me that my path has limited value and to make negative assessments of my potential, without even knowing me, is nothing short of petty nonsense. But, perhaps this will be the pervading attitude in our field someday that comes with the loss of the expert. Perhaps this will be one of the many examples of unidirectionalism in our field which we so vehemently protest against. I know that at least one person believes in a one size fits all approach.