The Kairotic Time for Composing: Bringing Kairos and Classical Rhetoric Back into the University

The task was to use two readings to analyze how they defined “kairos” and what they communicate when put together in conversation. What was their message, how did they go about relaying it, who did they turn to for help in relaying said message? To take the task one step further, the connection was to be visually represented through a schema. In structuring this task, the two readings that were used as the focal point were John T. Gage’s “An Adequate Epistemology for Composition: Classical and Modern Perspectives” and James L Kinneavy’s “Kairos: A Neglected Concept in Classical Rhetoric.” Just by examining the titles of the two essays, it’s clear that both authors are invested in classical rhetoric, and for Kinneavy, specifically kairos. For the schema and for this essay, the readings were used as tools to redefine or re-envision the way that classical rhetoric can be brought into the 21^st century classroom and curriculum.

Before moving forward, it’s necessary that “kairos” be defined. At the end of the class a working definition was formulated, one that is by no means exact or perfect, but should give the reader a better sense of what kairos is: “Through examination of contexts to create a message for an audience that is appropriate to constraints of time/place/etc., a ‘rhetor can find truth in the ethical, rhetorical, and epistemological implications’ of the intersection of the dichotomies surrounding discourse” (Enos, ed. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition, Silva Rhetoricae).

            The first reading, Gage’s “An Adequate Epistemology” focuses on three major concepts: dialectic, enthymeme, and stasis as they work in classical rhetoric. To quickly unpack these terms, dialectic “implies that knowledge can be created in the activity of discourse,” which means that through communicating and sharing information knowledge is generated (Gage 156). An enthymeme exists through what the audience contributes, so they are the audience’s previous knowledge or assumptions that they then bring into the rhetor’s speech to interpret it (Gage 157). Stasis also deals with the dialectical intentions, but it is more focused on the cause of the investigation—why does the rhetor see it necessary to communicate this message and how does this shape the meaning? (Gage 158). Gage argued that in order to successfully bring classical rhetoric back into the classroom that these terms need to be identified as tools in which to make that happen. And to make this happen, it’s essential that a shift be made from the way the composition is viewed—from a formalist view to one where knowledge is put first (Gage 161).

            Kinneavy has a more centralized focus as he gears in on “kairos.” He uses five dimensions: ethical, epistemological, rhetorical, aesthetic, and civic education by which to frame his argument that kairos should be brought back into college composition, but also that college composition should go beyond just writing for the English class. Kinneavy’s argument was framed with the dimensions to highlight how kairos operates in these dimensions and through the dimensions into the classroom. Kinneavy makes excellent use in building his view of kairos off of other scholars in order to give the reader a well-rounded understanding and a historiographic view. In making the schema, my partner and I made the mistake of not acknowledging and analyzing the scholars that Kinneavy relied on. The scholars that contributed to his argument were Plato (he uses kairos as the base for his theory on virtue), Gorgias (he used kairos as “the cornerstone of his entire epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and rhetoric) (Kinneavy 81). Kinneavy also mentions Aristotle, German theologian Paul Tillich, Cicero, and many other scholars.

            My hope is that by supplying a brief summarization of the readings highlights some connections between the two scholars, which will then help in seeing how my partner and I saw the two contributing in a mutual conversation on rhetoric and composition in college. Kinneavy said it himself that “students’ decisions during college involve the values that will dictate the rest of their lives (Kinenavy 94). If this is to be true, then isn’t it imperative that instructors help students learn tools that they can take with them after they leave the classroom and with a view on knowledge that encourages them to continue to actively seek it out? For Gage and Kinenavy, this starts in the composition classroom and in order to achieve a richer composition instructors need to bring classical rhetoric back into the classroom and acknowledge/teach kairos as it applies to the student. This begins with switching the way that we as instructors, and consequently the students, view composition—from a formal western view, to a more process-based holistic view.

            Kairos is about being able to see the bigger picture before the rhetor even begins his/her composition. Michael Quigley’s “Rhetoric, Dialectic, and Ideology in Freshman English” addresses this issue through addressing a fellow scholar’s source of contention with the way that teaching composition is executed. Quigley’s essay is in response to Maxine Hairston’s outcry that composition has lost sight of the goal and that students should have to “master the forms” (Quigley 23). What Hairston means by “forms” is the western concept of a correct and proper English grammar and structure in writing. This obviously disregards the needs and creativity of a great many other races outside of the white male dialogue. Quigley attempts to bring light to this situation by saying that the purpose of composing an essay is not to only create a complete piece of work but “as a means to [sharpen] student’s thinking” (Quigley 23). Here is the shift, it’s not exactly a process versus product essay, it goes beyond that. It’s about using this time to change the way that students think and view knowledge; it’s about encouraging them to think critically about everything, not just composition.

            Kinneavy makes a point to specify that while he is championing for kairos and classical rhetoric to be brought back into the curriculum, he sees it as something that applies to the student’s interests and career field outside of the classroom (Kinneavy 96). Not even that, but he believes that other departments can benefit from learning more about the persuasiveness of rhetoric—the way to achieve this is to realign rhetoric with the university as a whole (Kinneavy 86). If Kinneavy’s outline for how to incorporate kairos into the classroom is combined with Gage’s broader view on classical rhetoric as dialectic in nature, then there can be a possibility of this richer composition mentioned above.

            Just as Kinneavy did at the end of his essay, I believe it is necessary to highlight faults in my theory and acknowledge failures that I’ve already encountered. This is a work in progress, something that has to be honed and shared and communicated to the rhetoric community if it is ever to hold any value. When constructing the schema with my partner, we wanted to represent knowledge as something that can grow if Kinneavy’s dimensions were utilized to help implement composition programs that make that switch from the western formal view to one that values knowledge and critical thinking. However, where we went wrong is that our schema wasn’t static, so as the viewer moved from one level to the next, they lost sight of all the other levels—it zoned in on one specific aspect of the schema. This, as I’ve stated throughout this essay, is counterintuitive to what it is that Gage, Kinneavy, and my partner and I are trying to accomplish. Perhaps a better tool would be a “You are Here” map where throughout the schema, the viewer can visualize where they are in respect to the bigger picture. That would even be a great tool in composition—something that is in a way already in place through drafting. Yet, it must be realized this is not a complete theory, but the aim here is to get the reader thinking about perhaps ways they do or do not see this happening in their composition classroom.

--LC