Lori Berryman

 

Dr. Mahoney

 

ENG 502

 

11 November 2009

 

Berlin, James A. 2003. Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures.

 Indiana: Parlor Press. $49.99 hc. $27.00 sc. ix + 244 pp.

 

            Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures by James A. Berlin could be aptly re-titled as Rhetorics, Democracy, and Economics due to its continual correlation of the three throughout his manifesto. Berlin takes the reader on a radical tour-de-force of the historical changes and future changes of the English curricula. He divides his book into four sections. The first section provides a “relevant historical background and explores the political uses of English as a discipline” (xxi). The second section changes the focus to the contemporary scene and the “postmodern predicament” (xxi). The third section explores Berlin’s guidelines for pedagogical reform, and finally the fourth section explores, “how versions of refigured English studies are already taking shape in English departments today” (xxii).

            Berlin’s repetitious nature forces the reader to comprehend three distinct ideas by the end of his book. He stresses that capitalism in all capacities controls the path of education and that there are numerous competing theories and conflicting groups of experts. Also, if we are to question the production of writing curriculum and its value to society, then shouldn’t we equally be questioning the production and exploitation of literary texts in the college curricula?

            Berlin says, “…it [the curriculum] occupies a position between the conditions of the larger society it serves – the economic, political, and cultural sectors – and the work of the teachers-scholars within the institution” (18). He continues on to say, “…the curriculum serves as a mediator between those outside the institution and those within it” (18).  However in a constantly changing, competitive, capitalist economy, the curriculum needs to be changed and adapted to fit with the current trade and industry demands.  And it’s funny because most politicians believe America has a handle on it. Berlin explains that that just is not the case. In the very beginning, the purpose of a liberal arts education was to “prepare civil and moral leaders” (19) and leave specific job training until after college. The age of Fordism forced the schism between those who made a living off of mental labor or manual labor. This meant that “The bureaucratic structuring of mental work meant that even managers were often extensions of the machine, performing tasks that required little skill and training and that allowed almost no initiative” (45). This had a profound affect on culture because there was no longer any need to possess creative or imaginative skills. In the Post-Fordism model, “production becomes an international rather than a national process” (45) which reveals the need to return back to teaching rhetoric and the importance of communication on a global scale. This is good news for Berlin who enforces throughout the text the importance of Democratic principles and rhetoric in the classroom. In this same vein, Berlin in Chapter 5 continues to explore the connection between the economy and our cultural understanding of aesthetics, importance of literary texts, and our ever changing language.

            In Chapter 6, Berlin calls for Democracy in the classroom. Berlin promotes language, liberation and growth in the classroom, and wants teachers to realize that they are “active agents of change” (106). Unfortunately, as Berlin explains, the American school system has failed in creating discussion and action that promotes opportunity, power, and self-respect. If the reader harkens back to the earlier theories by Bourdieu in Chapter 1, the reason for this failure can be affixed to how Americans define culture, and therefore education, and ultimately how Americans also define the boundaries and limits of the “privileged managerial class” (10).

            In order to rectify this problem, Berlin offers advice in regards to creating a democratic classroom. According to Berlin, teachers must create “…a participatory classroom [where] the teacher shares the right to dialogue while never relinquishing the authority to set certain agendas for class activities” (112). Teachers have to become the mediator for the dialogue that takes place in the classroom and questions provided by the teacher are “designed to reveal the contradictions and conflicts inscribed in the very language of the students’ thoughts and utterances” (111). Teachers have to have extensive knowledge about the students’ backgrounds in order to organize and create topics, questions and comments that forcefully continue the discussion. Teachers also must “enable students to become active, critical agents of their experiences rather than passive victims of cultural codes” (113). To summarize, Berlin lionizes the teaching profession and essentially spews forth the task of changing embedded cultural codes and current curricula.

            This, arguably, is the most controversial section in Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures simply because Berlin does not just offer suggestions, but more or less creates a list of idealized demands without identifying the smaller steps that need to be taken before his ending goal can even be considered. How can Berlin expect to create a modern democratic classroom without considering the fact that first, students need to be able to engage in conversation at a level that promotes the interests of a democratic society, secondly, that they are willing to be active participants in the dialogue, and thirdly that they possess the very basic skills in order to form opinions and conclusions in order to promote a democratic dialogue. Not to mention many teachers are working with a limited amount of time. Besides suggesting that teachers have an extensive knowledge about their students’ backgrounds, Berlin fails to identify how much time this will take away from advancing the dialogue in his idealistic democratic classroom. Berlin’s suggestions are not wrong per say, they are merely unorganized. He suggests big leaps when it comes to changing America’s classrooms without paying attention to the little steps it takes to realize that dream.

            This does bring into question, however, the texts used to situate the discourse and formulate meaning in Berlin’s suggested democratic classroom. One item that Berlin goes into a great deal of time stressing is that while the world’s global economy and expectations are rapidly changing; America’s choice of classroom texts has not. He recommends including television shows and movies that can illustrate social and cultural cues and that can also open up dialogue in the process. For example, he suggests the use of the television show like Roseanne to help kids identify “the imaginary resolution of conflicts and the fulfillment of cultural expectations” (132). This may have been a wonderful suggestion in 1996 when Berlin’s Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures was first published, but leaves much to be desired in contemporary society. Certainly other shows and movies can be used to replace the outdated Roseanne television show, but in a time when American’s thoughts are dedicated to the crashing economy, never-ending wars, and a divided political nation, dialogue needs to be provoked through main-stream news worthy items and not fictional accounts of the family lifestyle.

            Berlin concludes Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures by asserting that “teachers are gatekeepers, influencing decisions about who will succeed to higher levels of education and greater degrees of prosperity” (189). He leaves teachers with a lot to contend with and a lot to swallow. Whether it be the every changing economy and work demands that influence nature, or the idealistic democratic classroom, Berlin accurately portrays the ever changing tide of English curricula while pushing his radical idealism on the reader.