Noell 1

William Steven Noell

Dr. Seas

ENG 307 – 001

11 June 2010

There's Just No Accounting for Taste

In her article, "Teaching Propriety: Unlocking the Mysteries of 'Political Correctness,'"

Lois Agnew discusses the nature of what is and what is not appropriate discourse in the

composition classroom. The nature of appropriate ideas, including the words used to express

them, are defined by societal constructs of "taste and propriety" (Angew 746). Contemporarily,

the terms taste and propriety are associated with elitism and are becoming more and more

unwelcome in the composition classroom as they reflect "the exclusionary social practices that

have historically plagued education" (746). Agnew, though an advocate of the egalitarian

classroom, does not believe that taste and propriety should be dismissed altogether. She believes

instead that taste and propriety should be afforded their more classical definitions. "In classical

terms," reports Agnew, "propriety serves not as a tool for constraining the rhetor's language in

keeping within rigid standards" and thus the every-man out of the elite circle, but "instead

provides a framework through which the rhetor and audience together negotiate the complex

factors … that construct an effective rhetorical response" (747).

By reapplying the classical definitions of taste and propriety to current composition

pedagogy, Agnew hopes to "help students recognize that appropriate language does not have to

be externally imposed … but can instead provide them with the flexibility they need in order to

achieve true rhetorical agency" (749). The public use of language, Agnew learns from her

students, is often a source of "bewilderment" and "hostility" (749). Citing letters to the editor of a
 Noell 2

school newspaper concerning on-campus censorship, Agnew finds that though students do, in

fact, want propriety and believe "that political correctness is necessary in some way, shape, or

form," they also see it as an external constraint causing "fear of saying the wrong thing (749).

The challenge then for Agnew is determining the balance pedagogy should give to the free

expression of individuals' ideas and the binding of those ideas within a societal framework.

Agnew's process:

involves examining the complexity surrounding the historic connections among

rhetoric, taste, and propriety, understanding how an emphasis on the values of

objectivity, autonomy, and textual authority ultimately changed the meaning of

these terms, and using this understand to develop a new notion of propriety that

challenges the imposition of values that diminish this term's pedagogical

potential. (750)

Agnew's language is clear, but over-reliance on the history of propriety in rhetoric and

discourse, especially that of eighteenth-century Scottish rhetoric, does not serve the aim of

applying the classical definition of taste and propriety to the contemporary composition

classroom. The conversation posed by Agnew is relevant as it seeks to define a framework that

encourages both individuality and community in the homogenous classroom. The article is of

interest in a time where defining words and their usage is seen as a constraint rather than a way

to free expression.

Following the presentation of her method, Agnew delves into the history of the "Scottish

determination to provide education that would offer members of the expanding middle class

greater access to new economic opportunities" (750). While this background may be necessary in

the fleshing out of the role of rhetoric outside an elite class, the attention it is given detracts from
 Noell 3

what may have been a more complete plan for its application in the contemporary composition

classroom.

The eighteenth-century history does play into the contemporary view of elitism and

Agnew's article suddenly becomes very relevant. Her study reveals that many students of

composition vilify "collective judgment," creating "a false binary that identified consensus in

general as an oppressive force" (757). What Agnew warns, however, is that most of those

seeing collective judgment as a villain fail to see the potential downfall of radical individualism.

The point is made in a most unexpected way by Agnew. One student's letter to the editor of the

school newspaper regarding censorship claims that in the case of the shutting down of a school

television station because of perceived impropriety, "the fascist, conservative voice has won out"

(749). In the case of this student, he/she has used the word fascist to vilify the school

administration because of what would be considered a social policy. Fascism, however, is not so

much a social policy as it is an economic system. Fascism has, in the past, accompanied

draconian social constraints (notably Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy), but it exists as an

economic system outside of that social framework. By straying from a denotative use of fascism

and co-opting it for use as a general insult, the student writer has taken away the word's true

meaning by instituting his/her own. This is illustrative of Agnew's point. "Collective judgment"

is a way to bring all communicators, speaker and audience, to an accepted starting point for

discourse. The single student changes the collected meaning of a word and in that act, the word

loses its meaning altogether.

The issue of political correctness in the composition and presentation of rhetoric and in

the realm of student composition is vital for study. In the academic setting, writing is graded and

evaluated by an individual whose sense of political correctness differs from the writer. In such a
 Noell 4

circumstance, the writer may focus on pleasing the grader rather than on the proper

communication of an idea. As they attempt to express their thoughts, they are met by a looming

sense that "they have no resources for determining how to express inner thoughts that they must

protect from a world that they perceive as a hostile and intrusive environment that threatens the

'right' that they cherish" (748). There is a sentiment among students that "everyone has a right to

their own opinion" (748). If this is true in the composition classroom, then it should be expected

that ideas would clash and that offense may be taken by someone with a contrary opinion. In this

case, it is the task of the instructor to teach "individuals to make sound judgments about how to

engage in meaningful dialogue with other people" without fear of reprisal" (753).

Agnew's work, though inappropriately heavy in history, is a worthwhile read that sheds

light on a trend of failure. The failure is balancing the right of an individual to express an opinion

with the courteous sensibility of one interested in valuable discourse. As the discussion

continues, Agnew's article is a valuable beginning resource of the research into a new pedagogy

of inclusive and accepting individualism in the contemporary composition classroom.

 Noell 5

Work Cited

Agnew, Lois. "Teaching Propriety: Unlocking the Mysteries of "Political Correctness"." CCC.
60.4 (2009): 746-763. Print.