The Sophists have been much maligned – at least in my years of learning. The Sophists were portrayed as amoral, money-hungry manipulators of rhetoric. I am grateful for the more nuanced version of this story from Bizzell and Herzberg in The Rhetorical Tradition. The authors indicate that this bad reputation stems from an ancient and incomplete description of the Sophists in comparison with Plato. The Sophists and Plato disagreed on one foundational idea – the quest for truth. Plato sought (and thought attainable) absolute truth, while the Sophists did not believe in such truth. They advocated for a conditioned truth – one influenced by kairos rather than something definitive and divine. Isocrates, a Sophist, valued education and knowledge necessary for current affairs, tangible immediate needs – not just lofty transcendent pursuits. He, and other Sophists, sought to acknowledge cultural difference and tolerance. Rather than uniting around absolute common ideals, Sophists had “a common recognition that humanity could express itself in many ways and was not subject to an absolute standard” (Bizzell 25).
Plato, and our love affair with him, emphasizes our desire for one right answer. Through Plato, we have developed an educational desire for convergent thought. Yet, one byproduct of convergent thinking is “annihilation” of dissonant ideas, thoughts, methods, and ways of learning. The Sophists, instead, valued diversity of expression and that expression was possible through education for “all comers” (Bizzell 25). Can we connect the Platonic quest for absolute answers to current trends in standardized education, which also values convergent thinking despite an evolving global economy that thrives on divergent thought?
In my composition classes, we are practicing writing and the analysis of argument by reading and listening to a variety of current arguments. On Monday, my students and I found inspiration from a video presentation by Sir Ken Robinson titled, “Changing Education Paradigms” where he talks about how we should change the old model of education that is based on industrial models of production, standardized thinking and anesthetic approaches to learning. While clearly Isocrates and Plato lived long before the industrial revolution, I could not help but think about them within the context of Sir Robinson’s presentation. The industrial model of education, which we continue to cling to with Bush’s No Child Left Behind and Obama’s Race to the Top, values one right answer and one path to truth and knowledge. Our current education system seeks to unify and standardize knowledge. And, this all sounds like Plato. The industrial model of education goes further, translating its quest for absolute-ness into terms of productivity. As David Russell writes, we measure educational success by “the number of errors reduced per dollar invested, and students [can be] tracked and taught according to their deficiencies” (154). Furthermore, our industrialized education system thrives on what Paolo Freire’s has defined as the “banker model of education,” where the “right” knowledge is deposited by teachers into students.
More pointedly, this Isocrates-Plato distinction also relates to the “invention tension” that faces composition classrooms. Composition classrooms have an obligation to teach students academic forms, methods and vocabulary. Composition instructors must guide students as they “invent the university,” as Bartholomae describes this process of academic assimilation. As we, composition instructors, help our students assimilate, we are placing them on the path to knowledge, much like Plato. This invention and assimilation is very much steeped in right-way formulas and convergent thought. Yet, I believe, our job is also to encourage divergent thinking and diverse modes of expression, much like the Sophists. We must navigate the tension between helping students “invent the university,” while also enabling them the freedom of invention in writing and identity.
Beyond that, Isocrates advocated for education that prepared students to rhetorically tangle with current affairs. Composition teachers have a duty to acknowledge the ancient Greek roots of rhetoric, but like Isocrates, we must juxtapose it within a relevant, real-world realm.
When we think about the Sophists like this, should we rescue them from their reputation as subtle and manipulative tricksters?
* * *
Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg, ed. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Second Edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2001.
Russell, David. R. “American Origins of the Writing-across-the-Curriculum Movement (1992).” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2009. 151-170.
