I was recently introduced to a book called Rhetoric and The Arts of Design by Davis Kaufer and Brian Butler. Michael Salvo had us read it as part of a graduate course on professional writing theory. The project of their book is to offer a “theory of rhetoric as design,” and they argue that “theories of written argument, formed for purposes of description or instruction, must be based on sound general theories of rhetoric, and that sound general theories of rhetoric are, at their base, theories of design” (xvi-xvii). They spend the majority of the book outlining a theory of rhetoric in which all rhetorical action can be broken down into plans, tactics, and events. They argue that a rhetorician “designs” when he/she selects, modifies, and assembles a combination of these three elements into an act of communication.

The reason I have this book on my mind right now is that I’m working on a project in which I want to argue that writing is and always has been a design activity. Yet while I’m ready to “accept” writing as design, I’m very hesitant to equate rhetoric with design and I’m trying to figure out why.

One thought I’ve had is that if all rhetoric is also design, than rhetoric becomes an instance of design–designing communication. On the surface this makes a lot of sense , but something about the logic of that statement bothers me. I’ve been a student of and advocate for the power of adopting a rhetorical mindset for a while now, and I’ve met plenty of students who were pretty good designers but not so great communicators. Oftentimes, it isn’t even their facility with language; they just aren’t accustomed to thinking like rhetoricians.

I’ve also met plenty of students who were excellent verbal communicators, but who seemed to have no skill or talent in document design. While it’s obvious that my view of students’ communication and design efforts is only a small slice of their total engagement in such activity, I can’t help but think that if capital-R Rhetoric = Design, a student who is a good verbal communicator and advocate would already be good at designing a written artifact.

While Kaufer and Butler present a compelling case for defining rhetoric as an art of design, they do so using a definition of rhetoric that I think few in our field would see as adequate:

“Let us define rhetoric as the control of events for an audience” (12).

Are great rhetors ever really in “control”? Great designers probably aren’t either. But in design, perhaps there is a focus on the configuration of available materials, while in rhetoric, the focus is on projecting and affecting motivation? (Shout out to Kenneth Burke.)

I’m starting to wander a little here, which accurately represents my current thinking on this subject. I’m neither comfortable with equating rhetoric and design nor with separating them completely. I am becoming convinced, however, that the practice of writing–materializing language using letters and words–is a design practice like designing a building or a logo. (There will be more on this in future posts, I’m sure.) But Writing does not = Rhetoric; Rhetoric covers much more ground and is more fundamental. So back to square one.