James L. Kinneavy and the Ethical Imperative

Transcription

1 In Memory of lames L. Kinneavy 541 James L. Kinneavy and the Ethical Imperative PHILLIP SIPIORA James Kinneavy is best known for his historical and theoretical work in rhetoric and composition, and particularly for his major books, A Theory of Discourse (1971) and Greek Rhetorical Origins of the Christian Concept of Faith (1987). Kinneavy's germinal work in 1985 on the concept of kairos has generated numerous commentaries and at least one forthcoming book (Rhetoric and Kairos; Sipiora and Baumlin, eds.). Moreover, he produced more than fifty articles and hundreds of presentations since he began his career in the early 1940s. He taught graduate courses in rhetoric at his home institution, the University of Texas at Austin, as well as at the University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State U niversity, and other institutions. He consulted with nearly one hundred other colleges and universities, and dozens of Kinneavy's former students hold faculty positions at institutions across the country, many of them serving as writing program administrators. Clearly, Kinneavy's influence transcends borders in significant ways. What is less well known about Kinneavy is his work on moral values. In the 1990s, he turned to writing extensively about a subject that he had engaged professionally since 1941: ethics. In 1999 Kinneavy coedited a collection of essays, Ethical Issues in College Writing, that includes works by leading scholars on various perspectives of ethics and their relevance to contemporary composition studies. In Kinneavy's view, a moral code must transcend (yet unify) individual sectarian dogma. Kinneavy was well aware of the difficulties and dangers in positing a theory of "universal" ethics, yet at the same time he was intensely interested in the symbiotic relationship between ethics and rhetoric. His exploration into what might be called an "ethical imperative" of rhetoric recalls the rhetorical paideia of Isocrates and addresses the necessity of locating ethics (or morals) in the realm of the social. The relationship between the individual and society is symbiotic and strategic. The view that ethics is inherently "social" is quite old, of course, as evidenced in most of the ethical systems of Greek and Roman antiquity. For Kinneavy, theory always must be reflected in praxis; all worthwhile hypothetical constructions should have corresponding practical applications. And these pragmatic applications must take into account the rich and varying context(s) of their circumstance(s), illustrating the applied prin-

2 542 lac ciple of kairos. Kinneavy's emphasis on the social aspects of ethics reminds us that moral philosophy is far too important to be left to philosophers. Kinneavy's concern for the practical appucations of ethics and their relationship to writing led him in 1983 to establish a new English course at the University of Texas at Austin. Required of all students in all undergraduate programs, this course was a major step forward in introducing students to think and write about ethical issues. At the time, only about one in ten students at Texas took a formal course in ethics. One significant theoretical voice behind Kinneavy's curriculum reform was Alasdair MacIntyre, who has written seven books on ethics, includingafter Virtue and WhoseJustice? Which Rationality? MacIntyre argues that the contemporary language of morality is in a state of "grave disorder.» Kinneavy shared MacIntyre's belief in the importance of a philosophical view of nature (derived from the Greeks and continuing in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that views human nature as having a special purpose (a telos), conjoined with the notion that achieving that purpose resulted in human happiness. This vision-a social ethics-is the classical view of morality. Since the seventeenth century, according to MacIntyre, this perspective has been replaced by an opposing view of morality: emotivism. Kinneavy also calls the anti-classical view "libertarianism," a perspective in which morality becomes a matter of individual choice and in which there are no universal principles and no teleological view of human nature that determine the purpose, goals, or telos to which an individual should aspire. Each individual is an ethical agent unto him- or herself. Kinneavy condemns such a view because it is necessarily selfish and anti-social. The classical view of morality, with its concomitant social ethics, inspired Kinneavy to examine a contemporary incident to learn if, indeed, there is a non-denominational, socially responsible, universal basis of ethics. In 1991 George Jo Henard smashed his truck into a restaurant in Killeen, Texas, killing 25 patrons and wounding nearly an equal number. Kinneavy was asked to speak publicly about this moral atrocity. In typical Kinneavy fashion, he researched news stories of the tragedy from around the globe to determine if there was an international common denominator. Kinneavy's examination of over 500 news stories led him to conclude that, indeed, such a universal code of ethics does exist. There were four recurring features to each account of the atrocity: shock at murder, concern forfamily, concern for property, and concern for truth. These recurring themes led Kinneavy to draw a major conclusion: these perspectives provide the grounding for a universal ethical code. These four concerns-respect for life, family, property, and truth-are the basis for many other moral systems, including Buddhism. Yet, a confluence of sectarian ethics was not yet sufficient to convince Kinneavy that this universal ethical code was unproblematic. Always the skepti-

3 In Memory of James L. Kinneavy 543 cal and painstaking scholar, Kinneavy was determined to examine this ethical consensus from a more general perspective of civilizations and cultures, that of anthropology and linguistics. Is there anthropological (and linguistic) support for the kind of social ethic represented by these philosophical and religious systems? Or, perhaps, do these other human sciences support a more individualized, subjective view of morality? Kinneavy's theory of a social ethics attempts to answer these questions, at least tentatively, in the spirit of dialectical inquiry, a mode of intellection that characterized Kinneavy's scholarly work. Kinneavy was particularly influenced by the anthropologist Edward Westermarck, who has written numerous books on ethics from a cultural perspective. Indeed, Westermarck today remains one of the most influential anthropological ethicists, even though he began his career in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Kinneavy was particularly interested in the fact that Westermarck is considered an ethical relativist, someone opposed to a communal or social ethical code. After a detailed analysis of Westermarck's work, which reconciled for Kinneavy the tenets of subjective ethics with communal ethics, Kinneavy concluded that there are indeed major axioms that support a universal language of morality. Kinneavy's hypothesis of a universal code of morality was further strengthened by his inclusion of the work of Claude Levi-Strauss, one of the major linguists of this century. Uvi-Strauss's articulation of what he calls a "permanent humanity" in all civilizations reinforced Westermarck's reach for the moral unity of mankind. Kinneavy's position on a universal language of morality situated him as a consummate mediator, reconciler, and diplomat-someone able to negotiate theoretical conflicts in order to bring about conditional resolutions that carry pragmatic implications. Drawing on Westermarck, Levi-Strauss, and a number of philosophers and scholars from various disciplines, Kinneavy forged an ethical system that could be implemented in the English classroom. However, he learned that many students have concerns that must be addressed before they are motivated to adopt his universal language or morality: students must be convinced of the usefulness of such a language; they must be taught to adjust a moral metalanguage to their own individual moral codes; and teachers must be viewed as ethically "neutral" and demonstrate respect for the moral codes of all students and their diverse backgrounds. In order to convince students of the usefulness of a general moral language, Kinneavy first attempted to demonstrate to them that they possess only the fragments of a moral language to communicate about moral issues, even with each other, at a degree of fluency parallel with their abilities to discuss other academic issues. Drawing on MacIntyre, Kinneavy concludes that this deficiency is in part due to the loss of such a language

4 544 lac in society at large. As he attempted to implement a universal moral language in his classes in the 1990s, Kinneavy learned that while many of his students welcomed the possibility of learning such a language, others resisted the notion of a common currency of ethics, finding such a language restrictive, confining, and negative. He countered these positions by arguing that moral choices always have social implications and that no moral judgment can be a-social. Rights, according to Kinneavy, necessarily include social duties. An individual's right to his or her life or property evokes a corresponding social duty in others to respect that life or property. The four principles of respect for life, property, family integrity, and truth are the assertion of four basic rights of individuals. A moral code can thus be read as an affirmation of basic rights (and duties). A general language of morality, Kinneavy argues, is particularly useful in an class with students from diverse backgrounds and different moral codes. An ethical lingua franca allows the teacher to speak to each group with the same language. Furthermore, individual students are able to write papers that respect both the common language and the language of the particular code. Moreover, the common language also promotes students' conversations with one another. In his classes, Kinneavy encouraged students who held different moral codes that nonetheless may be compatible with the general system to go into specifics in their own writing, using their own moral code to work out their own moral solutions to issues. He showed them that when addressing more heterogeneous groups, they must consider the backgrounds of their audiences. There is a moral system and a common language, according to Kinneavy, with which to discuss important moral, social, and political issues. What's more, students of all ages and in all disciplines can be taught to respect life, family, property, and truth. Students can be taught in a non-doctrinaire way that respects their own personal opinions without imposing a given ideology on them. These principles form an important part of Kinneavy's work in progress at the time of his death in August of 1999, tentatively titled A Moral Code/or Use in Public Schools and Colleges. In this manuscript, he proposes that universal moral education in the public schools should begin quite early, and that there should be a systematic course of study on morality beginning in the elementary school and continuing through middle school, high school, and college. This study should present moral rights and duties based on nature, law, and the history of civilization. Although such a moral code should not be based on any religion, it should be compatible with the general rights and duties of most major religions. And, as Kinneavy emphasizes, these rights are generic.

5 In Memory of James L. Kinneavy 545 Jim Kinneavy was a lifelong advocate of ethics in action. He supported oppressed groups in the academy, from sexually harassed women at Texas to composition teachers everywhere and at every level. In particular, he fought for those adjuncts and lecturers who staff lowerlevel writing courses at universities and colleges across the country and who are usually overworked, underpaid, and treated as non-professionals. The forum for this fight has been not only Kinneavy's home campus, but also the Modern Language Association and the Conference on College Composition and Communication. In addition, Kinneavy was one of the few full-time faculty members at Texas to teach in the minority program. It is fitting that Jim Kinneavy would spend the twilight of his life arguing for the necessity of a universal moral code. Those who knew him well-and I was blessed to be one of them-are keenly aware how deeply ethical this kind, humble man of letters was. He lived the moral life that he so ardently strove to share with others. Jim Kinneavy will be sorely missed, but his moral legacy will live on in his writing and in the lives of his students and colleagues. University o/south Florida Tampa, Florida Remembering Jim Kinneavy THOMAS P. MILLER A good way to remember Jim Kinneavy is to read him. For this purpose, I would like to share some thoughts on his "Restoring the Humanities: The Return of Rhetoric from Exile" from The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing (1982). Kinneavy responded to two decades of national reports on the decline of the humanities by arguing that "humanism needs a rhetorical component" to keep it relevant to "the daily lives of the average American citizen." Surveying ancient rhetoricians from Isocrates through the first recorded use of humanitas in the R heto rica adherrenium, Kinneavy identified rhetoric with the emergence of humanism out of ideas of humanity, freedom, and "social welfare." This humanistic sense of rhetoric was learned by studying the modes of collaborative reasoning embodied in deliberative, forensic, and epideictic genres and by writing about popular politics and morality, as in the progymnasmata.