Chapter 5 - Writing and Healing and the Rhetorical Tradition

This essay by T. R. Johnson takes on several contrasting and varied views on the practice of writing for healing and assess what he believes to be true within the field today. Johnson takes us back to the ancient Greeks to understand the origins of writing and rhetoric being related to healing or health in general. Although the early Greeks did associate the act of writing and speaking as healthy and part of a healing social engagement, a lot of theories on writing and healing were eventually squashed by the misguided idea of Plato. The argument that opposes Plato is that expression through writing in the individual sense is not only the way to find one's true self but also to heal from our deepest wounds. This is when Johnson segues to the main two voices of influence on the piece, Jerome Bruner and Carl Rogers.

Bruner and Rogers are both known as expressivists that introduced their theories on the healing power of writing in the mid-20th century. Although they didn't have exactly the same ideas, they both pushed the fact that one can make discoveries about oneself through writing that will eventually lead to self-actualization and healing. Although many people criticize Bruner and Rogers for turning composition to a inwardly focused and mystified process of selfish reflection their opinions and ideas on the subject are actually much less severe than they appear. In fact, they both present a convincing case for the healing power of writing and how to teach it in a way that will embrace students of all backgrounds with varying levels of traumatic experience.

One of the most interesting elements in this essay is Bruner's idea of composition being an individual process for everyone. He supposes that each of us must look inside ourselves to understand how to compose in a way that makes sense to us. Although this presents an issue in the classroom because it suggests no one can teach another how to teach, I think this is a really progressive style of writing education. The truth is that composition is a very intimate and personal act, especially is one is writing about her traumatic experience or anything to do with highly personal content. In this way, Bruner makes a good point that maybe we need to change the way we approach composition so it suits our needs on an ultra-specific tailored level. The idea is that once you discover your own way of writing that makes sense of your experiences you become aware of your identity and self-knowledge in a way that is impossible by using a standardized method of composition.

I'd like to see what the rest of the class thinks about this, as we've discussed several times that modern higher education is often not flexible to different people's learning styles. What if the writing department at IC adopted a more Brunerian teaching approach, would we learn more about ourselves?