1. Scholars' Categorizations
   1. Crowley
      1. essentialist
      2. constructionist
      3. performative
   2. Vitanza
      1. traditional
      2. revisionary
      3. sub/versive
   3. Graff and Leff
      1. Rereading
      2. Recovery
      3. pedagogical practice
   4. Brooks (1997) argues against these kinds of categorizations b/c they minimize differences w/i categories
2. Recovery
   1. Definition: (Graff and Leff 2005) examines previously hidden or undervalued texts (21-22)
   2. Enos (Octalog 1)
      1. wants us to value altenrative forms of evidence and methods
   3. Ferreira-Buckley (Octalog 2)
      1. wants to reemphasize "stuff" of history -- that is, the archives
      2. concerned that graduate training is lacking
      3. also concerned that we narrativize too much b/c we are impatient w/thick description and details
      4. wants us to emphasize fragmentation, localization of historiography
   4. Glenn (Octalog 2)
      1. wants us to "regender rhetorical history"
      2. will destabilize categories of gender and will disrupt ideas about "universal" history
   5. Welch (Octalog 2)
      1. wants us to historicize TV as a "dominant communication technology" that has changed literacy practices
         1. also interested in gender constructions w/i all literacy technologies
3. pedagogical practice
   1. Graff and Leff (2005)
      1. resolves tension btwn. "tradition" and "traditions"
   2. Connors (Octalog 1)
      1. all comp history refers us to the present
         1. interested in connection between discipline and culture
   3. Crowley (Octalog 1)
      1. must be aware that all historical work will be potentially reified by readers
      2. believes that the "first question asked of any research is 'What use is it in the classroom?"
   4. Miller (Octalog 2)
      1. sees all panelists on both Octalogs as interested in connection between theory and practice
      2. historical inquiry -- practical action
      3. need to "read history from a rhetorical stance"
         1. in order to teach better
4. metahistorical
   1. Schilb (Pre/Text 1986)
      1. uses LaCapra and White for grounding
      2. Wants more contexualization of intellectual histories
      3. calls for emplotment of hsitories of rhetoric (so as to illuminate rhetoricity of texts)
   2. Brooks (1997, "Reviwing and Redescribing" Octalog 1
   3. Berlin (in Octalog 1)
      1. terministic screen!
      2. interested in rhetoricity, historians' biases, language and power
      3. thinks all historians should outline their ideologies up front
   4. Lauer (Octalog 2)
      1. wants us to do away with "master narratives"
      2. practice-principles connection; theory-pedagogy
      3. should be more transparent and ethical
5. "traditional"
   1. Nan Johnson (Octalog 1)
      1. convincing defense of "traditional" historiography
         1. multiciplicity is not only inevitable, but should compel historian to feel "obliged intellectually by multiplicity" (46)
         2. must know what cultural/contextualized "norm" was in order to revise, critique, re-read and rewrite (47)
      2. historiography is both archeological and rhetorical (9-10)
6. Rereading
   1. Definition (Graff and Leff 2005): reconsiders existing histories from new perspectives (21-22)
   2. Gaines (in Viability, 2005)
      1. corpus should replace canon
         1. doesn't resolve problem of "tradition" but I like wide def. of what constitutes "rhetoric"
   3. Gross (in Viability, 2005)
      1. R/C should take up a core set of questions and use only those theorists/rhetoricians who have examined those questions
         1. but this seems to promote positivistic sense of history
         2. also decontextualizes original texts
         3. overvalues contemporary ideology
   4. Vitanza (in Octalog 1)
      1. wants to subvert "common sense" history/historiography
      2. resists idea of closure/finality when doing history
   5. Swearingen (Octalog 1)
      1. interested in connection between gender and institutionalization of rhetoric and literacy in early classical rhetoric
   6. Glenn (Octalog 2)
      1. wants us to "regender rhetorical history"
      2. will destabilize categories of gender and will disrupt ideas about "universal" history
7. Inter- or Trans-disciplinary
   1. Jarratt (Octalog 1)
      1. thinks rhetoric could be conceived as a "metadicipline"
         1. resists "traditional" stance of only claimining those texts that are explicitly framed as "rhetoric"
         2. wants us to "[appropriate] and [redefine] ... texts currently 'held' by other disciplines" (9)
   2. Atwill (Octalog 2)
      1. wants to address the challenge of doing interdisciplinary historical research
      2. also concerned about gendered positoin as "woman/mother/teacher/citizen"
   3. Mountford (Octalog 2)
      1. works off Enos's call in Octalog 1 for new/altenrative methods
      2. rhetorical research does not need to be limited to composition classroom
   4. Enos (Octalog 1)
      1. wants us to value altenrative forms of evidence and methods