Writing and Healing as the Rhetorical Tradition

Right off the bat I'm gonna say this reading was a doozy. A lot is covered in Johnson's essay. His main focus is to show how several theories of knowledge (e.g. pre-classical, expressionist, and postmodern) all influenced the contemporary notion of the self, truth, and writing for healing.

He begins with the concept of logotherapy--the powerful force of finding meaning in one's self. He then segues to the idea the Platonic idea of "illness as possession by a punishing spirit" (90). As Johnson moves from one theory to another, he often refers back to this notion of our "inner demons."

Other concepts that Johnson brings back to later theories of knowledge are nomos (society) and physis (natural). Here is where the meat of the argument/discussion takes place. It's the concepts of expressivist and social constructivism that tie in with students and their ability to write personally versus academically. The expressivist asks the writer to explore his/her unique self, using everyday language (physis), while social constructivism believes that the writer should focus on outside discourses (nomos) that help shape their reality.

Johnson brings up Carl Rodger's notion of "self-actualization," meaning the discovery of one's true self. Ergo, "since everyone is different and the purpose of writing is to access this unique individually, surely no one can teach about how to write..." (96). It's like the whole nature vs. nurture debate.

Sticking with the idea of writing for healing, will writers benefit more from embracing their unique self and symbols, or understanding outside forces of their environment/world?

I thought it was interesting how Johnson brings in poetry (and often alludes to the chants/song of casting aside those evil spirits). He analyzes them, "Eagle in the Land of Oz" and "Rape," both intrinsically and extrinsically. Perhaps both theories should work together, guiding the reader to his/her sense of self and community.