A statement of Judith Van's teaching philosophy:

 In 1994, the year of my graduation from the MFA program in Creative Writing at ASU, I took my first Rhetoric and Composition class, Classical Rhetoric taught by Frank D'Angelo. I knew that if I wanted to keep teaching, and keep up with the needs of my students I must become acquainted with the history and theories of the discipline. Since I was and am a fiction writer, I was afraid that I would find the study of rhetoric too difficult and uncomfortable and entered that classroom with trepidation.

I enjoyed Classical Rhetoric and although I sometimes found the various theories challenging, the study broadened my view of my own writing and helped me to better aid my students in their various writing endeavors. I found that the class provided a new language to discuss the things I thought about too, but had often assigned my own names. What Dr. D'Angelo taught as topoi, I had grappled with as a fiction writer when considering point of view, the importance of place to story, and the methods of character development. I enjoy adding to my vocabulary, making connections between my own writing and rhetorical theory, and particularly enjoy reading the wide variety of ideas offered by composition teachers. I have taken one or two classes each year since then and now have 21 hours of credit in Rhetoric and Composition.

Even though I've only been taking rhetoric and composition classes since 1994, I have been considering composition theory since 1990 when I begin teaching at ASU. During the more than ten years I've been teaching at Arizona State I have five times seen, within our department, changes both large and small in philosophy or theory with resultant changes in textbooks--Process and Thought, Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum, Critical Strategies, St. Martin's Guide, and now Allyn and Bacon.  I've taught from other books at other schools. I've taught with no books at other schools. I now realize that this is the nature of our profession. We change methods, we try new ideas, we gather information to apply to our next class and our next curriculum design. Some of us write new textbooks. We keep what has best promoted student learning until it is replaced with something better, yet determining what is 'better' is sometimes difficult as not all agree with imposed goals of education or with the methods of a current textbook. However, these competing epistemologies form an ongoing conversation that continually inspires, sharpens, and challenges my beliefs. Many of our activities are theory based, or are based on parts of theories, and I agree with Berlin that what we are doing in English departments today is teaching "rhetorics" not RHETORIC.

I am a metaphysician. This is not a confession, but by this I mean that my main study is the ultimate nature of existence. I don't mean to imply that I am necessarily an intellectual, or that I'm practicing to be a sage or a mystic, I simply mean that I am interested in the study of universal principles that to date transcend physical limitation or quantification. Aristotle and Aquinas inspired me, and I began to refine my thinking by reading Wittgenstein, Einstein, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, and most recently Chaos Theory. I don't even pretend to understand all that I do read, however philosophically, this is definitely where my interests lie.

So, in considering my philosophy or theory of teaching and how I align with theorist in rhetoric and composition I've come to the conclusion that I can't be a one horse theorist. I believe like Plato that there are universals, but unlike Plato I don't worry that they can't be communicated. I believe that we construct reality through the interaction of our conscious and subconscious mind and through interaction with others--we construct our own reality, and language is one main element we use in that construction.

As I understand Berlin, I am in some ways associated with what he describes as the New Rhetoric or epistemic rhetoric although I find I often use expressionist methods, particulary when teaching beginning or "basic writers" as I know from my own teaching experience that sometimes it is the only way to encourage students to write at all. I do have intellectual and emotional ties to Emerson, Fuller and the Transcendentalists. However unlike Plato, and Emerson et. all, I do not believe that intuition is the only way to arrive at truth. As for other theories, I was never comfortable with current traditional methods of thinking about or teaching English.

 The reason that I claim some association with the New Rhetoricians is that according to them truth is the result of a dynamic dialectical process involving interaction of opposing elements.  I agree with this as creation does require a combination of positive, and negative charges, and I think the resultant methodology works well in the classroom. Yet, while Berlin declares that "the basic elements of the dialectic are the elements that make up the communication process--writer (speaker), audience, reality, language, and they shape knowledge," I'd say that speaker, audience and language, literally forms or creates reality, and I'm not sure who agrees or disagrees with me on this point.

 I am not in wholehearted agreement with the New Rhetoricians. I disagree with them about language being prior to truth. I think this is an artificial construct forcing an either or situation when it's not. I think the two are reciprocally involved in the creation of reality. I do agree that writing is the making of meanings, and I also like the New Rhetoric because structure and language, at the heart of making meaning, are not written off as simply stylistic gesture.

Idea, Force and Form is the cabalistic formula for creation--for sacred magic--and it is also the formula for rhetoric--see the rhetorical triangle. Years ago I came across a quote from a rabbi whose name I've now forgotten. He was quoted as saying, "cut a blade of grass and you shake the universe." Chaos theory now confirms his statement. How powerful then is the well-considered speech of the people? How powerful, how important is rhetoric? Metaphysicians say, "when you have the word, you have the thing itself," Wittgenstein would agree, and so do I. In the past I've written on the connection between rhetoric, magic and Chaos theory, and although I've made no profound discoveries, proposed no original theory, I have found some provocative connections.

Berlin, in Rhetoric and Reality says, "the test of one's competence as a composition instructor, it seems to me, resides in being able to recognize and justify the version of the process being taught, complete with all of its significance for the student" (Berlin 59). I agree that a teacher must have a theoretical base and the ability to recognize the theories of others, but I would add that when anyone becomes too attached to any one version of reality, when they become rigid in their beliefs, suffering will result--and I don't think that suffering is necessary to the discovery of truth. As a relatively new teacher of rhetoric and composition, my goals are to continue my investigations and remain teachable and open to what benefits students.