{"id":7035,"date":"2006-09-07T08:57:22","date_gmt":"2006-09-07T08:57:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.earthwidemoth.com\/blog\/2006\/09\/07\/lefevre-inventi\/"},"modified":"2006-09-07T08:57:22","modified_gmt":"2006-09-07T08:57:22","slug":"lefevre-inventi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.earthwidemoth.com\/blog\/2006\/09\/07\/lefevre-inventi\/","title":{"rendered":"LeFevre, Invention as a Social Act<\/i>"},"content":{"rendered":"\u23f3 Approximate reading time: <\/span> 3<\/span> mins<\/span><\/span>\n

LeFevre,
\n Karen Burke. Invention as a Social Act<\/i>. Studies in Writing and
\n Rhetoric Ser. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Invention as a Social Act<\/i> is a landmark book on rhetorical invention.
\nLefevre introduces "a more adequate terminology" for rhetorical invention,
\ncomplicating commonplace associations between the "generation of ideas" and the
\nPlatonic view of invention as inside-out, wrought from a transcendent
\ninteriority moving toward pure forms. Lefevre is clear about individualism
\nhaving a proper place, but she contends that it is "overdone" and that the
\nsolitary, inspired inventor (rel. to Emersonian self-reliance; seed metaphor;
\nand invention as private episode) is inadequate for its neglect of environmental
\nfactors constitutive of thought and language. <\/p>\n

Lefevre sets up contrastive terms early on: narrow-broad, rhetorical-general,
\nand reflective-dynamic (5). Reflective invention relates to copy theory;
\ndynamic invention relates to inquiry and the creation of something new. She
\nexplains why composition studies, in the 19th and 20th centuries, favored the
\nPlatonic view: the influence of literary studies (15), Romantic figure of the
\ninspired writer (17); and capitalism and individualism (19). In an effort to
\ncomplicate the Platonic view, she proposes a continuum running across
\nfour views<\/a> on
\ninvention (we might consider these as scalar): Platonic perspective, internal
\ndialogic perspective, collaborative perspective, and social collective
\nperspective.<\/p>\n

George Herbert Mead on invention as collaboration<\/b>: gesture,
\nattribution or interpretation, and response or adjustive reaction (62).
\nBefore the final chapter (implications), Lefevre works through an extended
\nconsideration of the relation between thought and language. <\/p>\n

Limitations of the Platonic view:<\/p>\n