Composition: History & Theory: 2000 - 2009
Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century
Description
In his article “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century,” Richard Fulkerson argues that “the ‘social turn’ in composition, the importation of cultural studies from the social sciences and
literary theory, has made a writing teacher’s role deeply problematic.” “[E]xpressivism,” Fulkerson notes, “despite numerous poundings by the cannons of postmodernism and resulting eulogies, is, in fact, quietly expanding its region of command.” Essentially, he claims “the rhetorical approach has now divided itself in three” (656).
Composition in the ‘80s
Fulkerson wrote an article “Composition in the Eighties” in 1990. Looking back on the article, he notes: “I wrote with some optimism and sense of progress that as a field we had achieved a consensus about our goals: we agreed that we were to help students improve their writing and that ‘good writing’ meant writing that was rhetorically effective for audience and situation” (655).
Composition Now
Within scholarship, Fulkerson claims, there are three alternative axiologies: social or social-construction, expressive, and a multifaceted rhetorical one. These axiologies drive three composition pedagogies: “critical/cultural studies [CCS], expressivism, and procedural rhetoric” (655). Fulkerson begins by comparing two volumes, published 20 year apart, designed to introduce new college teachers to writing instruction: NCTE’s Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition (1980) and A Guide to Composition Pedagogies (2001), edited by Tate, Rupiper, and Schick. Major differences show up in the second publication in CSS, “showing the impact of postmodernism, feminism, and British cultural studies” (657). Due to the “Scholarizing” of the field, readings become dense, academic, large surveys.
Social Theories, Critical/Cultural Studies Approaches
Fulkerson notes that cultural studies has been a major movement in the scholarship in the discipline. Cultural, critical pedagogy, feminist, and postcolonial approaches, he notes, can be seen as “emancipatory movements in composition” (659). James Berlin, most famous CCS advocate, “defined the goal of the social composition course saying, ‘Our larger purpose is to encourage our students to resist and negotiate [...] hegemonic discourses—in order to bring about more personally humane and socially equitable economic and political arrangements’"(660). Essential features of the CCS course, as explained by Fulkerson, include:
- Interpretation of texts/media/experiences is at the center of class
- Multiple texts share the same theme, e.g. education, family
- Interpretive moves suggest the text unveils “deep structural truths about power in American society “(661).
- Students write papers about social artifacts
- Course goal is to “empower or liberate students by giving them new insights into injustices of American and transnational capitalism, politics, and complicit mass media” (661).
Fulkerson notes several problems with CCS courses. First, he explains that CCS courses could be conducted in a variety of other disciplines. There is no agreed upon writing process. Epistemology is entirely socially based: “The idea that one can accurately infer features of cultural hegemony from readings and other artifacts within one’s own culture is itself a crucial epistemological assumptions” (622). There is no agreed upon definition of good writing. Does it emphasize writing skills or cultural analysis? “Both the lit-based course” and the cultural studies course reflect,” Fulkerson suspects, “content envy on the part of writing teachers. Most of us (still) have been trained in textual analysis: we like classes built around texts to analyze” (663). Another problem that Fulkerson sees with CCS classes is that teachers begin to indoctrinate: “Teachers dedicated to exposing the social injustice of racism, classism, homophobia, misogyny, or capitalism cannot perforce accept student viewpoints that deny such views or fail to register their contemporary relevance” (665). Even though students are free to write from divergent viewpoints, “a socially committed teacher will rarely find contrary views presented by an undergraduate to be sufficiently ‘thoughtful’” (667).
Contemporary Expressivism
Fulkerson claims that the overriding goal of expressivism is to “foster aesthetics, cognitive, and moral development, not to improve written communication or encourage critical thinking” (668). Expressivists take different approaches: choosing own topics, private journaling etc. The definition of good writing is subjective.
Critical Approaches to Composition
“When the Council of Writing Program Administrators approved in 1999 a statement of minimal
standards for what a first-year writing course should accomplish,” Fulkerson notes, “neither critical cultural studies approaches or expressive ones were much reflected in the document” (671). The WPA statement assumed a position dominant in the ‘70s and ‘80s: procedural rhetoric.
Tenets of Procedural Rhetoric
Writing is judged by situation and audience. There are concerns for ethos, pathos, logos. Procedural rhetoricians believe that “writing is a complex extended set of (teachable) activities in which a wide variety of invention procedures may be valuable, and an equal variety of drafting and revision activities” (672). Readings are not center of the class. [Ironically, this approach is not discussed in the discipline’s journals. Are we too sophisticated for it?] Procedural Rhetoric, Fulkerson notes, is itself divided into three approaches: 1) Composition as argumentation; 2) Composition as genre: modes approach; 3) Discourse community: introduce students into the academic discourse community (Inventing the University).
Conclusion
At the end of his article, Fulkerson concludes that composition studies is a less unified field than it was 10 years ago: “We differ about what our courses are supposed to achieve, about how effective writing is best . produced, about what an effective classroom looks like, and about what it means to make knowledge.” “If the Tate, Rupiper, and Schick volume reflects our current standing as a field,” he writes, “the various ‘sociocultural pedagogies’ have become the center. “Process,” according to Fulkerson, “has been deemphasized, although each axiology accommodates some version of it.” “Classroom practices are in dispute,” he continues, “but tending toward an emphasis on reading.” In conclusion, he notes: “If, however, the WPA Statement accurately reflects the views of program directors, then perhaps procedural rhetoric is dominant in reality though not in publications. But the actual question of what is good writing is more problematic than ever” (681). ["Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century,” Richard Fulkerson College Composition and Communication 56.4 June 2005]
Date of Upload
3/15/09