Richard Fulkerson: Theories of Writing that Aren’t

After reading Richard Fulkerson’s article, I find myself questioning my own interpretive ability. The focus of Fulkerson’s piece was supposed to be essentially a review of the four philosophies dividing composition theory. However, I find the first two philosophies to have almost NOTHING to do with composition theory at all. As to the final two philosophies dealing with rhetoric, I think we will probably kick that dead horse beyond even dental recognition during Tuesday’s class.

Critical Cultural Studies entails many aspects that are near and dear to my heart. I find no fault in grounding a class in a group of texts, nor do I have any problem with the idea that part of the instructor’s responsibility is to focus on “the interpretation … of readings, either about cultural theory or the experiences of a cultural group or individual” (660). This is a wonderful way to approach the creation and purpose of literature; however, it cannot exist as a philosophy of composition because there is no way to gauge a student’s work. Thankfully, Fulkerson agrees: “What we come down to is that the writing in such a course will be judged by how sophisticated or insightful the teacher finds the interpretation of the relevant artifacts to be” (662). The grading would have nothing to do with actually judging composition. Instead, this theory would place the focus of the grade on how much the teacher liked the student’s ideas. This must only be part of judging a work; to be whole, the theory of composition must also have a strong grounding in the “process” that Fulkerson occasionally alluded to but rarely elaborated upon. The best application I found of CCS in action was his case study of the duel class approach on pages 662 and 663; however, even here the students would have their writing judged in the first class with little structural foundation.

I did not find Contemporary Expressivist Composition to be any more complete. Instead of focusing on a literary surgical device, like in the CCS model, CEC appears to be grounded precariously on “voice.” While voice is an important component to good writing, it is nowhere near the foundation. When I teach my freshmen, one of the first things I tell them is that I will accept well structured garbage much more readily than garbage that is clearly theirs. In fact, I go so far as to exclude their ability to use first and second person pronouns for their formal work until they are able to see that the focus of their work is found in structure and content. If these are well written, their voice will become clear through their choice of vocabulary, rhetorical structure, and appropriate support. Expressivist writing, like Critical Cultural Studies, has its place in the classroom; “freewriting, journaling, and small group dialogic response[s]” are excellent modes of writing to focus the ideas of the students and to create good discussions (567). This theory of composition would be better labeled as a theory of pre-composition.

Well, reader, rarely do I ask for this, but I hope that someone takes me to task for my readings of these two theories. I find it difficult to believe that professionals who are clearly smarter than I am could stand behind theories of writing that focus on areas besides actual writing structure as a foundation for good composition.