My first impression of this piece: Fulkerson is frustrated with the lack of development and numerous disagreements about teaching composition to students. He observes correctly how the field—relatively new in relation to other genres of English studies—seemed to stop its progress with the advent of the millennium. The reasons for this untimely halt are related to new branches that have entered this field and with their emergence an alteration of the original goals. In 1990 Fulkerson felt optimistic and uplifted by the surge of advances in this “field” of study. “Good Writing” was considered language; ”Rhetorically effective for audience and situation.” The areas of conflict were expected—assignments, grading, readings, and teacher response but the goal was shared by all involved; the means to success were simply in transition.
Fulkerson blames the addition of
CCS—critical/ cultural studies—for creating new problems for the teacher. He
also feels expressionism is taking over and finds the result is causing the
rhetorical approach to split into three parts. By comparing two volumes on the
subject, one published in 1980 at a highpoint of this trend and the other in
2001 when it is seemingly in conflict, he emphasizes the addition of too many
new areas which create more confusion to this fairly new concept of teaching.
It seems the simplicity of being able to write freely--within a loose
framework--is complicated with each new addition to this writing landscape; the
time factor is simply too rapid for these new ideas to become accepted norms. He
poses four questions which represent a solid base on which to “erect a course”
and it is a rather intriguing grid for any willing party to attempt to complete—he
does not. I agree that cultural studies is the forerunner throughout the field
with the feminist approach trailing close behind. And, of course, postcolonial
gets an honorable mention as well. These approaches were not as commonly
employed in a classroom setting in 1980 or before but are now considered a
standard. I can only guess that in 2001 when Fulkerson was researching,
revisiting, and writing about the rhetorical movement’s progress, this
transition within the field was taking a firm hold.
One key point of any writing is
interpretation and how each new group of student-writers approach any or all
topics assigned or suggested. Many topics are far afield of what we may
consider “English” but in order to confidently interpret and/ or analyze, one
needs to be capable of expressing their thoughts. Often, a juxtaposition or
argument to emphasize and clarify one’s position can be the deciding factor for
their target audience. I can, however, see why Fulkerson feels CCS courses work
against the idea of teaching college-level writing. He puts it succinctly: “Reading,
analyzing, and discussing the texts upon which the course rests are unlikely to
leave room for any actual teaching of writing.” This is seemingly an
unavoidable evil in a classroom setting. People usually learn to write by
wanting to express some belief, ideal, or point of contention in their own way.
Much of anyone’s writing is a form of “modeling” because, in truth, as children
we wrote simply because we wanted to; it was new and we could use our own voice
in diaries, journals, letters, and poems. All of that personal writing was ours
and written for the sense of pleasure, and accomplishment it provided. In a
classroom, it is more prudent to have a basic game plan or standard set by the
teacher so everyone knows what is expected—writing must conform to certain
limits (length, deadlines, framework) but not a repression of creativity or
imagination. Fulkerson mentions the possibility of indoctrination which can be
problematic in some situations. Teachers as well as students will have their
opinions and should feel free to share; discretion, good judgment and respect must
always be upheld on both sides of the learning process so as not to inhibit
anyone’s creative flow.
Being such a theatre enthusiast, I especially liked
his section on the great Socratean writing tradition as I feel that has always
been my personal impetus to write. “Knowing thyself” is often the result of writing
down the turmoil I cannot yet voice. Once on paper, I can both find my voice
and listen to others more sincerely. As Fulkerson admits, his essay is composed
in the tradition of 1970’s composition which he calls” procedural rhetoric.” I
too tend to write in a similar fashion, unintentionally trying to honor the
classical issues: pathos, ethos, and logos. His reference to the WPA statement
reinforces my naivety on the numerous changes that have taken place in the art
of teaching writing; the thesis statement was never such a focal point in my
earlier years as a student (probably pre-WPA). Writing for an audience was
always understood, even as a fledgling student-writer. The need for
argumentation makes sense as only through argument can conflict be resolved,
leading to the desired denouement; conflicts create tension and are of
interest---problems and solutions are the stuff of life and what we love to
write-(and read)-about. Fulkerson also discusses a genre approach
which utilizes a modernized version of classical Greek stasis theory; this
seems rather limiting. After following all his points, both the benefits and
deficits of this genre, he states, “The pedagogy is essentially the classical
one of imitation.”
This brings us back
to how we began to write as young students, and how Aristotle set down the
template in his Poetics. Fulkerson admits there is an internal controversy over
the goal of teaching writing in college and what its intended outcomes should be. His analysis seems quite thorough and his
passion very real. The unification of the 1980’s seems disrupted as new ideas
become apparent and vital; but that actually creates more material and
conflicts to write about.
In Donald M. Murray’s “Teach Writing
as a Process Not Product” many of the very ideals Fulkerson promotes are
clearly exposed in their infancy. Written in 1972 (when I was in seventh grade)
this was an open, encouraging approach to writing which seems very familiar to
me. Many of these principles were employed by my teachers in seventh through
eighth grade and were visited again as a
high-school senior in accelerated English (probably the forerunner to AP
courses). Although we did not try peer review, we did work in small groups and
were required to keep a daily journal. Finding our own subject was alowed for
certain projects, and we were free to create at our own pace as long as the
finished product was ready by the deadline (Implication No. 7). There were
rules to follow to a certain extent, but if the product was done well, thought through, and geared to a target
auudience, it was acceptable and graded accordingly. This stimulated, for me, a
desire to write and express myself—it was a great motivator. And Murray was
completely correct in saying that, “what works one time may not another”(Implication
No. 10). His assertion that these practices could be uccessfully incorporated
into an English class are proven correct and they truly did create
an environment of viewing writing as a
process—much like any other creative journey.
