Fulkerson Article

Fulkerson argues in “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century” that the approaches to composition theory are fractured and are continually becoming more frayed. In the article, he outlines three current theories: critical/cultural studies, expressivism, and procedural rhetoric (655), and in doing so, Fulkerson analyzes the evaluation, view of process, pedagogical ideology, and epistemology of each.

The focus of cultural studies is on the unbalanced and unjust power relationships between forces of domination and those of subjugation. The purpose is not only to represent the subaltern, but also for the writer to liberate himself from the dominant societal mindset. What I love about this approach is that instructors encourage students to challenge authority, to reflect on cultural differences, and to think critically. The criticism of this approach is that it doesn’t teach writing. But if this approach really can make strides in achieving a more socially just and harmonious country or even world, can one argue that “good” writing is more important? Another fear that arises with the CCS approach is one of indoctrination – will professors merely engrain in their students their own specific ideologies? I don’t think it has to be this way personally. Can’t one teach from a CCS approach and genuinely teach critical thinking at the same time ?

Expressivism, which apparently has been growing under the radar, is more focused on the “personal development” of the writer (667). Again, the focus is not on the writing process, but neither is it on critical thinking here: expressivism is about exploring one’s own thoughts and leaning about oneself. Personally, I think that there is definitely a place for this approach in education, yet I don not feel this should be the main strategy in teaching composition. This type of writing might inspire creativity, and it might be therapeutic, but I don’t think that this is the approach that serious academic scholarship needs. Fulkerson then brings up the debate about “process” writing versus “post-process” writing.

Finally, Fulkerson brings up the rhetorical approach to composition, yet he has divided this category into three distinct philosophies: “composition as argumentation, genre-based composition, and composition as introduction to an academic discourse community” (671). The argumentation approach is the idea that the purpose of a composition is to present and support an argument, the genre approach focuses on the “modes of discourse,” and the third approach, centering on discourse communities, focuses on training students to become a part of the academic community through instruction in language, composition, and research.

Fulkerson’s final conclusion, that “limiting students to understanding one dominant perspective disadvantages them. Programs will have to make serious choices and perhaps prepare students as utility players able to fit several positions,” is probably his most accurate statement of all (680).