I have never really given much thought to the mechanics or history of writing. I would consider myself an avid reader, yet I have not read many texts concerning the history or evolution of composition. After finishing the first readings for this class I can see that will all change this semester, and I find it quite intriguing. All of our first readings deal with the development and evolution of composition as its own field of study, and the importance of being able to use good and proper English in your writing or speech, no matter what field you desire to be in. Of all the readings the one I found most interesting was “Composition Studies: Dappled Discipline” by Janice M Lauer, which first appeared in the Rhetoric Review in 1984. In this article Lauer reflects on the “development of graduate programs in composition” and the questions a developing field must face in order to be accepted (20).
Lauer begins by determining the “predominant features of any discipline”, and how composition studies coincide with these features (20). Lauer then begins discussing how composition studies came to be. I found it interesting that this field only began developing in the early sixties (21), and that it came about from teachers who felt they were inadequately prepared to teach their students writing. This reminds me of what several people said in the Take 20 DVD we watched in class, especially the female professor who said you have to change the way you teach every five years because literacy changes. It seems to me composition studies is one of the first fields to recognize the need for fluidity in its own structure so it can change and evolve with the times.
Composition studies have developed by a series of questions about “the nature of the writing process…, and its susceptibility to being taught as an art (21)”, and then questions on how to properly answer those questions it has raised. Another intriguing point of the article to me is how Lauer deems the “early theorists” of composition studies as risk takers, willing to “go beyond the boundaries of their traditional training (21)”. Unsatisfied with the state of composition in schools they looked to several other fields to determine exactly how composition studies should develop and what criteria it should be held to. By delving into other fields such as speech, psychology, and philosophy composition studies seems to have achieved another first – a field that recognizes and relies on the ability to be literate in multiple disciplines.
Lauer goes on to discuss the various methods used to test or argue theories, most notably Habermas’ four levels of discourse (22). Lauer also discusses the difficulties composition studies faces in reaching consensus among peers. It seems that journals who held wide readership, people at all different levels of discourse, could not agree on the advances these pioneers were trying to make. On the other hand, Lauer warns of theories that were too readily accepted, when theories were “prematurely promulgated as truth (24). According to Lauer “most composition scholars consider their theories and conclusions to be fallible (24)”, a statement I find comforting since I am just beginning to explore the world of composition from a scholarly view. Another comforting thought is how composition studies evolved to perform a role in both “academia and society” to “gain the power to effect change” against the problems with illiteracy facing many students outside the field of English (25).
As Lauer moves on to discuss advantages and risk of the distinctive features of composition studies, I come to see it as a field in which one either sinks or swims. The field has Lauer puts it, “largely unmapped territory [that has] rewarded some handsomely but been fatal to others (25).” Pursuing scholarship in composition studies should be pursued by those who understand how to follow a path through unexplored territory, using effective methods of investigation and research to avoid “losing their way (25)”. Thus the need from the beginning for composition studies to be a fluid field that interacts with multiple disciplines.
Yet even the ability to build from other fields presents a danger. One can not just assume a theory they wish to build on as infallible but must thoroughly understand what theory they are building from in its “parent field” (26). If one were to build their theory on top of another and that base is later debunked, then by default their theory is too. But how far does one have to delve into the other fields? Lauer raises this question towards the end of the article, discussing how graduate programs should train their students in composition studies. Is it possible to teach them just the newly developed theories of composition without them understand the bases they came from? In order to be a master of composition studies it seems you need to be able to have a firm grip in several other fields, ranging from philosophy or sociology as well as sciences and mathematics. Just as it is necessary to have a command of composition to be successful in these other fields, it is impertinent that they not be excluded in studies of a composition student.
One thing I most appreciate about the article is that Lauer does not try and answer all of these questions. They are left open for the reader to contemplate, yet with a clear understanding that composition studies is very much a unique field of its own that it still growing, and perhaps always will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment