In reading Fulkerson’s Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, I appreciated the way that composition was discussed in a way that highlighted the manners in which it shifted and changed as it developed in academia. As Fulkerson identified the different schools of thought and how they identified with the values of composition themselves, I found myself taking away many important messages.
One of the most interesting parts of this text relates to his discussion of critical/ cultural studies and the way this theory of teaching composition came to be. As he explained the influx of social elements in composition courses, I found myself making correlations to the courses I have taken in my time at SDSU. I have noticed many of these social influences in courses like RWS 602 and 609, as we have spent a great deal of time talking about various social elements and talking about perspectives on how to address them. Additionally, these ideas became a focus of our writing and discussion and served as course materials, similar to the way that Fulkerson describes courses in this school of composition thought.
Additionally, I was able to make further comparisons to these courses as Fulkerson talked about the democratic nature of critical/cultural composition. In these courses at SDSU, we spent a great deal of time deliberating and discussing topics with the teacher, with the instructor acting as a guide rather than as someone who leads by example. I found this to be particularly interesting as it was further discussed by Fulkerson as he highlighted some of the strengths and weaknesses of this school of thought. One such weakness that stood out to me was the idea that democratic discussion of social issues can lead to indoctrination. I can see how this idea was conceived, as I have even noticed minor instances of group indoctrination and shifting ideologies in my time in these courses. Another weakness that Fulkerson highlighted relates to the idea that these courses are based in sociology rather than writing. I completely understand this perspective, as much of the class discussion in these classes (particularly RWS 602) centered around perspectives and sociological ideals rather than traditional composition.
With that said, another area of Fulkerson’s article that interested me was his discussion on the development of traditional rhetorical composition. I appreciated the way that Fulkerson broke down the school of thought into argument, genre, and academically based rhetoric. Similarly to his concepts on critical/cultural composition, I found myself making many comparisons to previous classes. I found the way that he highlighted this school of thought’s focus on traditional teaching methods as centered in making an argument through logos, ethos and pathos to be easily identifiable in many past graduate courses.
While I see merit in all the schools of thought that Fulkerson identified, I also agree with him that all values in composition are interconnected. I think it is great that he broke down these concepts, but I also strongly feel that these variations depend on one another for either fundamental instruction or for social and ideological development.
While I feel that his ideas are sound, I feel that he somewhat undermined his argument by concluding that “composition is less unified” as it has developed. While it is obvious that these schools of thought are separated as he spends a great deal of time talking about how each theory for teaching composition functions differently, he also shows that they are fundamentally connected through his axiologies of composition. By ending the discussion by saying that everything is less unified, he somewhat decreases the importance of these ideas as stemming from fundamental values.
In all, I enjoyed reading this text and I am excited to present my discussion of its ideas in class. I look forward to hearing the class discussion and further developing my thoughts on Fulkerson’s ideas.
Jake Anderson 