Composition Theory II
Originally Submitted March 28, 2011: A second attempt at composition theory.
The Oxford English Dictionary offers a long list of definitions for the terms “composition,” beginning with the most general and progressing to the specific. Definition I2 provides a helpful beginning point for thinking about what composition means for the field or discipline of Composition. Composition, according to this definition, is “[t]he forming (of anything) by combination of various elements, parts, or ingredients; formation, constitution, construction, making up.” This is a broad, but solid description of the activity of composition. The parenthetical “anything” gestures to the near-infinite broadness of things that might be composed and fields which consider some kind of composition to be under their purview. The question, then, is with which things the field of Composition is concerned and how it is concerned with them. I would argue that the history of the field is one of broadening and opening up in both of these areas.
In reference to the first question (With what is Composition concerned?) I would like to consider mainly the recent history of the field (i.e. since the early twentieth century). “The Bedford Bibliography: History of Rhetoric and Composition” identifies New Criticism in the 1930’s as inspiring the move towards what would become modern Composition Studies. A (perhaps the) watershed moment for the field was the appearance of the journal of College Composition and Communication (CCC) in 1950. The title of the journal could allow for a broad range of interpretation, adding “communication,” a term which can be conceived of in equally broad terms to those I have identified for “composition” above. And perhaps it is this broadness that has allowed CCC to remain the flagship journal of the field for more than half a century. However, early incarnations of the field were decidedly focused on writing, specifically academic writing. That is, words were the things to be composed, and the academic essay (a unilateral category that is now in question) was the result of this composition. It would be several decades before the field began to consider seriously that the composition of non-lexical units, as well as a broader range of composition products both in terms of genre and media/modes, might also be worthy and relevant for consideration.
To address the second question (How is Composition concerned with these units and products?), it is important to consider the longer history of Rhetoric and Composition. The field of Rhetoric dates back to Ancient Greece, where it was concerned with the crafting of persuasive arguments. The construction and analysis of arguments has remained an important consideration for Composition, even as the definition of what constitutes an argument and, indeed, who is permitted to make arguments, has expanded. It is important to note that in Ancient Greece (Athens specifically), only citizens of the polis were allowed to participate in rhetoric. The qualifications for citizenship were extremely narrow. Only men could be citizens, but further than that, citizenship was also limited by class and ancestry.
The field of Composition has broadened over time in two different, but closely related ways. First, more and more people and groups have been permitted to engage in composition. The composition classroom has opened to different genders, races, and classes. Second, the field has changed and expanded in terms of what kinds of compositions and whose compositions are valued. In the early to mid twentieth century, teaching writing was conceived of as teaching grammar and style with the idea that these “surface” elements were easily divisible from content. Gradually, scholars realized that no such easy division existed, resulting in more holistic theories of writing. Feminist and other scholars also showed that these early theories of writing were not as ideologically neutral as they claimed. Rather they reflected gendered, raced, and classed conceptions of what writing is and what it should be.
The move to identify ideology in writing, and to change it, and the move to include different types of units and products under the umbrella of Composition are related, but not identical. Indeed, all the various changes in the what and how of Composition Studies are rather messy in their interrelations. In general, though, the trend over the last half-century has been towards more and broader. Some practices and theories have been abandoned, but generally these are abandoned because they promote exclusion of either peoples or practices. At the present moment, the history of the field is apparent in the continued interest in words as units of composition and a strong focus on pedagogy and the classroom as a site of composition. However, the progress of the field is apparent in the diversity of topics now being considered in Composition work. These include but certainly are not limited to: studies of difference in composition and in composers, the visual, other modes and media and/or multimodality, vernacular and other extracurricular composition, and digital and networked composition. As Composition continues to expand, one might ask how it will keep its focus as a field/discipline. I believe that this is where the inclusion of Rhetoric is important. “Composition” can refer to anything from math to music to baking, but the field of Composition is specifically concerned with composing and examining compositions that make arguments. The questions that drive the field are those that relate the activities and products of making and combining units with the principles of rhetorical argument. What is a good or effective argument? What are the ethical implications of composing arguments in a certain way? How does argument work in different modes and media and with different technologies? And, of course, how can we teach students to both recognize arguments in existing compositions, and to incorporate rhetorically appropriate arguments into their own composition?
The Oxford English Dictionary offers a long list of definitions for the terms “composition,” beginning with the most general and progressing to the specific. Definition I2 provides a helpful beginning point for thinking about what composition means for the field or discipline of Composition. Composition, according to this definition, is “[t]he forming (of anything) by combination of various elements, parts, or ingredients; formation, constitution, construction, making up.” This is a broad, but solid description of the activity of composition. The parenthetical “anything” gestures to the near-infinite broadness of things that might be composed and fields which consider some kind of composition to be under their purview. The question, then, is with which things the field of Composition is concerned and how it is concerned with them. I would argue that the history of the field is one of broadening and opening up in both of these areas.
In reference to the first question (With what is Composition concerned?) I would like to consider mainly the recent history of the field (i.e. since the early twentieth century). “The Bedford Bibliography: History of Rhetoric and Composition” identifies New Criticism in the 1930’s as inspiring the move towards what would become modern Composition Studies. A (perhaps the) watershed moment for the field was the appearance of the journal of College Composition and Communication (CCC) in 1950. The title of the journal could allow for a broad range of interpretation, adding “communication,” a term which can be conceived of in equally broad terms to those I have identified for “composition” above. And perhaps it is this broadness that has allowed CCC to remain the flagship journal of the field for more than half a century. However, early incarnations of the field were decidedly focused on writing, specifically academic writing. That is, words were the things to be composed, and the academic essay (a unilateral category that is now in question) was the result of this composition. It would be several decades before the field began to consider seriously that the composition of non-lexical units, as well as a broader range of composition products both in terms of genre and media/modes, might also be worthy and relevant for consideration.
To address the second question (How is Composition concerned with these units and products?), it is important to consider the longer history of Rhetoric and Composition. The field of Rhetoric dates back to Ancient Greece, where it was concerned with the crafting of persuasive arguments. The construction and analysis of arguments has remained an important consideration for Composition, even as the definition of what constitutes an argument and, indeed, who is permitted to make arguments, has expanded. It is important to note that in Ancient Greece (Athens specifically), only citizens of the polis were allowed to participate in rhetoric. The qualifications for citizenship were extremely narrow. Only men could be citizens, but further than that, citizenship was also limited by class and ancestry.
The field of Composition has broadened over time in two different, but closely related ways. First, more and more people and groups have been permitted to engage in composition. The composition classroom has opened to different genders, races, and classes. Second, the field has changed and expanded in terms of what kinds of compositions and whose compositions are valued. In the early to mid twentieth century, teaching writing was conceived of as teaching grammar and style with the idea that these “surface” elements were easily divisible from content. Gradually, scholars realized that no such easy division existed, resulting in more holistic theories of writing. Feminist and other scholars also showed that these early theories of writing were not as ideologically neutral as they claimed. Rather they reflected gendered, raced, and classed conceptions of what writing is and what it should be.
The move to identify ideology in writing, and to change it, and the move to include different types of units and products under the umbrella of Composition are related, but not identical. Indeed, all the various changes in the what and how of Composition Studies are rather messy in their interrelations. In general, though, the trend over the last half-century has been towards more and broader. Some practices and theories have been abandoned, but generally these are abandoned because they promote exclusion of either peoples or practices. At the present moment, the history of the field is apparent in the continued interest in words as units of composition and a strong focus on pedagogy and the classroom as a site of composition. However, the progress of the field is apparent in the diversity of topics now being considered in Composition work. These include but certainly are not limited to: studies of difference in composition and in composers, the visual, other modes and media and/or multimodality, vernacular and other extracurricular composition, and digital and networked composition. As Composition continues to expand, one might ask how it will keep its focus as a field/discipline. I believe that this is where the inclusion of Rhetoric is important. “Composition” can refer to anything from math to music to baking, but the field of Composition is specifically concerned with composing and examining compositions that make arguments. The questions that drive the field are those that relate the activities and products of making and combining units with the principles of rhetorical argument. What is a good or effective argument? What are the ethical implications of composing arguments in a certain way? How does argument work in different modes and media and with different technologies? And, of course, how can we teach students to both recognize arguments in existing compositions, and to incorporate rhetorically appropriate arguments into their own composition?