Fulkerson, Richard. “Composition Theory in the Eighties: Axiological Consensus and Paradigmatic Diversity.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 41, no. 4, 1990, pp. 409–29.

• consensus on values: what to concern in writing pedagogy: audience
• paradigmatic diversity: means to teach writing becomes diversified
• separation between ideology and pedagogical practice; no need for the consistence, the elements from pedagogical practice can be integrated.
• Thus writing classroom becomes an apolitical, neutral space.
• Fulkerson can be located in the school of “cognitive psychological rhetoric”
• Background (409-10)
  • ends and means

what is valued	philosophy or ideology or axiology
text	formalist
writer	expressive
external reality	mimetic
reader	rhetorical

• • one’s philosophy co-relates with pedagogical concerns, such as textbook choices, assignment design
  • 2 messages:
    1. teaching is embedded with value/ideology
    2. teachers often apply means that are against their teaching values.
  • a growing consensus of goal: “audience”
  • conflicting means to achieve the goal
  • Organization of the article:
    1. a metatheory
    2. role of “philosophy of composition”
    3. with textual evidence: composition studies –> homogeneity (goal) and diversity (methods)
• Elements of a Full Theory of Composition (410-11)
  • aim: what constitutes good writing
  • means: for writers
  • means: for teachers
  • an epistemology: what counts for knowledege
• Theory of Composition a Decade Later: Three Axiologies in Decline (411-14)
  • consensus of rhetorical axiology: audience
  • Expressivism
    • writer, self, individualism
  • Formalism
    • text, correction
    • no journal scholarship defends formalist assertion
  • Mimeticism
    • the external reality
• The Emerging Consensus: Rhetorical Axiology (414-417) (5 sorts of evidence to see the consensus (of focusing on reader) in composition community and the consensus was not shared a decade ago)
  • Textbooks (for students)
  • Books on Teaching Writing (for teachers)
    • writing: getting things done
  • Concern for Audience
  • The Social Conception of Writing
    • peer responses as audience feedback
    • discourse community
  • Writing Across the Curriculum
    • communal norms
  • my question: The consensus was not shared a decade ago.
    • According to Berlin, theory of rhetoric is historically bound. Why does 1980s turn to audience? What is the historical context or ideology change that can relate to the consensus and changes?
    • Fulkerson discovers the change but does not address the causes to the change.
• Axiological Consensus and Continuing Theoretical Diversity (417-420)
  • Axiological consensus on audience (goal), but with different means to reach it.
  • Critique on social perspective of rhetoric/composition pedagogy
  • Diverse Theories of the Writing Process
    • attack on “social-epistemic rhetoric”, which states because writing is social, a collaborative pedagogy is required.
    • Fulkerson thinks it is an oversimplification
      • for Fulkerson, classroom writing and writing outside of classroom are different. Writing for pedagogical purpose should be isolated.
      • Thus, writing pedagogy becomes an apolitical context.
  • Diversity in Pedagogical Theories
    • axiological commitment will not determine classroom decisions
      • the separation between theory and practice.
• Classifying Divergent Theories (420-22)
  • criticism to James Berlin (1988)
  • to recognize the independence of pedagogy, epistemology, process theory, and axiology
    • to further isolate pedagogy from epistemology
  • Berlin: ideology as the center of classroom activities
    • Fulkerson understands Berlin as “a course using writing to promote a single social agenda”
      • My notes: Fulkerson understands deconstructive discourse in a normative manner. Berlin is not promoting one specific way of pedagogy. Shor’s example shows the classroom behavior is a complexity: “success in this classroom can never be guaranteed” (Berlin, 492)
    • Fulkerson think Berlin’s concept is writing pedagogy irrelevant.
  • Fulkerson thinks Berlin integrates the axiology, process theory, pedagogy, and epistemology holistically as a “package”
  • Berlin: consistency between goals and means
  • Fulkerson: separation between goals and means.
    • pedagogy can be independent.
    • To isolate writing (at least in classroom) as an apolitical, neutral context.
    • within the isolated pedagogy, integrated methods can be applied.
    • Back to “cognitive rhetoric” (by Berlin). Fulkerson is one of them.
      • Why does Fulkerson separate pedagogy from the ideological frame?
        • It is because Fulkerson seeks new laws. He needs normative methods. Serve classroom teaching and evaluation.
    • To interrogate Fulkerson, we can return to Berlin’s questions:
      • What’s real?
      • What’s good?
      • What’s possible?
      • Or, why does Berlin not care the political context of writing?
• Theoretical Incompatibility (422-23)
  • Even though consistence between goals and means are not necessary, sometimes, we see some are logically incompatible.
  • Some examples that teachers practice means that are against the goals.
• On the Other Hand (424)