English Salesman

Conflict in Composition Studies [Paper 1 Final]

     The essays of Patricia Bizzell explore the struggle between Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism in Composition Studies. This struggle is highly important because Composition Studies is highly influential in teaching students effective academic discourse, which is one of the most fundamental goals of the Academy. Each side believes that their approach will allow students to effectively participate in academic discourse. While both sides have important contributions to make to the field of Composition Studies, both sides also have flaws that make their wholesale acceptance undesirable. The correct blending of the two may provide an acceptable solution.

     Often represented as the Academy and its orthodox supporters, the Foundationalists’ main concern is that students be taught to reproduce standard academic discourse. Bizzell confirms this by putting it plainly, “We know this in composition studies because we are continually being urged, by administrators, colleagues, parents and students to teach academic discourse” (Bizzell 203). While teaching academic discourse addresses the needs of the academy, it does not necessarily address the needs of the students or of discourse communities. One of the largest problems with simply teaching discourse is that it does not adapt to students’ differing abilities to deal with the material. The effect of the straightforward teaching of discourse has been to make the

     Freshman English class a culling tool of the Academy, directing ‘acceptable’ students into the Academy while keeping ‘unacceptable’ students out. While historically that has seemed to be preferred policy of the Academy, an overwhelming influx of students unable to reproduce standard written English has made this approach problematic. In part, this change in students has lead to a re-examining of Composition Studies. Bizzell states that the academy was obliged to recognize that teachers, in order to more effectively teach Composition Studies for the new type of students, would have to better understand students’ writing processes, “ and the relationship between the academic discourse community and the student’s discourse communities” (Bizzell 108). The deficiencies in Foundationalism are readily apparent in Bizzell’s arguments. However, I would go further in rejecting Foundationalism.

     First, the primary reason for training students to be able to produce academic discourse is so that they may effectively participate in that discourse. I would assert that one of the essential skills in effective academic discourse is the ability to persuade the audience of said discourse. However the Foundationalists’ practice of training students often neglects the development of the student’s voice. I would further assert that personal voice is a key ingredient in effective persuasion. Therefore, when Foundationalists neglect to nurture a student’s voice, they handicap the student’s ability to persuade and therefore produce effective academic discourse. Secondly, limiting voice is a form of limiting expression and by extension, creativity. All healthy discourse communities need contrary points of view in order to remain healthy and effective communities. By denying students the opportunity to develop their voices, the Foundationalists may be stopping students from developing the creativity necessary to discover contrary points of view.   These two effects of Foundationalism and the lack of flexibility in the teaching method to adapt to the current nature of students in the modern university, make the Foundationalist approach to teaching discourse problematic. Neither the Academy nor Foundationalism is best served by the strict adherence to Foundationalist principals. This is not to say that Anti-Foundationalists have the correct answer.

     Anti-Foundationalists want to empower students to bring their own voices into academic discourse. Anti-Foundationalists generally believe that, as Bizzell states, “an absolute standard for the judgment of truth can never be found,” so they seek to protect the student from indoctrination into the Academy by questioning the educational authority of Foundationalism (Bizzell 202 -204). They do so by encouraging students to develop their voices and teaching the skills that allow students to analyze their discourse communities. Anti-Foundationalists believe that those skills will allow students to achieve a critical distance from those discourse communities and thus allow them to resist the wholesale acceptance of that community’s belief system.

      There are at least two difficulties with the Anti-Foundationalist approach. First, the Academy controls academic discourse. Any academic discourse that does not conform to the Academy’s standards is usually dismissed by the Academy. Any student’s discourse not conforming to the expectations of the Academy could simply be ignored for being too personal or not adhering to policy. That discourse would never be heard by the Academy. Even when students not initiated into the academic discourse community produce exceptional work, defects in their writing may keep them from communicating effectively. It is very likely that such a student would not be rewarded for their work and would eventually become discouraged and stop producing altogether. Conversely, students who come to the academy with the ability to produce standard written English will more easily conform to the Academy’s expectations. These students may gain favor more readily and thus alienate students who cannot easily produce standard written English. Secondly when the Anti-Foundationalists establish their agenda of teaching students voice and analyzation skills, there are still problems. Bizzell paraphrases Stanley Fish,

“Anti-Foundationalism slides back into Foundationalism. The tendency, in other words, is to hope that becoming aware of the personal, social, and historical circumstances that constitute our beliefs; we can achieve a critical distance on them and change our beliefs if we choose. In encouraging this hope, Anti-Foundationalism is setting up its method in place of the absolute standards of judgment it debunks.” (Bizzell 205) 

This is a point of contention but very significant.  Simply replacing the current set of standards with a new technique is not what the Anti-Foundationalists are struggling for.  If there is to be a new method of teaching discourse it must not cause problems similar to the ones that it was supposed to eliminate. The problems with Anti-Foundationalism make its unrestricted acceptance problematic.

      If neither Foundationalism nor Anti-Foundationalism is the answer, then what is? I believe that Bizzell nearly has the correct solution in her essay, “Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism.” Her solution is to teach standard discourse and then teach students to rhetorically analyze that discourse (Bizzell 218).  However, I would like to submit that these skills must be taught concurrently so as not to give one primacy over the other. If this is to be achieved, more time must be allotted for the teaching of discourse, analyzation skills and the development of voice. A simple suggestion comes to mind, although its implementation would be difficult.  The liberal arts core requirement for a Baccalaureate is six credit hours in composition. Perhaps the requirement could be increased to seven or eight hours, allowing those courses to function as if they had a laboratory feature. This would surely mean an overhaul of the standard requirements and would cause more then a minor stir in the academic community.  Additionally, Bizzell emphasizes the necessity of political activity for the faculty in order to maximize opportunities for students who are faced with the prospect of rejecting their own home discourse community or failing in the academic community (Bizzell 218).  I cannot disagree with her point, but I believe part of that faculty activism should be to ensure that as an institution, the Academy constantly reviews and adapts its standards. Those standards are the basis of academic discourse. To do less would be dangerous because non-current standards could serve as a restriction of students’ expression and therefore, their ability to participate in academic discourse.  These two changes should make a significant impact on the nature of Composition Studies and therefore academic discourse.  It is the blending of the Foundational need for the teaching of academic discourse with the Anti-Foundational requirement that all students learn the skills necessary to be independent members of any discourse community.

Works Cited

Bizzell, Patricia. Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992.