The Chronicle: Colloquy Live Transcript

Composition Studies and 'the New Theory Wars'

Wednesday, March 19, at noon, U.S. Eastern time

Is composition studies generating research that is disconnected from the realities of student needs? Is it on the verge of what may come to be known as "the new theory wars"?

The field of composition studies is seeing a flurry of highly theoretical scholarship. The scholarship, which builds on humanities work on issues such as power, race, ethnicity, and class, is generating considerable interest, but also some harsh criticism. Much of the latter comes from people who teach writing, and who find some of the new research to be disconnected from the realities of student needs.

» Deconstructing Composition (3/21/2003)

Gary A. Olson is a professor of English at the University of South Florida who recently declared that the field of composition studies is on the verge of "what undoubtedly will come to be known as 'the new theory wars.'" Mr. Olson is one of the editors of Race, Rhetoric and the Postcolonial (State University of New York Press) and Composition Theory for the Postmodern Classroom (SUNY), the author of Justifying Belief: Stanley Fish and the Work of Rhetoric (SUNY), and the co-author of (Inter)views: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy (Southern Illinois University Press). He was formerly the editor of JAC, which was previously known as the Journal of Advanced Composition. Mr. Olson will respond to questions and comments about composition theory on Wednesday, March 19, at noon, U.S. Eastern time. Advance questions are encouraged and may be submitted now.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Scott McLemee (Moderator):
Even the casual reader of books and journals in the field of composition studies begins to notice, sooner than later, that there is a marked disagreement over just what "composition studies" means, or ought to mean. Of course, that sort of debate goes on in a lot of disciplines. But with compositionists, you notice an edge to it -- as well as a certain element of defensiveness about the status of the field itself. Last September, for example, someone posted an unhappy message to a widely read comp-studies listserv saying, quoting a colleague who had said, in effect, "Well, composition isn't really a field of research. After all, The Chronicle of Higher Education doesn't cover it."

That is hardly a foolproof index of intellectual viability, of course. But the article "Deconstructing Composition" does try to give some sense of the kinds of disagreements structuring the field of composition today. It's more complicated than a simple division between those who initiate John and Jane Freshman into the mysteries of the semicolon, on the one hand, and those who "do theory" in a vein similar to cultural studies. That is one distinction, certainly. But there are differences among various approaches to pedagogy, too. And some involved in the administrative work of maintaining writing programs are staking their own claims to the cultural capital of "theory."

Our guest today, Gary Olson, is easily one of the most visible figures within composition studies. And people outside that field may also be interested in Critical Intellectuals on Writing , forthoming in July from SUNY Press, a collection of interviews that Mr. Olson has prepared with Lynn Worsham, the editor of JAC. Many people in composition studies respect Mr. Olson, and many others find his work very annoying indeed. And it's a reasonable guess that those constituencies overlap somewhat.

Scott McLemee (Moderator):
To judge by the questions we have received already -- some of which Mr. Olson has been answering this morning, others he'll get to over the next hour -- this should be an interesting discussion. And more questions are certainly welcome, so please send them in now. Thanks for entering the fray, Mr. Olson.

Gary A. Olson:
I'd like to thank Scott and The Chronicle for inviting me. I'm flattered that you think I have something important to say to your readers.

Comment from Libby Miles, University of Rhode Island:
I have a comment on the timing of the colloquy: I, and many others, would love to participate in the live online colloquy, but many of us will either be at our field's biggest national conference, or will be en route to it. Perhaps you might schedule a follow-up when the widest swath of Rhetoric and Composition professionals are able to participate?

Scott McLemee (Moderator):
We've received many, many variations on that question. The timing of this discussion might have been better. Once aware of the conflict, we scheduled the colloquy just as early as possible, precisely to mitigate that problem. But we also made every effort to invite people to submit questions well ahead of the conference (as a lot of you then did). The transcript of today's exchanges will be available online far into the future. And in any case, even the biggest academic conventions draw only a percentage of the scholars in a field. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been good to have published the article, and hosted this discussion, one week earlier than this. Be that as it may, everyone in composition has had the opportunity to submit questions and comments -- and the exchange now taking shape will reflect that.

Question from Bill McCleary, SUNY Cortland:
Who or what is to blame for the way that so many of the PhDs in the rhet/comp field have strayed so far into politics and away from composition? I have blamed it on an attempt to imitate what is going on in literature so that these new PhDs can get tenure. Is that a reasonable assumption? If so, what can be done about it? Should we get composition out of English departments?

Gary A. Olson:
I hardly think that it's a matter of "blame," rather, I think it's an obligation. As intellectuals, we have an obligation to investigate and understand our place in the world. And as teachers, we have a similar obligation to help students understand how to investigate and understand their own place in the world. You don't have to stray very far from mainstream composition to get there; all you have to do is remember what Paulo Freri was all about. I would even go so far as to say we are negligent if we don't take into consideration the connection between language, discourse, and for lack of a better way of saying it, ideology.

Question from Libby Miles, University of Rhode Island:
"The new theory wars" sounds like a particularly English Department-esque construct. As many programs continue to split off from English, do you think that the ever-growing presence of independent Writing departments might render the theory-practice split unproductive and irrelevant, particularly as they develop full intellectually-driven coursework at the advanced undergraduate level?

Gary A. Olson:
I don't think that the theory wars are necessarily a product of English departments. They may very well be the product of graduate programs. That is, in graduate school, you learn the particular intellectual content of a field. In this case, you learn the intellectual content about writing, the teaching of writing, how language works, how rhetoric works, and how discourse works. It's in your graduate education where you are likely to be exposed the kind of intellectual work, the kind of theoretical work, that may or may not be in contention in a theory war. Whether or not a writing program is attached to an English department, then, is really immaterial.

Question from Richard E. Miller, Rutgers University:
Who will be the "casualties" in the "new theory wars"? Why is "war" an appropriate image here rather than, say, "discussion" or "disagreement"?

Gary A. Olson:
As I tried to make clear in Rhetoric and Composition as Intellectual Work, particularly in my response to Wendy Bishop, who seems to have begun much of this discussion, I am a great believer in dialogue and not in war. My position has been the same for 25 years: the field of rhetoric and composition is capacious enough to contain all kinds of fields of interest, and it makes no sense to narrow our range of interests. So, for example, I could never understand why some people are intent on excluding theoretical work from what we do. I would never want to exclude pedagogical work, or administrative work, or other kinds of practice- or service-oriented work. I see all of these endeavors as being worth our attention. I don't believe I have ever said that we should not engage in those kinds of activities. In contrast, however, many people have contended that we should not engage in theoretical work. In that light, I believe that I am the one who has been most in favor of dialogue.

Question from Joan Huber, Clarion U. PA:
Jacques Barzun in his Energies of Art (1953) warned that the humanities cannot publish as do the natural sciences because by our very nature we do not make so many original discoveries. In the sixties, students at the MLA posted a manifesto that when they were old enough and knew enough, then they would publish. Does the current situation mirror an ignoring of both, in your opinion?

Gary A. Olson:
Yes, and happily so. [laughs] I understand that some people believe that there is a surplus of published works that do little and go nowhere. But you see, that is not in and of itself a bad thing. All scholars have to begin somewhere and all of us have gone down many paths that didn't lead anywhere. If we were to drastically reduce the opportunities to publish, the forums in which to publish, and the amount that gets published, then necessarily we would be restricting publication to a very small elite. In a radical version of such a scenario, only Stanley Fish would be publishing anything [laughs]. And while that would be great for those of us who like to read Stanley Fish, it probably would not be so good for the vast majority of people. Just remember: Publishing is simply how we remain intellectually alive; it's how we push ourselves to continue to find new ways of looking at a subject; and it's how we transfer our own intellectual excitement about a subject to those willing to read our publications.

Comment from Elijah Wright, Indiana University:
Why is this forum scheduled for the day before the composition community's largest conference? Many faculty and persons who would attend - and contend with the guest speaker - will be in transit to NYC on March 19. Or perhaps that's the point - the CHE may be displaying bias ("tilting" the debate") and thus sacrificing 'relevance' for an A-G-E-N-D-A.

Scott McLemee (Moderator):
An interesting thought. To some people, it has been obvious that this article reflected the Chronicle's anti-theory bias. Then there were the folks annoyed by my blatant effort to present composition theory as a valid and important endeavor. It sounds like the A-G-E-N-D-A for my article was complicated indeed! In any case, there is nothing sinister -- or even slightly interesting -- about the fact that this colloquy was scheduled to coincide with the first day of CCCC. Never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by normal human error. Anyone with questions about the issues raised in the article, rather than its timing, should certainly feel free to submit them now. Surely not every person interested in the field of composition is now stranded in the lobby of the New York Hilton, unable to get Web access?

Question from James A. Inman, University of South Florida:
As a writing center director, I'm deeply troubled by the implied separation of "theory" and "administration" in the article. It seems to harken back to the very dated and critically problematized theory/practice binary, rather than be more progressive. Would you please say more about ways "theory" and "administration" inform each other are deeply intertwined at the conceptual level amidst contemporary composition studies to clarify this important point for readers? It's especially important for readers to hear this view because of your prominent inclusion of Professor Worsham's comment about having a strong interest in "theory" and no interest in "administration". I think that much in her exceptional scholarly record could inform administration, for instance.

Gary A. Olson:
I think the point is that while theory does and should inform both practice and administration, there are kinds of theorizing that are important and that do not necessarily have an immediate connection to either teaching or administration. So, for example, a person may in fact have a keen interest in some theoretical, philosophical problem, but may not be looking at that problem to generate a particular effect in the world, be it pedagogical or administrative. That's why it's perfectly understandable for Professor Worsham or anyone else to comment that they have an abiding interest in theoretical work but not in how to administer a writing program. Please understand, though, that in making such a statement, one does not necessarily thereby render administrative work secondary or "uninteresting." It simply says that they are different fields of interest that can be, but don't have to be, connected.

Question from alan brender, Temple University Japan:
To what extent do we need to revise composition courses in colleges and universities to reflect the growing numbers of ESL/EFL students who have no prior composition training even in their L1s?

Gary A. Olson:
I believe that we should in fact make such training available in all of our graduate programs. Now, of course, different graduate programs tend to have different focuses. So, for example, one program might have a particular focus on the history of rhetoric, while another program, such as the one at the University of South Florida, might focus on theoretical work. Not all programs can have all focuses. If one's professional focus is likely to be ESL one should seek out a program particularly strong in that area.

Question from Howard Tinberg, Bristol Community College, Editor, Teaching English in the Two-Year College:
Composition is, perhaps, alone as a disciplne where theory and teaching practice, as well as research and student need, converge (most notably at the kind of instutiton that I teach at--a public community college). The question that I would like to ask is this: What can composition studies offer other disciplines (within English Studies and beyond) that might help heal the breach posed in our question?

Gary A. Olson:
By question, I assume that you mean: "Is composition studies generating research that is disconnected from the realities of student needs? Is it on the verge of what may come to be known as 'the new theory wars'?"

While the editors of The Chronicle might believe that there is such a disjunction, or perhaps Wendy Bishop believes this, I in fact do not. Many years ago, in a graduate seminar, one of our bright graduate students raised her hand and asked, "Dr. Olson, why do we have to study this hard theoretical work?" I answered her with another question: "What degree are you studying for?" Her answer was, "PhD, of course." I then asked her what the letters PhD signified. My point, of course, was that we are studying not simply to learn a trade, but to learn to enter an intellectual profession. Another way of talking about this is to say that in this discipline we are learning to become not simply teachers, but also intellectuals and scholars. I believe that it is the obligation of an intellectual and a scholar to strive to understand his or her area of expertise as completely as possible, even when such knowledge doesn't appear to have any immediate payoff. I'd like to remind readers about how the radio was invented. Guglielmo Marconi set out not to create some kind of new invention that would have a practical application. Rather, he was interested in this curious new phenomenon that we now call a radio wave. That is, he had an intellectual fascination with this phenomenon and a real thirst for finding out everything that he could about it. It was only in that objectiveless search that he stumbled upon what would then become our first radio technology. If we always and only set out on scholarly paths with objectives in mind, then we may never go down those unseen paths that may lead us to truly new and revolutionary things.

Question from Lorraine Allison, Salem State College:
Should we, as teachers of composition writing (especially COMP I) concentrate on the elements of writing (basic essay structure, elements of grammar and editing) or should we be more open to a less formal and more creative approach that allows the student to process ideas? I believe that we need to develop a three tier composition studies program. Given that students today are less exposed to reading, they seem to need a transition before they move on to academic writing. So, my question is: Do you agree or disagree (and for what reasons) that there is a need for the restructuring of composition and that a three tier program of college writing ?

Gary A. Olson:
I suppose we will always be inventing and reinventing the ideal composition curriculum -- and that's not a bad thing. Whether we adopt a three-tier or a two-tier or a four-tier program, we'll have to do with the exigencies of particular circumstances and locales and less to do with some kind of principle or ideal that fits all situations equally. But should a compostion program pay attention to all the concerns you mention? Of course.

Question from Deborah Mutnick, Long Island University-Brooklyn:
My sense of rhetoric and composition is that it has excelled far more than most disciplines in integrating theory and pedagogy. My own attraction to composition studies is its attention to praxis--the dialectic between theory and practice. When you say the field is on the verge of the "new theory wars," who do you believe is engaging in such combat and to what end?

Gary A. Olson:
I think you're exactly right that more than many disciplines, rhetoric and composition has attempted to strike a balance between the two. But that's not to say that there is not a persistant, omnipresent effort on the part of -- I almost said some but instead I'll say many -- to harken back to some fictional time in the past when compostition studies was about teaching students to express their innermost feelings. Such nostalgia usually means rueing the day that "politics" or "social constructionism" or "idealogy" ever entered our professional vocabulary. The fact is, however, those halcyon days simply never existed. They, like everything else, are a construct. As I tried to point out in my response to Wendy Bishop in the book I mentioned earlier, the field, like any field, has always been engaged in hegemonic struggle between different ways of envisioning what it is we do and what it is we should be about. I believe that the discipline should be inclusive; some believe it should be narrowly exclusive. We'll let history determine what was the best course.

Question from Dr. G. Jay Christensen, CA State University, Northridge:
My question has to do with helping the writing needs of students. I teach in business communication, which is a allied field to composition studies. How can we measure whether students can write a memo, business letter, or report when the students are given so many essays in composition studies that often have little emphasis on the importance of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and mechanics, in general, being graded? We also have the concern of whether TAs and graduate students should be teaching most of the composition study classes. Some of the graduate students are good, and some pass over important skills the students need.

Gary A. Olson:
Well, there are 2 or perhaps more questions here. The first has to do with the disciplinary boudaries between composition in general and business writing in particular. As I've said previously, the role of the scholar and of the intellectual is to understand his or her subject completely. And that entails many things that have nothing to do with grammar and punctuation. That being said, however, no responsible person that I know of has ever advocated neglecting punctuation and grammar. In fact, I will remind readers that I am the author of an online publication called Punctuation Made Simple, which for some curious reason has gained international attention. I get questions almost every day from practically every country asking me to resolve some dispute about a comma or a colon. So let's not make a simplistic division between paying attention to theoretical issues about discourse and paying attention (or neglecting) the mechanics of good writing. The two go hand-in-hand.

As for the second question, whether certain graduate students are fit or unfit to teach writing, all I can say is that clearly that is something to be judged on an individual basis. But I will say that generally, I would much rather have a graduate student who has training in composition studies teaching someone how to write than I would a full professor without that training.

Question from Doug Hesse, Illinois State U:
Gary, I'm writing from the Conference on College Composition and Communication meeting in New York, where the Executive Committee has just recessed for lunch. I wonder about the depiction of a theory/practice split within composition studies (though I'd be willing to explore a theory/theory split). The field remains hugely committed to teaching writing, which is not to say that the sole measure of work in the field is--or should be--its direct translation to classroom. The status issues seem less to do with faculty relationships to theory vs. practice than to their relationships to tenure line positions.

Gary A. Olson:
Sounds true to me!

Comment from Anonymous, tiny cash-strapped liberal arts college:
As a half-time writing director who typically teaches four courses per year while also managing a writing center and directing basic writing, composition, writing intensive, and capstone paper components of a writing program, administrative concerns consume my time. My research focuses on assessment and grant writing--that's what my institution has needed. I wonder how many writing directors actually can afford time out from the urgency of day to day demands to work substantively in composition theory? Resources for writing programs seem to be quite low priorities for colleges and universities. I hope to see composition theory offer higher education compelling reasons why this must change.

Scott McLemee (Moderator):
A few things have come in that, like the previous comment, look to me more like statements than questions for Mr. Olson. Given that he is now facing a rather large backlog of questions (so much for keeping people from getting to participate in the discussion!), it might be a good idea to post some of those items without further comment from Mr. Olson. Here are a few, for the record.

Comment from Deepa Sitaraman, University of South Florida, Tampa:
The new theory wars resonates deeply the battle cry at the global geopolitical level as well given the present US administrative rhetoric, especially over the past couple of days. In a recent exchange in a cultural studies listserv, it was observed that the then imminent war had found no space in cultural studies and many wondered why. Given all this, how do we bridge the divide between theory and practice, since composition is increasingly a service discipline? The administration sees the English departments as cash cows generating at least some income through their mandatory courses, the faculty given the dismal state of tenure are more caught up in the race for research and scholarship and fame, the students themselves are unmotivated. So whose benefit is all this work for anyway? The star system is what gets perpetrated in all this crossfire. It is all about classist society and the attempt to make it to the top and achieve social success and acceptance. Graduate students are among the ones who feel impossibly challenged and who spread themselves way too thin in the bargain. If I seem to paint a dismal picture, it is because I am living it. What do we do in real, workable, and actual concrete terms/steps to resolve this sad situation?

Comment from Debra Hawhee, U of Illinois:
As someone who teaches graduate seminars in critical theory and history of rhetoric, I�d say that historical work sometimes tends to be dismissed with the same sweep of the hand that theoretical work often gets dismissed--as somehow not �connected� or �relevant.� (This is especially the case with historical work that engages theory as well.) The number of panels on classical rhetoric at CCCC has declined sharply in recent years, and scholars who study the ancients or Kenneth Burke (either from an history of rhetoric or a rhetorical theory angle) find themselves more at home in venues such as RSA or NCA. I find it difficult to even imagine history and theory as separate--or rhet/comp and critical theory as mutually exclusive--but I�m wondering how you might parse the twin dismissals of theory and history.

Question from Scott Pollard, Christopher Newport University:
If Composition Studies is now concerned with the rhetorical and cultural contexts within which writing (and writing instruction) occurs, how will this disciplinary focus impact classroom instruction, writing assignments and grading criteria in, let's say, a freshmen composition sequence? Will there still be a place for Standard English and its instruction, or, to borrow a term from a liguistics colleague, will composition classes grapple with a variety of "Englishes"?

Gary A. Olson:
Well, once again, my answer is that there should not be a disconnect between the mechanical and the social/political. Many of us believe that the best way to help people learn how to write better is to put them in situations in which they learn how to engage their world more fully. Think about it: only when you feel that you have a real stake in what you're writing are you likely to pay most attention to it and therefore to excel. It's clear to me that writing essays about your summer vacation or any other sterile teacher-generated topic is likely to get very little response from students, very little growth on their part -- regardless of how many grammar drill you supplemented such instruction with. Put students in a position to analyze and talk about their world, however, and then you empower them to want to learn, and to want to communicate correctly. That's why research as far back as the 70s has demonstrated that students are much more likely to compose grammatically correct prose when they are writing about something that they are interested in and feel a certain amount of authority about. So, far from being a distraction or a tangent from good composition instruction, cultural studies is the key to it.

Question from Richard, University of Central Florida:
Why are there so many books that claim to improve the instruction and curriculum skills of composition instructors, yet these books fail to adequately cover, or in some cases do not even acknowledge, the importance of composition evaluation and assessment? Do you think that the lack of dissertations about how teachers grade papers displays a fear or uncertainty about their personal pedagogy?

Gary A. Olson:
I suppose one could make the opposite argument, that it demostrates self-confience about it. Nevertheless, my experience is a bit different. I believe that there are quite a few books and articles and other publications on assessment, from a whole range of people -- from Ed White's work to a number of recent dissertations on the subject. I don't believe that there's any lack of work in that area.

Question from Nick Carbone, sometime adjunct:
Is the real issue squabbles among researchers of which theoretical outlook is valid, or is the true source of friction in the field likely to come from the perceived research/practice divide, where researchers, for the most (there are exceptions) get more prestige and economic rewards than those in the field who focus on teaching? Or is that divide overstated?

Gary A. Olson:
No, that divide is not overstated. Researchers and scholars who are active in the field should reap more reward than those who aren't. That is simply how higher education in this country works. I suppose it's possible to invent a new way of operating, but that's a matter for envisioning something different from what we have now. The academic rewards system in play in most 4-year colleges and universities rewards teaching but also puts major emphasis on research. What my work has been about is perpetually reminding people that we have an "intellectual" discipline here as well as a service discipline. Otherwise, we might as well just close down our graduate programs and have composition studies be something that is operated out of a vocational tech institute.

Question from Kary Smout, Washington and Lee University:
How do we who are directing writing programs at small liberal arts colleges as the one faculty member specializing in rhetoric and compositon deal with tenure and promotion issues if we do not do "composition theory" and if our work does not please the leaders of the field because it is "insufficiently theorized" and "too practical"? How do we deal with the increasing politicization of the field as professionals if we mainly want to help young people learn to write confidently and well in whatever career they enter rather than to advance our own careers? All my colleagues outside of the English Department don't care if I'm "with it" in my field. In fact, they prefer I not be, if that means talking to them in a way they do not understand or that does not seem practical or relevant to their own work. But our colleges ask the leaders of our field to evaluate us. Is there any way out of this trap? Do you have any advice on how to deal with it?

Gary A. Olson:
This of course has to do with institutional arrangements and priorities. There are many fine institutions in this country, not only community colleges and 4-year colleges, but also some universities, that have made a conscious choice to priviledge solely or primarily teaching and service and not research, and that's fine. So if you are the type of person who is most comfortable with that kind of arrangement, then of course it behooves you to seek out an institiution with those priorities. A good many universities, however, will still maintain a heavy emphasis on scholarship and in those institutions one needs to demonstrate the ability to engage in the scholarly conversations in one's field. If you are not comfortable with that kind of institution then it is perhaps best to avoid it like the plague.

Question from Nick Carbone, Bedford/St. Martin's:
Academic publishing doesn't just keep the researcher/writer/theorist alive, but it also helps define and keep alive the field. Will debates about theory really be settled the old fashioned way -- by who gets read and who gets cited?

Gary A. Olson:
Absolutely! And it's a good thing, too! [laughs]

Scott McLemee (Moderator):
Ah yes. The old Stanley Fish rule of discursive authority.

Comment from Robin Carstensen of Texas A&M-CC and comm. college:
As a Composition Instructor who has been teaching under the leadership of three different administrators over the course of four and a half years, this statement quoted in Deconstructing Composition struck me: "A conversation has been going for a little while now about whether or not administrative work has a conceptual basis, about whether it counts as intellectual work," says David Blakesley..." My question is, how in the world can it not? The theory which guides the principles by which the writing administrator teaches his or her students in the first year classrooms also guides those principles by which the writing program is operated, by which the graduate teaching assistants, adjuncts, instructors, and even tenured professors look at the ways they are teaching, down to the smallest component of why they are introducing a particular writing activity. A writing administrator is in the position to ask us to question what we, as teachers, are doing and why, every time we step into the classroom (and prepare, assess, and so forth). So again, how could the administrator's job not be intellectual?

Scott McLemee (Moderator):
That is what is called a rhetorical question. In more ways than one, of course.

Question from Scott McLemee:
I have a question that, with hindsight, might have been good to ask during our interview. The range of thinkers and questions covered in your collections of interviews suggests that composition theory is very interdisciplinary. So was Aristotle, and so was Kenneth Burke, so there is a distinguished tradition for that. But isn't there some danger that, when a field grows that broad, its object of study becomes everything, and hence nothing in particular? What is it comp theorists are theorizing about, exactly? And how is it different from the objects of study in anthropology or sociology or literature?

Gary A. Olson:
I'm delighted that you ask that question. Of course the argument about a field whose boundaries are growing so expansively that it becomes everything and thus nothing is a classic Fishian argument, and that is always a true danger. But I think what people need to understand is that at this time in intellectual history (some people call it the the "postmodern turn," or the "linguistic turn") what discipline after discipline is discovering is that knowledge is not something "out there"; it is rhetorically constructed. You could go to practically every discipline and find this very revelation reiterated. Whether it's Clifford Geertz, or Renato Rosaldo in anthropology, or the feminist standpoint theorists, or Thomas Kuhn, or Richard Rorty, or Stanley Fish, or Judith Butler, or any number of major thinkers of our time, they all in one way or another are pointing out that epistomology is a matter of rhetoric. Now, it strikes me that it would be irresponsible to be in a field called "rhetoric and compostition" and not seize the opportunity to continue and engage in this dialogue. If we truly are scholars of rhetoric and discourse, then it is incumbent upon us not only to be a part of this very important moment in intellectual history, but to be a leader in it.

Comment from William J. Macauley, Jr.:
It seems very odd that you would schedule this for the first day of CCCC, the biggest and most significant conference in composition studies, when so many of the experts in our field will be away at or traveling to that conference. Curious. Who were the intended participants, since so many of us will not be available?

Scott McLemee (Moderator):
The category of intended participants subsumes absolutely all persons concerned with the issues covered in the article. That is why every effort has been made to sollicit questions and comments over the past several days. A lot of people in composition have elected to participate by expressing discontent at some nonexistant effort to keep them from participating (as opposed to taking the opportunity to address any other topic). Might a sociologist of knowledge find that indicative of something about the field itself? In any case, it is certainly a puzzling situation.

Question from Doug Hesse, Illinois State University:
Scott noted that some within composition studies wondered about the timing of the article. I should note, however, that an awful lot of people in the field appreciated the careful attention that article gave to complex issues. Question for Gary: why do you think that theory and research in rhetoric and composition studies has seemed so to languish outside the field?

Gary A. Olson:
It hasn't languished at all times. I mentioned before that, as in any field, we all engage in hegemonic struggle over the identity of the field. If you recall the Bishop-Olson exchange you'll remember that Wendy complained that the good old days of expressivism and creative writing are gone and have been replaced by what she termed "social constructionism," by which I suppose she means a great variety of non-expressivist ways of seeing the world. She complains that people with her way of seeing the world are being left out. Having been around a lot longer than Wendy, I have a different sense of our disciplinary history. Throughout the 70s people who we now call expressivists battled with people we now call cognitivists for hegemony in the field. The Donald Murray types tended in those days to be published in College English, while the Linda Flower types tended to be published in CCC or Research in the Teaching of English. Those venues were the only ones available to those of us doing work in composition. What goes unseen by Wendy and perhaps others is that those of us who are interested in theoretical, philosophical, political issues were generally kept out of the few publishing venues available. It was only in 1980 with the creation of JAC, PreText, and then, a year later, Rhetoric Review, that any of us could have a voice. We had been excluded for a very long time. Obviously, the 1980s then became a boom time for those of us interested in theoretical issues. So theoretical work did not languish, it flourished.

The 90s, though, is a completely different story. We have witnessed a backlash against feminist work, against Freirean scholarship, and, in general, most theoretical kinds of scholarship. As with most intellectual trends, they ebb and flow given the particularities of the discipline and the individuals in it. Quite frankly, I don't think that theoretical work is "languishing"; but there certainly is a backlash toward it. But I am extremely impressed with a lot of the work I see coming from a whole new generation of young scholars who have graduated in the last, say, 5-8 years. So in short, I remain resolutely optimistic about the discipline's intellectual growth.

Scott McLemee (Moderator):
Thanks to Mr. Olson for being our guest today, and to everyone who submitted a question or a comment. It looks as if the sinister plot to keep this discussion narrow, one-sided, and bland by preventing composition scholars from intervening has failed miserably.

Gary A. Olson:
I just want to say in closing that I'm very thankful to Scott McLemee and to The Chronicle for investigating this issue and reporting on it so responsibly. I would also like to thank Karolina Augustynowicz for helping out on the technical end. Finally, I would like to thank the many people who sent in these very thoughtful and important questions. I hope that The Chronicle will continue to remember that rhetoric and compostition exist and that it will continue to pay attention to exciting developments in the field.