The Function of Theory in Composition Studies by Raul Sanchez
My review
rating: 2 of 5 stars
In this book, Sánchez argues that composition studies has moved away from studying writing and instead now focuses on hermeneutics and ideology. He argues, following Derrida, that writing is a paradigmatic human activity and writing should be studied as writing (a grammatological viewpoint). When we focus on epistemology, ideology, hermeneutics, and culture, we are saying that writing services a something else. He writes that instead “composition theorists might instead theorize writing as an activity that produces sentences or statements, some of which can be identified, after their production, as knowledge. Writing so theorized would not be an epistemic phenomenon. It would not necessarily be understood as a means to record, discover, or produce — via cognitive, social, or even sociocognitive operations — anything other than more of itself” (31). Writing is, for Sánchez, a thing that produces more writing. We should move away from, so he argues, the ideas that writing either represents ideas or that we discover ideas through writing.
I found Sánchez’s book highly provocative. It made me think and disturbed my attachment to hermeneutics, which I highly appreciate. However, his book is problematic in its limited discussion of Derrida (a much more complex exegesis on Derrida is necessary), his limited view of composition studies (he focuses mostly on those who have “imported” critical theory, without acknowledging this limited focus), and on his lack of a “so what.” I am left wondering, after reading this, what this means for the composition classroom.
I do have a fairly charitable reading of the book, though. I wonder if his polemical take on the topic isn’t mostly to provoke more writing, in the form of academic research, on writing. Behind the theory (perhaps behind isn’t the right word) is a call to action: research on the (f)acts of writing. While, at the moment, I think hermeneutics is important to Rhet/Comp, I do think there is a lack of research on the (f)acts of writing. It will be interesting to see what responses there are to Sánchez’s book, and what projects Sánchez produces next.
LOL! I’ve been asking the So What ? question since Thursday. One other point I never got around to bringing up in class, mostly because it would not have furthered our critiques, was why does Sanchez propose more theory on writing, but chooses to discuss and define writing in such a narrow way? Although he suggests a broad understanding of writing he never engages digital composing, post-modern notions of writing, or even Hip Hop aural productions as writing. Instead his discussion places it mostly as the construction of sentences and statements. This is perhaps another bit of my frustration with this text.
I am on the fence if his definition of writing is too narrow or not. He defines it as sentences and statements, but I think Hip Hop, videos, and other writing can count, if we take “statement” in its broadest sense. I can’t remember, off the top of my head, if he wrote that it had to be “on the page,” which, if he does, that it definitely is limited and traditional.