response to Fulkerson

Like Dante giving order to chaos in The Inferno, Fulkerson seeks to systematize composition theory. Unlike concentric circles, he graphs the various theories on a grid. One axis plots the “axiology” or intention of the theory, the other plots more empirical elements like specific process, pedagogy, and evaluative elements and the epistemology on which those elements are based.
The axiologies he defines are “critical/cultural studies, expressivism, and procedural rhetoric” (655). The first two would seem to be dialectical pairs. In cultural studies, the emphasis is on the varied forces which work to shape the fluid self; in an expressivist view, the emphasis is more on self as unified and autonomous. The third approach, rhetorical, would seem to be a sort of synthesis between the two. Rhetoricians are generally not comfortable with “the claim that ‘all truth (reality) is a social construct’” (671), but they do hold that the purpose of comp theory is more focused on the individual in a social context than as an independent entity: “composition as argumentation, genre-based composition, and composition as introduction to an academic discourse community” (671).
Most of Fulkerson’s essay is concerned with describing how each of those schools of intention are manifested, detailing how the classes are taught as well as implications for the supposed “process” which happens in a student’s mind as he writes in accord with the axiology.
But in the final paragraph, Fulkerson suddenly turns from a primarily descriptive mode to a valuative one. He calls the current situation “dangerous” for comp studies. The different schools are set in their own grids and there is no unification in sight.