As is typical of post-modernism (and current thought in general) the theories were not better or worse than one another, except on the basis of personal preference. Nor did any of them attempt to present a correct reading (although deconstruction seemed intent on proving that a correct reading was impossible to some extent) as New Criticism/Formalism would have. Instead they were all relative lenses, a variety of tools to be used at different times for different purposes.
While reading this article I wondered exactly how the discussing of theory anthologies tied into our theories of composition class. Then, applying the thickly boned "muscle" on top of my neck - which I should do more often - I realized that these must be the theories that in many cases form the basis for teaching the student to achieve "liberation from 'dominant discourse'" (Fulkerson 660). This allowed me to find a little more common ground with the critical/cultural studies idea, simply because I have a working knowledge of the theories in question, and how they apply to literature.
The packaging question is an interesting one. I met theory in a groups format, the second discussed by Williams in the essay and the one he labeled the "approaches/schools" model (288). For the purposes of the class I was taking I think this packaging approach worked very well. It gave the beginning critic, most likely a sophomore in the English program, a basic understanding of the current ciritical lenses in use, presentations by professors who made regular use of a given theory in their own research, and practice writing in several different theoretical perspectives.
Looking back I debate the purpose of the course, a strange hybrid of writing and literature. It certainly was a text based course, using the Kennedy/Gioia literature anthology and reviewing genres of literature and their interpretation as well as the theories. My wife, who took the same course has said that she thought of the course as a writing course, and remembers having a paper due every week. I don't remember as clearly, and the literature and the focus on interpretation through various lenses rather then learning to write through a particular lense is what I remember. Of course that may be the variance of having had different professors. In any case, I feel I gained a basic understanding of the various theoretical lenses that has stood me in good stead throughout the rest of my academic career and taught me how to write in each theory. It certainly was not a discussion of dominant discourse, so I'm left wondering what the department would have considered the course. Comp theory? kind of, sort of, almost. A Literature course? That's how I remember it. Certainly a theory course....
The "approaches/schools" packaging worked very well for the goals of the course as I understand them, to focus on the theories themselves and their application without too much time on the history or people behind them. They were nearly irrelevant details to the purposes of what was a very pragmatic course.
A more advanced course, or a critical/cultural studies composition course would benefit far more from a historical based text like the one Williams describes (293 - 295). Advanced students who need to understand theory in a larger scope and for its own sake rather than simply as a tool need the added historical perspective and depth of their interrelationship and development that the historical text would provide. The critical/cultural studies comp course would seem to be a perfect setting for such a format as well, as the development of the theories is in large part a continued record of the establishment's questioning of "dominant discourse" which is one of the primary goals of such a course.
In the end it seems to me apples and oranges. The textbook is always a tool. Select the proper tool for your task, the proper text for the aims of your particular course.
No comments:
Post a Comment