A Counter-History of Composition: Toward Methodologies of Complexity

by Byron Hawk

A Counter-History of Composition contests the foundational disciplinary assumption that vitalism and contemporary rhetoric represent opposing, disconnected poles in the writing tradition. Vitalism has been historically linked to expressivism and concurrently dismissed as innate, intuitive, and unteachable, whereas rhetoric is seen as a rational, teachable method for producing argumentative texts. Counter to this, Byron Hawk identifies vitalism as the ground for producing rhetorical texts-the product of complex material relations rather than the product of chance. Through insightful historical analysis ranging from classical Greek rhetoric to contemporary complexity theory, Hawk defines three forms of vitalism (oppositional, investigative, and complex) and argues for their application in the environments where students write and think today. Hawk proposes that complex vitalism will prove a useful tool in formulating post-dialectical pedagogies, most notably in the context of emerging digital media. He relates two specific examples of applying complex vitalism in the classroom and calls for the reexamination and reinvention of current self-limiting pedagogies to incorporate vitalism and complexity theory.

Genres: Nonfiction, Academic

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

Reviews

[Ian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Complex vitalism ftw

[Trauman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book. The first couple of chapters are maybe the most clearly explained overview historical composition theory that I've read.

But the primary argument for the book, I think, is that a-contextual invention heuristics for writing are problematic for several reasons. Most traditional invention heuristics rely on certain binaries for understanding communication and information: subject/object, dominant/marginal, differentials of power, etc.

Hawk, relying on ecological and complexity theory, argues for a context specific approach to developing invention heuristics. Sort of a heuristics for heuristics, but that characterization is a little tongue-in-cheek.

One of my favorite aspects of Hawk's approach is that he resists leaving his argument as merely a theoretical rereading of composition theory and pedagogies. Instead, he offers readings of specific pedagogues in our field (Ulmer, Atwill, Hayles, Haynes, Henry, Coles) in terms of how they rely on ecological/complexity theory as a way of structuring invention heuristics.

Overall, an incredibly smart reflection on the history of comp theory, both generous and challenging. And at the same time, a prose style that is as clear as his argument is complex.

My only reservation is that some of Hawk's suggestions will be difficult to argue for in the current political climate of public academic institutions. I'm talking about institutional impulses toward accountability, consistency, measurable progress across various times and sections of composition. These are all completely valid concerns, and most of which I'm pretty supportive. Hawk calls for heuristics emerging from localized (read: individual) instructor's and students negotiation of their own perceptions of the intersections of various threads of material and theoretical influence in their given time and given place. And I'm just not sure how a WPA might convince a Dean or Provost that there are valid methods of evalation for these sorts of approaches.

But Hawk is a very, very smart pedagogue. And I'm guessing that the answers might still be in the book. I could certainly stand another reading (or three). And at the moment, I'll assume that Hawk offers some content that might address these issues. I wonder, though, if this is one of those situations where questions of evaluations have to emerge from the best pedagogical approaches we can conceptualize, rather than pedagogy built toward a system of evaluation.

I suppose that one extension of this argument might lie somewhere in arguments against a contextual assessment models. And now I'm getting into territory with which I'm pretty unfamiliar. For all I know, there are already conversations taking place in assessment scholarship which address these sorts of concerns already.

[Erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first couple of chapters provide a history of composition.