A few years ago, an FAU colleague emailed with a request for an article or reading about the disciplinarity of rhetoric and composition. Since we will be talking about R/C’s disciplinarity this coming week (and since I recommended to her/him a few of the same articles you’ll be reading for week 3), I thought I would share the exchange with you.
– – – – – the professor’s email to me – – – – –
Course Catalog Description: “Research and methodology; problems of textuality and critical assumptions; history of ideas.” Several of you are in Prof. Martin’s ENG 6009 course this semester. in the fall. I’m thinking about organizing the class by first having us read about the history of English as a discipline, then talk about the crisis of the field (as in, is there a point to being an English major/MA/MFA in the 21st century?), and how different sub-fields are seeking to offer a new purpose to the field (ie, postcolonialism, digital humanities, etc.).Professor of P&P
– – – – – my response – – – – –
Dear P&P Prof,
I believe it’s true–rhet/comp could give new purpose to the larger field of English studies… and that’s ironic because rhet/comp is still struggling for its own disciplinary identity and perpetually justifying its institutional presence (and in some cases, its departmental presence within English). We’ve got infighting about the boundaries and goals of our field, and we’ve got battles with external stakeholders, too (our departmental homes, cognate fields, and the institution).
Rhet/comp struggles because of its diversity and inter/cross-disciplinarity, but it’s that same diversity and amorphous disciplinarity that puts us in a great position to respond and adapt to all of the shifting going on–technological, institutional, cultural, epistemological, economic, etc. In that sense, what might be our ‘weakness’ is also our strength.
But, because there are so many sub-fields in rhet/comp, and so many ways to look at what it does (or, what it should do or could do), I’m finding it difficult to recommend just one article that might represent its potential. That, and I’m not sure what sort of article you might be looking for (dense, straightforward, germinal, current?). I’m including a few articles below and some comments.
I apologize in advance for the length of what follows. I’m passionate… and also longwinded. 
Please let me know if none of these are what you’re looking for, or if it would be helpful for me to recommend just one or two of these (it might be like choosing a favorite child, but I can do it if needed!)
Best,
Julia
(articles are below)
Worsham is a bit dense, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention it. The purpose of the article is examining the postmodern theory’s role in comp studies — as it contributes to writing’s disciplinary identity and as it contributes to the professional identities of scholars and practitioners in the field. Why the article might be appropriate is the way Worsham prefaces it, by suggesting the interest in postmodern theory has allowed comp studies to be redescribed “as a locus for social and political change. This new rhetoric may represent the latest effort to lift the persistent stigma that clings to composition studies—its definition as a service component of the university charged with doing the hard (because often “remedial”) labor no one else wants to do.”
In other words, composition studies has been (and is being) transformed into something vibrant and useful — it’s no longer thought of as a service discipline (where comp’s professionals simply teach first-year comp and remedial writing in the trenches, so to speak).
At first glance, this article isn’t an obvious response to your request because it’s an argument for/evidence to support the fields merging of rhetorical studies and composition studies into one meaningful, productive entity.
Welch uses three scholars to support her observation/claim, discussing the ways in which those scholars (and their monographs) came from training that aims to advance literacy “in our current technoworld as well as in Real Life.”
While it’s not the primary point of the article, Welch shows how rhet/comp is vibrant, relevant, and powerful both for its interdisciplinary reach and for it’s potential to inspire conversations, point out cultural issues, and create real change in the world. Welch suggests overlaps between rhet/comp and feminism, social justice, technology and cyberliteracy, literature, cultural studies, and others.
The article speaks to the ways that we’re articulating our disciplinary identity. Essentially, we’re doing a lot of stuff that isn’t being recognized, so the CCCC Exec Committee created a task force to propose changes to CIP (Classification of Instructional Programs) codes in order to account for “the diversity of programs and the specializations or paradigms they represent across the spectrum of studies in composition, rhetoric, writing, literacy, and professional and technical communication.”
Much of this article is reporting on the purpose and work of the task force, and for that reason, much of it is uninteresting. However, if I were in your shoes, I might assign parts of this article, and also, I’d have students take a look at the appendix of 2010 CIP codes for “Rhetoric and Composition/Writing Studies.”
This is a white paper written as part of a program review, but it’s succinct, direct, and speaks to rhet/comp’s problems and potential.
This is another survey of doctoral programs and the variety of sub-disciplines in rhet/comp, but the discussion around it speaks to our own disciplinary struggle. Additionally, it discusses our relationship to cognate disciplines, suggests some specializations that likely to appear in the future, and speaks to professionalization of the field.
My hunch is that the Lauer is far too outdated (and narrowly focused on comp studies) to be useful, but it is germinal — it’s one of those articles likely to be on ENC 6700-type syllabi as one of the early, important discussions of disciplinary status and various areas of specialization.”