Berlin As Proof of the “Theory-Praxis” Dynamic

      While all our readings relate to Louise Phelps’ “The Domain of Composition,” I found Berlin’s article useful for understanding her observation about the “theory-praxis” dynamic in Rhetoric and Composition (RC) research because it demonstrates the ideas she puts forth. According to Phelps, scholarship in RC is uniquely geared toward applying and generating theories of composition to practices of composition, which are comprehensive and interdisciplinary. It also views composition as a symbolic action worthy of academic inquiry. I believe that Phelps aptly points out that this “theory-praxis relation” is partially the work of “scholars...attempting not only to explore the conceptual frameworks of the field and its relation to other disciplines, but also to examine the nature of their own inquiry as symbolic action” (182). Furthermore, due to composition’s complex nature, for RC,  “the object of inquiry becomes not writing, reading, or texts, but their relationships to one another, to the individual, and to the world. The significant effect of this move is to greatly expand the domain of composition...it allows us to account for the great richness and diversity of research that claims to fall within the field.” (183). Phelps highlights not only this unique nature of RC, but also its orientation and research purpose - it is the material application of theory (usually in the classroom) to practical problems in written discourse and also “reflexive” research on our modes of inquiry, both of which have “multimodal” and “interdisciplinary” research methods. I see this as the heart of the “theory-praxis” model in RC which Phelps sets out to explore and articulate.

      I see Berlin’s article as a particular demonstration of this “reflexive” nature of RC, as well as a window into the importance of theory within the field. He shows that because are “involved through our teaching mission in the development of literacy, we make ourselves part of the topic of inquiry” (Phelps 190). Berlin demonstrates this very notion as he sets out to “situate the development of English studies within these larger [socio-economic] formations, examining the role it played in the new curriculum” (17). He is reflexive in that his object of inquiry is the formation of the discipline itself in light of bigger social movements and economic developments, which is a direct critique and revision of William Riley Parker’s article; Berlin writes from within the field about the field. What makes Berlin (and Parker too) uniquely part of RC is in the way these histories are then applied toward a greater understanding of literacy practices, and both articles call for direct action in a way that has material implications for teaching composition. This shows how “praxis” is a defining element within RC. The importance of “theory,” then, is highlighted by Berlin’s explanations of competing paradigms in literacy (and his near direct endorsement of the democratic school) which directly affected curriculum and practice in composition pedagogy. And in further connection to Phelps,  Berlin reifies notion Phelps highlights about composition’s complex nature to the outside world - schools of thought regarding literacy and curriculum are not impervious to social and economic shifts, and therefore conversations about college education in composition and literacy have to involve conversations about the relevancy and impact of composition to the world outside the university. Berlin’s article is a clear example corroborating Phelps’ major observations about the nature of RC.