Formalist theory in composition studies
Encyclopedia
Formalism is the study of a text without taking into account any outside influence. Formalism rejects notions of culture or societal influence, authorship, and content, and instead focuses on modes, genres, discourse, and forms.
Patricia Bizzell
states that current-traditionalism emphasizes expository writing and prescriptivism in grammar, usage, and style . What follows is the practice of applying to one’s composition rhetorical modes and outlines, situating one’s writing in a very formulaic setting. Current-traditionalism is thought to stifle the creativity of students in the composition classroom by confining them into genres such as description, argumentation, and narration. C.H. Knoblauch and Lil Brannon oppose current-traditionalism, claiming that it is impossible to define writing using such a narrow scope. It is too difficult for students to try to mold their writing into the typical “prewrite, write, revise” pattern, since writing is not so mechanical or rigid a task . Instructors, according to Knoblauch and Brannon, often adhere to a production recipe, claiming that in order to learn to write, students but start from beginning to end: that is, “find a topic – state a thesis – etc.” . The authors claim that a current-traditional approach in the classroom is often billed as employing process theory, when really instructors are simply having their students write composition from a mechanistic, analytical standpoint without allowing any room for creativity.
Mary Ann Cain writes that “formalism asserts that the text stands on its own as a complete entity, apart from the writer who produced it” . Moreover, Cain says that “one can regard textual products as teachable and still maintain that being a writer is a "natural" act, one not subject to instruction . Composition, like creative writing, has flourished under the assumption that students are already writers, or have the capacity to learn-and that everyone should be writers. Yet the questions composition tends to pose within this assumption are not so much about which aspects of writing can or cannot be taught, but how writing can be taught and under what conditions .
In regards to formalist composition, one must ask, “to what extent is this ‘need’ for ‘academic discourse’ real – any more than the need for more ‘imaginative writing’ is real-except to perform some function, to get something done?” .
Beginnings
Formalism has its roots in current-traditionalism, which is a composition theory commonly tied to very negative connotations.Criticisms
One of the greatest opponents is Sharon Crowley, who claims that current-traditionalism dominates composition classrooms . James Williams says that in the current-traditional classroom, focus remains on description, narration, and exposition, exposition divided into categories like definition and compare/contrast (44). Critical thinking is not often thought to fit in with current-traditionalism, as many current-traditionalist composition assignments will ask a student to write a book report, e.g. (44).Patricia Bizzell
Patricia Bizzell
Patricia Bizzell, Ph.D. is Professor of English and Chairperson of the English Department at College of the Holy Cross, where she has taught since 1978. She founded and directed the Writer's Workshop, a peer tutoring facility, and a writing-across-the-curriculum program. She has also directed the...
states that current-traditionalism emphasizes expository writing and prescriptivism in grammar, usage, and style . What follows is the practice of applying to one’s composition rhetorical modes and outlines, situating one’s writing in a very formulaic setting. Current-traditionalism is thought to stifle the creativity of students in the composition classroom by confining them into genres such as description, argumentation, and narration. C.H. Knoblauch and Lil Brannon oppose current-traditionalism, claiming that it is impossible to define writing using such a narrow scope. It is too difficult for students to try to mold their writing into the typical “prewrite, write, revise” pattern, since writing is not so mechanical or rigid a task . Instructors, according to Knoblauch and Brannon, often adhere to a production recipe, claiming that in order to learn to write, students but start from beginning to end: that is, “find a topic – state a thesis – etc.” . The authors claim that a current-traditional approach in the classroom is often billed as employing process theory, when really instructors are simply having their students write composition from a mechanistic, analytical standpoint without allowing any room for creativity.
Pedagogy
William H. Thelin criticizes Maxine Hairston’s approach to teaching composition from a current-traditional standpoint, which she then mixes with the political. He claims that “No matter how sound the politics … the student would have no choice but to regurgitate that dogma in the clearest terms possible and to shift concentration onto matters of structure and correctness” .Mary Ann Cain writes that “formalism asserts that the text stands on its own as a complete entity, apart from the writer who produced it” . Moreover, Cain says that “one can regard textual products as teachable and still maintain that being a writer is a "natural" act, one not subject to instruction . Composition, like creative writing, has flourished under the assumption that students are already writers, or have the capacity to learn-and that everyone should be writers. Yet the questions composition tends to pose within this assumption are not so much about which aspects of writing can or cannot be taught, but how writing can be taught and under what conditions .
In regards to formalist composition, one must ask, “to what extent is this ‘need’ for ‘academic discourse’ real – any more than the need for more ‘imaginative writing’ is real-except to perform some function, to get something done?” .