Alternative alternatives

I re-read Raul Sanchez's *The Function of Theory in Composition Studies* last week and have been wondering about some of the ways he portrays the field, specifically his claim that Composition and Rhetoric has not dealt with the relationship between knowledge and writing. To quote Sanchez: "To date, composition theory has helped turn on its head the idea that writing is only the recording or reporting of knowledge. It has instead asserted that writing produces knowledge. But it has not questioned the terms of the supposed relationship between writing and knowledge; it has only inverted their order."

Now.

He's probably right. He thinks the field has "undertheorized" writing and there is certainly a wealth of work that still needs to be done regarding the ways we theorize writing. I've been thinking about this, though, specifically in terms of his critique of Diane Davis's *Breaking [Up] at Totality,* a book that had a pretty huge impact on the way I imagine studying rhetoric and writing - and what "theory" means in that context. Sanchez quoting Davis: "Davis asks 'What would happen if writing were dismissed from its representational servitude, if, that is, we put ourselves in the service of writing rather than the other way around.'" Cool. I'm there. Great question. Later, Sanchez says that by turning to a Nietzschean "pedagogy of laughter" Davis's "theory of writing situates itself squarely within a strand of the philosophical tradition it might otherwise disdain. In other words, under-writing Davis's theory is a discourse with a narrative thread running through the work of Nietzsche, Deleuze and Guattari, and Cixous that Davis cites. But because of this, her alternative theory's status as an alternative within an established ideological system--made up of "traditions" and "countertraditions"--undercuts its own claims to a thorough recasting of writing. Furthermore, it has no empirical dimension."

To what degree are Composition and Rhetoric scholars expected to draw from theorists and philosophers in order to better theorize writing? Does Davis actually call on a "thorough recasting of writing" in *Breaking [Up] at Totality*? A major part of her work in that book seems to focus on "the leak" and the ruptures of language--but this is hardly a thorough recasting of writing. In fact, the "undercutting" that Sanchez points would would seem to re-inforce a lot of what Davis argues.

A major part of Sanchez's own project rests on his claim that Composition Studies has "undertheorized" writing. And it probably has. But Sanchez himself tries to make a case for the need to turn to rigorous theory in order to better understand the relationship between writing and knowledge. He argues that we need more Derrida. Is there a more established theoretical and philosophical tradition within which to work? (There's a great scene in the documentary *Zizek!* where Zizek shouts and spits and pounds his fists at the dogmatic way in which Derrida has been taken up...) I guess Sanchez's critique is a larger question: to what degree has "alternative" "countertradition" become tradition?

But that question gets boring fast. I think Sanchez is simply asking the wrong question (his point, though, is a good one). So what if we draw on countertraditional work that has become an established mode of thinking (which is, of course, arguable)? We should be asking Davis not what her rhetoric of laughter owes the tradition from which it emerges, but rather, how do we begin to use that to recognize the ways in which the scene of writing makes possible more writing, which makes possible (other) ways of imagining what may (or may not) be limited by representation. If Sanchez is willing to take Derrida at his word, why not take Davis at her's?

Spring Fake

How many of you out there knew it was possible to get strep throat in your finger? And why didn't you warn the rest of us?

Like so many others, I had high hopes for the amount of work I would get done over Spring Break (which was last week). I tried not to let the freezing temperatures get the best of my attitude and I decided that I would, no matter what, feel good about catching up on some dissertation reading and organize the next few weeks worth of writing. The freezing temperatures didn't get the best of my attitude, but they still managed to get the best of me.

I came down with a wicked cold/flu thing on the very first day of break. I tried to get some work done, but the theraflu had taken over and I decided that I wouldn't be able to get any quality work done anyway, so why not just lay on the couch and sweat it out? Then, in a couple days I could hit the ground running and get some work done. The next day I noticed my finger was swollen almost twice its normal size.

Doctor does some tests. "Drains" my finger. And the next day the nurse calls to tell me I have strep throat.

Me: But my throat doesn't hurt. I have a cold, but I know what strep feels like and this isn't strep. My finger is what hurts.

Nurse: Well, then you've got the strep bacteria in your finger. You've got a bacterial infection.

Me: Awesome.

So I've been on antibiotics while still trying to catch up. I've been re-reading Sanchez's "The Function of Theory in Composition Studies" and have been trying to nail down what about it I'm reacting against. There's so much in his argument I can get behind, but there's this underlying feeling that I can't shake, one that says "where would Sanchez's writing take us...?" More later...