Stases in Composition

Our two readings for today did not convince me one way or another if stasis theory is the type of writing instruction I should use in my course next year. It could have been that I wasn't entirely sure of the definition when I first read the Fahnestock & Secor — I was thinking of the word in terms of "stagnation" or "stillness," but I'm pretty sure none of us want to teach our English 1000 students to remain static!

I think the primary disenchantment I found was on the second page of F & S's article. This is when they set up the example with the topic "food stamps." Now I'm usually a sucker for examples, particularly if I'm having some trouble grasping the abstract concept as I was with this reading. The authors pose these, among other questions: "'What brought them about or what is their history?' or 'What are their effects?'" They then go on to suggest "An attempt to provide a plausible answer to any of these questions gives the writer a thesis to support" (60). In the margin next to this I wrote: "If you're lucky."

The biggest problem I see with this example, and ultimately with stasis theory, is that any of these heuristic questions that arise during the invention process can result in (to use Bean's terms) "and then," "all about," or "data dump" writing. That is, the answer to the question "What is the history of food stamps?" is not necessarily going to be an argumentative statement.

This is not to say that I disagree with the premise of continually asking questions (of yourself or of your student) during the writing process. I think that's how I usually end up with my best ideas and support. I liked Fulkerson's idea of incorporating stasis theory and other theories — this seems like it would be a better way to reach more students. Honestly, I don't see how an instructor could get by without picking and choosing from different theories.