After looking at so many takes on "theory" one naturally asks "why"? What does it matter if you are a foundationalist, doing cookie cutter theory, or a postmodernist, rejeting the notion of theory entirely.
Here are the options I see:
1. Be a foundationalist and use theory to make applications; use Theory to generate your own theory; use it to "shine light" on your arguments.
2. Be postmodern and antifoundationalist and insist that anything you do derives from your belief systems and your local conditions. Reject BIG, all-encompassing theories.
3. Be practical and refuse this categoriziation above: Each time you think you see "theory," evaluate it for its practical uses: What kind of explanatory power does it have? What are its limitations? How does it help you?
I think this latter position is a Lore position. But I'm not sure and will continue to think about it. Personally, what I call local "theorizing" --and eclectic practice-- satisfies me at some level, as it gets me out of the bind of "doing things right or wrong."
I'm putting up a blog for a youth group that I volunteer for, and I am wondering if high school and middle school-age students use email. Do you think they use it often?
The purpose of this blog is to provide a forum for discussion on the readings, classroom discussion, and meta-discussion related to Composition Theory.
Over the next few months, feel free to post discussion threads, questions, links to outside information, and anything else relevant to the study of Composition Theory.