MULTIGENRE RHETORIC:  WHERE GENRE THEORY AND 
 
 
FEMINIST COMPOSITION THEORY MEET 
 
 
 
 
 
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is 
my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee.  This thesis does not 
include proprietary or classified information. 
 
 
 
 
 
_________________________________________ 
Joel Conway 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Certificate of Approval: 
 
 
 
________________________    ________________________ 
Isabelle Thompson           Michelle A. Sidler, Chair 
Professor               Assistant Professor 
English       English 
 
 
 
 
________________________    ________________________ 
Patrick D. Morrow      Stephen L. McFarland 
Profesor       Dean 
English       Graduate School
  
MULTIGENRE RHETORIC:  WHERE GENRE THEORY AND  
 
 
FEMINIST COMPOSITION THEORY MEET 
 
 
Joel Conway 
 
 
 
 
A Thesis 
 
 
Submitted to  
 
 
the Graduate Faculty of 
 
 
Auburn University                                                                                 
 
 
in Partial Fulfillment of the 
 
 
Requirements for the 
 
 
Degree of 
 
 
Master of Arts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
May 11, 2006 
 iii
MULTIGENRE RHETORIC:  WHERE GENRE THEORY AND 
 
 
FEMINIST COMPOSITION THEORY MEET 
 
 
 
 
 
Joel Conway 
 
 
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, 
upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense.  The author reserves all 
publication rights. 
 
 
 
 
 
        ________________________ 
        Signature of Author 
 
 
        ________________________ 
        Date of Graduation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iv
THESIS ABSTRACT 
 
MULTIGENRE RHETORIC:  WHERE GENRE THEORY AND 
 
FEMINIST COMPOSITION THEORY MEET 
 
 
Joel Conway 
 
Master of Arts, May 11, 2006 
(B.S., Auburn University, 2004) 
 
 
77 Typed Pages 
 
Directed by Michelle A. Sidler 
 
 
 
 My purpose is to argue that multigenre rhetoric could be used as a pedagogical 
supplement to expository writing, which is taught as the norm in freshman composition.  
The history and development of genre theory and feminist composition theory are 
explored.  By juxtaposing these two theories, a rationale is provided for introducing 
multigenre rhetoric as a viable pedagogy in the composition classroom. 
 The pedagogical benefits of multigenre rhetoric are explored in relation to genre 
theory and feminist composition theory, linking the two theories with a progressive, 
alternative rhetoric.  Multigenre rhetoric is explicated by showing how it is currently 
being used in English classrooms.  Since to date multigenre rhetoric has not been 
researched in freshman composition, the proposition is made to implement it in freshman 
composition and to perform empirical research.
 v
Style Manual Used:   
Gibaldi, Joseph. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 6th ed. New York:  
Modern Language Association of America, 2003.  
 
 
Computer Software Used:  
Microsoft Word (Office XP edition) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 
INTRODUCTION  
Diverse Discourse................................................................................................................1 
 
  
CHAPTER ONE  
Genre Theory.......................................................................................................................8   
 
  
CHAPTER TWO  
Feminist Composition Theory...........................................................................................26  
 
 
CHAPTER THREE  
Multigenre Rhetoric...........................................................................................................46 
 
    
CONCLUSION 
Further Research................................................................................................................62  
 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................66  
 
 1
INTRODUCTION 
 
Diverse Discourse 
 
 
In her article ?Discourse and Diversity:  Experimental Writing within the 
Academy,? Lillian Bridwell-Bowles calls for a ?view of language and the creation of 
texts?one that takes into account gender, race, class, sexual preference, and a host of 
issues that are implied by these and other cultural differences? (294).  She challenges 
innovation in freshman composition, which has remained silent about any new rhetoric, 
that is, any rhetoric that challenges the standard expository norm by favoring dialogic 
approach over hierarchical structure, negotiation over expository argument or persuasion, 
and multiple understandings over a typical thesis.  What Bridwell-Bowles presents as a 
new writing approach she eventually terms ?diverse discourse.?  The diverse discourse 
that she imagines, though not stating its exact composition, would be one that ?contains 
emotion,?closes the gap between subject and object,?[and] does something ?with? and 
not ?to? the reader? (297).  Such a discourse would include exploring personal voice and 
?nonlinear patterns of organization? (297).
 Diverse discourse can and has taken many forms.  By definition, a discourse that 
is diverse will be one that is open to change and difference, one that does not approach 
each given situation by using an identical format.  Exploring individual approaches to 
individual situations, genre theorists, such as Stephen Doheny-Farina and Carolyn Miller, 
have promoted the idea of kairos when deciding how to compose for any given situation.  
 2
Their research of genre development and use shows a relationship between the type of 
presentation used (the genre) and the effect of that presentation.  Variables, such as 
culture and gender, are central to each individual situation, requiring a particular?
perhaps unique?action to be accomplished by means of a particular?perhaps unique?
genre.  And while freshman composition courses usually try to provide experience in a 
mode, perhaps modes, of writing that will best help students throughout all of college, 
many students do not see the relationship between all the courses.  Instead, as Doheny-
Farina puts it, they see ?boundaries (obstacles?) between courses? (295).  Agreeing with 
Doheny-Farina, Lucile McCarthy points out that ?[t]he contexts for writing may be so 
different from one classroom to another, the ways of speaking in them so diverse, the 
social meanings of writing and the interaction patterns so different, that the courses may 
be for the student writer like so many foreign countries? (260).  Confusion enters the 
student?s mind when she is unclear about how to proceed in the best way to fulfill vastly 
different assignments from different courses.  The protocol for the majority of students is 
to use what they have been taught (this usually means relying on the approaches taught in 
their freshman composition courses), whether that type of writing fits easily or 
awkwardly with the assignment. 
The validity of the academic essay is not something I question; higher education 
requires understanding and proficiency in the standard norm of writing.  So rather than 
question the benefits of the standard academic essay, I look at genre theory as a tool that 
lays the foundation for students to understand the idea of kairos, that is, to understand 
how each situation is different and should be approached rhetorically in the most 
beneficial way.  Multigenre writing assignments?academic essays composed in many 
 3
genres, portraying a variety of voices, and written in nonlinear style?are effective for 
freshman composition because they require new college students to explore what makes 
them unique:  culture, race, ethnicity, sex, religion, world knowledge.  Students must 
make this self-exploration because genres, as will be discussed in Chapter One, are 
created out of social necessity.  Thus, when students write in genres that represent 
themselves, they must undergo deep introspection.  Deep introspection leads to the 
development of a strong, individual voice; multigenre rhetoric provides an avenue for 
individual voice to be explored and heard, an avenue where students can effectively 
institute the notion of kairos.  That is, students can use a creative means of writing that is 
cognitively and affectively in tune with their surrounding academic community and their 
own background to effectively approach a given task, without being bound by the 
dominant writing mode.  If, through multigenre rhetoric, students are given a solid 
foundation to view composition as a means to create?a means to explore?variant 
modes of writing, their limitations will not hinge on exact genres or forms of writing that 
they have learned.  Rather, their knowledge of genre theory and its continual 
development will lead them to explore deeply the construct of present knowledge.  For 
each situation at hand, they will be able to adapt their delivery or develop a new delivery 
that will appropriately address any given situation while expressing strong, individual 
voice. 
Richard Freed and Glenn Broadhead address the issue of the relationship between 
the writer and society this way: 
Whatever the reason for new inquiries into discourse communities and a 
writer?s relationship to them, it seems clear that we need to know a great 
 4
deal more about them, about what characterizes them and how they 
function.  We need to know how they condition and influence not only the 
written products composed within them but the behaviors, attitudes, and 
strategies that ultimately produce those products, which in turn define the 
communities themselves.  For both overtly and tacitly, these communities 
establish paradigms that discoursers adhere to or, often at their risk, depart 
from?.The paradigms reign like prelates and governments reign:  they set 
an agenda and attempt to guarantee its meeting, often rewarding those who 
do and discouraging those who don?t.  (156)  
Thus, to better fulfill the needs of society (the community?in the students? case, the 
classroom), delivery of input must be done in a way that best meets the given situation 
that different parts of society present.  According to Freed and Broadhead, established 
paradigms require certain modes of writing, and students or professionals breaking those 
modes often do so to their own detriment.  Yet, since each community (classroom or 
course) is different in its needs, students must be adaptable to different demands from 
different communities.  For a student to produce personal narration in a situation that 
calls for academic prose, the ?prelates and governments? of that community would not be 
rewarding toward the student.  In order to set a foundation for multigenre rhetoric, then, I 
explore genre theory in relation to kairos; that is, I explore genre theory as a way of 
viewing opportunity as it is presented by different modes and aspects of society, both 
within and beyond the academic setting. 
In Chapter One, I give a working definition of genre theory and then examine 
genre theory in light of the idea of kairos, drawing on the scholarship of Doheny-Farina 
 5
and Miller.  After establishing the relationship between kairos and genre, I explore 
Gunther Kress?s explanation of genre as social process as it relates to Miller?s definition 
of genre as social action and how genres are continually developing and being created.  
Finally, I explore dominant genres, the ones of power that are traditionally accepted as 
norms, as obstacles for multigenre rhetoric.   
  Bridwell-Bowles, in defining diverse discourse, would also term it loosely as 
alternative or feminist discourse.  Exploration of such types of discourse?the use of 
genres other than expository prose in academic settings?then has naturally been 
explored within the confines of feminist theory, especially feminist composition theory.  
Expressing reason to explore new and different types of discourse, Elizabeth Flynn states: 
Feminist research and theory emphasize that males and females differ in 
their developmental processes and in their interactions with others.  They 
emphasize, as well, that these differences are a result of an imbalance in 
the social order, of the dominance of men over women.  They argue that 
men have chronicled our historical narratives and defined our fields of 
inquiry.  Women?s perspectives have been suppressed, silenced, 
marginalized, written out of what counts as authoritative knowledge.  
Difference is erased in a desire to universalize.  Men become the standard 
against which women are judged.  (245) 
So, the writing that women would naturally compose is seen as atypical of the norm.  The 
thesis-driven, argumentative, persuasive, hierarchical expository essay is essentially 
male-created and has been seen as the correct way to write in academia.  Because of such 
a construct, many women (along with minorities and any who are not part of?or at least 
 6
those who do not write as part of?the dominant class) have in effect been silenced or 
forced to assimilate to the male-normative discourse in order to succeed. 
 With the rise of feminist theory, though, exploration that seeks to identify the self 
as individual and worthy of being heard has been undertaken.  For example, Carol 
Gilligan?s In a Different Voice and Mary Belenky et al.?s Women?s Ways of Knowing not 
only show the importance of the non-dominant voice, but ?challenge and subvert 
conventional western conceptions of the self? (Lunsford and Ede 260).  Voice has played 
a primary role in the conventional conception of the self.  I explore the role of women?s 
voice as it has developed from patriarchal oppression to feminist expression.  Diverse 
discourse, I argue, is not a replacement or a tool to marginalize or silence what is now the 
male-dominant, expository style of writing.  Rather, it is an alternative?not a subsidiary 
or secondary tool?means of conveying information, one that does not necessarily 
depend upon hierarchical form, overt persuasion, or other male-dominant characteristics.     
In Chapter Two, I develop the basis for the rise of diverse discourse by looking at 
feminist composition theory.  I explore Flynn?s call for a furtherance of understanding 
and developing of feminist pedagogical approaches and how that call is answered by the 
composition community.  In particular I explore dialogic writing in comparison to 
hierarchical writing and forms of feminist argument and persuasion.  I center my 
discussion of feminist argument and persuasion on Catherine Lamb?s idea of negotiation 
and mediation.  From Lamb?s idea of negotiation and mediation, I develop the idea of a 
diverse discourse that is academic both cognitively and affectively.  Within the concept 
of negotiation and mediation, I explore what Lamb calls ?monologic argument.?  
Monologic argument is then juxtaposed to Terry Zawacki?s explication of the personal 
 7
essay, in particular focusing on the importance of individual voice.  I close Chapter Two 
by highlighting the trend in composition to follow the preset dominant writing styles and 
how those trends must be overcome in order to offer a diverse discourse that is beneficial 
to all students, regardless of background or gender.   
In my concluding chapter, I define multigenre rhetoric according to how it is 
presently being used in advanced college writing classes by Tom Romano and Julie Jung.  
Using aspects of Romano and Jung?s definition, I describe my own vision of multigenre 
rhetoric in relation to freshman composition.  In doing so, I present multigenre rhetoric as 
the link between genre theory and feminist composition theory.  That is, multigenre 
rhetoric encompasses the essence of genre theory in that it allows for the development of 
kairos by the individual student rhetor, who relies on her defining characteristics to 
produce an essay composed of multiple genres and voices that are intellectually and 
emotionally relevant to academic situations and her own life.  Multigenre rhetoric also 
encompasses the narrative devices that, according to Zawacki, are intrinsic in feminist 
composition theory.  Drawing from Lamb?s development of negotiation and mediation, I 
explore how multigenre rhetoric delays decision making since it does not have a typical, 
expository-type thesis and how it allows the reader and writer to engage in a type of 
dialogic discourse.  I expound on the relationship between multigenre rhetoric and 
atypical argument and persuasion, again highlighting the similarities between multigenre 
rhetoric and negotiation and mediation.  Finally, I make a call for further research to be 
done with multigenre rhetoric in freshman composition classes. 
 8
CHAPTER ONE 
 
Genre Theory 
 
 
We need a new language curriculum and a new use of language in the 
curriculum, not just a better educational technology to reproduce the 
traditional genres of school literacy.  In reality, fixed classifications of 
genre may even mean that teachers lose sight of where the real power lies.  
Those who are really innovative and really powerful are those who break 
conventions, not those who reproduce them. 
?Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis ?Introduction:  How a Genre 
Approach to Literacy Can Transform the Way Writing Is Taught? 
  
 As a basis for any genre theory discussion, a working definition of genre must be 
elaborated upon.  As Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway state, ?the new term ?genre? has 
been able to connect a recognition of regularities in discourse types with a broader social 
and cultural understanding of language in use? (1).  Adding to this definition, Carolyn 
Miller says that ?genre must be centred not on the substance or form of discourse but on 
the action it is used to accomplish? (?Genre? 24).  The understanding, then, is that 
language?s origin is with action which is taking place in social processes.  As these 
processes become regulated, spoken and written genres expressing these processes 
become accepted as normal.  Different factors, of course, affect what processes become 
 9
regular actions and thus accepted as, eventually, conventional genres.  In the 1970s, when 
process pedagogy was burgeoning with endorsement from composition scholars, import 
was being given to how and why a text was constructed.  In speaking about the 1970s 
ideas of invention, audience, occasion, and kairos, Freedman and Medway say, 
?[S]tudents were encouraged to think as much about the demands of the occasion of their 
writing as about the textual characteristics of some general, unspecified or universal 
?good writing?? (4).  The demand was being made of students to look at the needs as they 
existed and then to produce an acceptable discourse that would satisfy those needs.  Thus, 
approaches other than the standard, product-driven ones were being explored.  Genre 
study became instrumental in relation to the idea of knowledge being socially constructed 
in response to needs; that is, different genres became instrumental to situations and to the 
delivery of knowledge in particular situations. 
 Imperative to understanding genre theory is an understanding that writers cannot 
be separated from kairos, and it is this relationship that authenticates the need for 
multigenre writing.  Composing in different genres is a primary way of fulfilling kairos 
in that genres are intrinsic to the actions used to successfully meet different social 
situations.  Exploration of kairos and the development of Gunther Kress?s and Miller?s 
views of genre as social process and action lead to an understanding of how genres do 
fulfill kairos since they are continually being developed and refined, along with new 
genres being created, all in an effort to meet social needs.  In opposition to the 
development of these socially-needed genres is the dominance of ingrained genres of 
power.  These genres of power must be overcome to allow for the proper fulfillment of 
kairos and for the institution of a diverse discourse that is founded in multigenre writing. 
 10
In the context of writing situations, James Kinneavy defines kairos as the ?proper 
measure? and ?right timing? (85).  Stephen Doheny-Farina says that ?we must study 
composing within its situational contexts if we are to better understand it both within and 
beyond the academy? (293).  Intrinsic to composition is the need to fulfill the demands of 
multiple contexts, such as to inform and persuade, within one piece of writing.  Yet, these 
multiple contexts almost always rely on each other in order to fulfill some ultimate goal.  
Along with multiple contexts, a rhetor must consider complex communities when 
producing a piece of writing.  Doheny-Farina continues, ?According to Joseph Harris, we 
should not assume such clear distinctions between communities?.[A] more complex 
way of looking at individuals in discourse communities is to see writers influenced by the 
perceived demands of multiple communities wherever they write and speak? (295-296).  
In other words, communities are interrelated and diverse, and as such, they require more 
than a singular approach to fulfill the needs of the recipients.  Kairos requires the 
successful rhetor to meet the multiple demands of both the context and the community.  
The use of multiple genres naturally lends toward satisfying varying demands; thus, a 
holistic approach to satisfying varying demands would be to combine genres within one 
piece of writing. 
 Harris makes appropriate classroom application when he says, ?[W]hat we see in 
the classroom, then, are not two coherent and competing discourses but many 
overlapping and conflicting ones? (19).  The two competing discourses he refers to?the 
two discourses that are not really there?are those of the students and teacher.  The 
students are not wholly outside of the academic/classroom community as the teacher is 
not wholly inside the academic/classroom community.  Instead of trying to get students to 
 11
see a classroom community as a brand new rhetorical zone, Harris says the teacher 
should ?offer [students] the chance to reflect critically on those discourses?of home, 
school, work, the media, and the like?to which they already belong? (19).  If students 
are allowed to do this, they will be able to ?reposition themselves in relation to several 
continuous and conflicting discourses? (19).  And in so doing, they will be able to 
successfully negotiate the demands that the diverse, overlapping discourses of the 
classroom (and later society in general) puts on them. 
 What often happens, though, is that the teacher does not offer the students the 
opportunity to reflect on and use the discourses they are familiar with along with those 
they have been introduced to at school.  This lack of integration between the known and 
the learned leads students to rely on what they believe is expected of them; that is, they 
tend, as Doheny-Farina says, to ?rely on a seemingly academic notion of what writing of 
substance should sound like? (297).  This is done in both the academic and work settings.  
Students and workers alike do not achieve higher levels of critical thinking because they 
are afraid to go outside the confines of what is considered the norm.  Kairos, using the 
information at hand to come up with the most logical, persuasive, and rhetorical 
approach, is not considered.  For the worker, this causes a problem because most work-
related writing favors efficiency and a final product over exploration and the 
development of experimental processes.  And for the student, problems arise when a 
foundation is not properly set for the ability to deviate from norms in order to produce the 
most satisfying results.  Since environments, organizations, communities, contexts, etc. 
change and evolve, teachers must offer diverse rhetorical training to their students.  
Doheny-Farina says, ?[T]he primary issue involves our ability to prepare our students to 
 12
deal with these changing environments?.[I]t is our duty to make students aware that they 
will face such factors? (306-307). 
 Continuing to build on the concept of being rhetorically prepared for alternative 
environments, Carolyn Miller presents the views of Lloyd Bitzer and Richard Vatz.  
Bitzer?s view is that ?[e]ach rhetorical situation presents a different sort of opportunity, a 
different kairos?.[T]hus a kairos presents itself at a distinct point in time, manifesting its 
own requirements and making demands on the rhetor, which the rhetor must discern in 
order to succeed? (?Kairos? 312).  In contrast to Bitzer?s idea that the situation remains 
independent from the rhetor, Miller presents Vatz?s view that ?any moment in time has a 
kairos, a unique potential that a rhetor can grasp and make something of, defining (at 
least in part) the terms for his or her success? (312).  Miller?s own view of kairos is a 
combination of the objective (Bitzer) and subjective (Vatz) views of kairos.  Miller 
contends that each moment in time offers an opportunity that must be seized upon by the 
creative, critical-thinking rhetor in order to successfully accomplish a task, whether that 
task be assigned or imaginatively created.  Miller analogizes her idea by referring to the 
original Greek meaning of kairos, that of a ?penetrable opening, an aperture? (Onians 
345).  Miller says that a literal ?opening can be constructed as well as discovered? (313). 
 An understanding of kairos as presented by Doheny-Farina, Harris, and Miller 
ultimately means that students must be prepared to accept the challenges of diverse 
environments, fulfilling communal needs of the persons who are in those environments.  
Those needs will vary depending on the situational context and the audience itself.  In 
fact, an adept worker or student will be able to create an opportunity to explore and 
develop new ideas in new constructs by taking advantage of the subjective view of 
 13
kairos.  Being able to understand that a diverse approach is necessary begins by being 
able to critically analyze the situation at hand in order to develop the most appropriate 
rhetorical method of proceeding.  For this rhetorical method to be sound, a better 
understanding of how language is viewed and predominantly used in different 
environments and by different cultures must be gained. 
 Gunther Kress outlines, in his article ?Genre as Social Process,? three approaches 
of thinking about language:  topically, psychologically, and culturally.  A topical 
understanding of language is one that realizes mainly grammatical rules?when to write a 
noun, verb, pronoun, adjective, and so on.  This type of language understanding is, as 
Kress aptly puts it, ?formal and sterile? (23).  To understand language as a psychological 
phenomenon means to see it as uniquely human in that human brains are what create and 
recreate language.  This view of language approaches education as a means to develop 
the mind and is seen as more important today than a topical view of language which 
focuses on correct grammar.  While being the dominant view of language, the 
psychological view emphasizes ?the structure, regularity, generality of forms and, in 
some cases their universality?arguing that all human languages are essentially the same? 
(23).  This view of language is not denied, but negotiated with by a cultural view of 
language as presented in genre theory. 
 A cultural view of language emphasizes cultural and social issues as they relate to 
the creation and presentation of language and texts.  Kress says that genre theory 
?assumes that whatever is psychological is common to all human beings, therefore to all 
cultures? (23).  In other words, language as developed in the brain is universal, the same 
to all humans.  What is interesting and relevant to a new understanding of language, 
 14
though, are the ?factors which make languages different? (23).  These factors, if not in 
the individual makeup of the human mind, must be from cultural and social tendencies 
and influences.  Genre theory proposes that language should be understood as it fits in 
with culture and society.  The realization of the differences intrinsic to language means 
an emphasis must be put on understanding ?what language is doing and being made to do 
by people in specific situations in order to make particular meanings? (23). 
Kress?s understanding and definition of genre complements Carolyn Miller?s 
hallmark essay, ?Genre as Social Action.?  Miller believes ?that a theoretically sound 
definition of genre must be centred not on the substance or form of discourse but on the 
action it is used to accomplish? (24).  Her foundation for this argument is as follows: 
The semiotic framework provides a way to characterize the principles used 
to classify discourse, according to whether the defining principle is based 
in rhetorical substance (semantics), form (syntactics), or the rhetorical 
action the discourse performs (pragmatics).  A classifying principle based 
in rhetorical action seems most clearly to reflect rhetorical practice?.And 
if genre represents action, it must involve situation and motive, because 
human action, whether symbolic or otherwise, is interpretable only against 
a context of situation and through the attributing of motives.  (24) 
Miller later argues that action encompasses substance and form, that what is said and how 
it is said is inclusive of the action itself.  Situations provide opportunities for different 
types of actions to take place, sparked on by motive.  Some of these actions will be 
pragmatic while others will be less than fruitful.  Successful genres will eventually evolve 
 15
or transition over time and be seen as the most pragmatic responses to particular 
situations.  Thus, genres form because of social needs. 
 Miller?s view is endorsed by Kress, who believes that the underlying reasoning of 
any text originates with the social pressures that instigate the text being composed.  
Concerning a text, Kress would ask, ?Who produced it?  For whom was it produced?  In 
what context, and under what constraints was it produced?? (26)  The practicality of 
Kress?s argument is simple:  texts are constructed for particular purposes; these purposes 
are interrelated to the creator of the text and the recipient of the text.  All of these factors 
must necessarily be considered because different texts (also different types of language) 
result from different situations.  Conceding that language is indeed seen as 
psychologically universal, there must be some causable explanation for difference.  That 
difference is explained through the already existing and ever-changing factors that 
influence language and texts:  culture and society.  Thus, different cultures and 
societies?even different situations or demands within the same culture or society?
require certain types of speech and certain types of final written products. 
 The written product is seen as different from the speech act; Kress says that 
?writing is much more, and something quite other than, the mere transcription of speech? 
(25).  When recurring situations ?are accompanied by language, of whatever kind, the 
regularity of the situation will give rise to regularities in the texts which are produced in 
that situation? (27).  Thus, speech and writing develop into a similar type of recurring 
form, a genre.  Understanding that genres are not static, as will be developed more below, 
Kress says that ?generic form is never totally fixed, but is always in the process of 
change? (28).  Thus, the written form can be seen as ?much more? than speech in that 
 16
change (development) can be and often is instigated in writing before speech.  What is 
affectionately ?toyed? with at the level of writing can become persuasive in both 
traditional and nontraditional ways and can become exclusively a written genre, that is, a 
genre free from and unrelated to speech.  Kress cites as an example of a nontraditional 
yet persuasive written genre the local election pamphlet (25-27).  While such genres can 
be (but by no means must they be) exclusively written, they are created as the direct need 
of the society that embodies them.  They are ?natural? even if odd (whether too formal or 
informal) because of the demand for such a creation by a particular situation. 
 Written genres are the means to unification because of their lasting, seemingly 
permanent quality.  That is, written genres are recorded, seen on paper as correct or 
incorrect and empowering to those who can successfully negotiate in the ?correct? 
manner.  If a variety of new and experimental written genres are not explored to see their 
benefits to the writer and recipient, ?the powerful genres of the dominant cultural 
group(s) will be taught in an unreflecting fashion as if they were a politically, socially 
and ideologically neutral set of forms, as a kind of universal commonsense? (Kress, 
?Genre? 30).  This means that non-dominant groups will suffer as they attempt to 
conform to means of written discourse that are subversive to their cultural upbringing 
and/or surroundings.  It also means that society?s influences?especially as society 
changes by the passage of time, globalization, and other influences?will not be 
successfully initiated into the way written discourse is presented. 
 Since genres arise out of the demand to fill social needs, they are not static.  As 
Karlyn Campbell and Kathleen Jamieson state, ?A genre does not consist merely of a 
series of acts in which certain rhetorical forms recur?.Instead, a genre is composed of a 
 17
constellation of recognizable forms bound together by an internal dynamic? (21).  Miller 
contends that what makes up this internal dynamic are ?substantive, stylistic, and 
situational characteristics? (?Genre? 24).  These characteristics, as they are seen together, 
make up a pragmatic response to the demands of a situation.  Since all of these 
characteristics are dependent upon society?s makeup, that is, as society changes, so do 
these characteristics, the pragmatic response will change dependent on society?s needs.  
Thus, genre, as Miller calls it, is ?fully rhetorical, a point of connection between intention 
and effect, an aspect of social action? (25).   
 As a fully rhetorical device, genre should not be understood as a finite system of 
classification.  Miller says that ?the set of genres is an open class, with new members 
evolving, old ones decaying? (25).  She further clarifies her definition of genre by saying, 
In sum, what I am proposing so far is that in rhetoric the term ?genre? be 
limited to a particular type of discourse classification, a classification 
based in rhetorical practice and consequently open rather than closed and 
organized around situated actions (that is pragmatic, rather than syntactic 
or semantic)?.This approach insists that the ?de facto? genres, the types 
we have names for in everyday language, tell us something theoretically 
important about discourse.  (27) 
Miller goes on to list ever-changing means of discourse that are encountered everyday, 
?such as the letter of recommendation, the user manual, the progress report, the ransom 
note, the lecture,? (27) and more.  Understanding why (the motive) these genres are used 
in society and how they have changed over the course of mankind?s development leads to 
 18
a better understanding of current society and what will be needed to appropriately and 
pragmatically address new situations as they arise. 
Miller?s beliefs about the adaptability and progressiveness of genre are in 
agreement with Mikhail Bakhtin?s.  Bakhtin?s essay, ?The Problem of Speech Genres,? 
focuses on genre as part of what Miller would call rhetorical substance or semantics, 
which is encompassed as part of action, along with form or syntactics.  Bakhtin says that 
?we speak in diverse genres without suspecting that they exist? and that we master these 
speech genres ?fluently long before we begin to study grammar? (78).  Reasoning how 
generic forms of speech are ?flexible, plastic, and free? (79), Bakhtin says, 
We know our native language?its lexical composition and grammatical 
structure?not from dictionaries and grammars but from concrete 
utterances that we hear and that we ourselves reproduce in live speech 
communication with people around us.  We assimilate forms of language 
only in forms of utterances and in conjunction with these forms.  The 
forms of utterances, that is, speech genres, enter our experience and our 
consciousness together, and in close connection with one another.  (78) 
Speech genres, then, are founded as a learned aspect of the society that surrounds the 
speaker.  Formal learning is not necessary to understand the differing speech genres, 
which are a constituent of Miller?s idea of social action.  And speakers assimilate as 
society or aspects of society introduce variants to language.  As a speaker hears and 
becomes accustomed to a new utterance, that utterance becomes part of the speaker?s 
experience and consciousness and becomes a means by which the speaker can 
 19
communicate with others or have viable discourse in a new, meaningful, and pragmatic 
speech genre. 
 Genres, spoken and written, need to be common in order to be successful?at 
least to a degree.  Kress says that genres can be successful ?only out of a productive 
knowledge of relevant cultural and social factors, of their most common convergences in 
social situations, and of their linguistic production and realisation in specific textual 
forms? (?Genre? 31).  And Bakhtin argues that ?genres must be fully mastered to be used 
creatively? (80).  The commonality of genres, though, will vary depending on the 
individual student?s cultural and social makeup.  What is common for a class or an 
instructor is not necessarily common for the individual student writer.  The student must 
thus be given enough authority to determine which genres are common to her 
individually and which genres she is a master of.  What is important is that the students 
understand the genre they are speaking or writing as it relates to society.  That the genres 
used be the ?most common convergences in social situations? (italics mine) would hinder 
creativity and the ability to look at a situation from different points of view.  It would also 
go against a correct representation of society; that is, society is an ever-changing, 
forward-moving phenomenon, and as genres are seen as social process and action, they 
too must be progressive and ever-changing. 
 So if, as Kress, Miller, and Bakhtin promote, genres are open and changing to 
fulfill society?s needs and situations, then the idea or ?concept of interplay and 
interaction? needs to be addressed.  That is, ?[i]f genres respond to contexts, they also 
shape such contexts? (Freedman and Medway 10).  This means that genres are socially 
involved as developmental to changing culture.  As society requires new, pragmatically 
 20
sound genres for newly developing situations, so too do genres affect what society 
requires.  This idea of interplay and interaction relates to Miller?s (?Kairos?) combining 
of Bitzer?s objective and Vatz?s subjective views of kairos.  As the objective view 
demands, the rhetor must take advantage of given, perhaps limited situations (what 
society offers).  The subjective view, though, enables the rhetor to create opportunities, to 
infuse society with a new and progressive means of approaching recurring situations and 
accomplishing repetitive tasks.   
An example of how interplay and interaction between genre and situational 
demands works is seen in Carol Berkenkotter, Thomas Huckin, and John Ackerman?s 
case study of a graduate student in the rhetoric department at Carnegie Mellon.  They 
published their findings in the aptly titled article ?Social Context and Socially 
Constructed Texts:  The Initiation of a Graduate Student into a Writing Research 
Community.?  Berkenkotter et al. say, ?As language users travel from one community 
context to another?they must master new ways of speaking, reading, and writing, ways 
that are appropriate within each community? (193).  The researchers tracked Nate, a 
skilled adult writer with a background in English studies and teaching, as he entered a 
research community.  Nate?s background ?had not included training in the genres of 
social science expository writing that were the preferred form of academic discourse in 
many of his courses? (199).  Nate?s writing mixed generic features of his educational and 
professional background with those of the research norm he was learning at Carnegie 
Mellon.  While Nate did make ?the transition from composition teacher to composition 
researcher? (211), he did not completely assimilate to his new role.  Berkenkotter et al. 
explain, ?Rather, [Nate] brought bits and pieces of his experience as writing teacher to his 
 21
new role as an apprentice researcher? (212).  In effect, Nate created a new genre from 
two existing ones:  his background writing knowledge and the research writing 
knowledge he was being instructed in.   
As Nate continues researching and writing as a graduate student, he affects the 
scientific research paper genre in small ways, altering how others view that particular 
genre because of the input he has given.  If he becomes a professor and begins to publish 
frequently for his academic field, the genre he has altered (even minutely) becomes 
influential to a degree to new researchers who are interested in his particular field.  These 
new researchers will, of course, have their own backgrounds and styles of writing that 
will interact with what they are being taught formally and learning from reading one?s, 
such as Nate?s, research articles.  This system of interplay and interaction is perpetuated 
to greater and lesser degrees depending on the individual and his particular influence.  
Freedman and Medway say that ?genres can be reshaped by those who use them?in 
major ways, by exceptionally powerful or forceful individuals, and in small ways 
presumably, by the incremental adaptations of routine users? (10).  While the exceptional 
individual may be able to reshape a genre to a greater extent, the genre itself must be the 
primary focus of consideration when determining the breadth and depth of the extent in 
which it may be changed. 
An alternative spectrum of genres is adverse to and fights against change.  Nate?s 
scientific research paper has long belonged to one of the genres that resists altering its 
fundamental characteristics.  Even though Nate was able to successfully include his 
personal background in the way he constructed his own scientific research papers, the 
change must be seen as miniscule because of the genre in which Nate was working.  In 
 22
scientific research writing and certain other indoctrinated academic and professional 
areas (in many colleges and universities this includes the expository essay in freshman 
composition), genre functions ?primarily as a means of resisting change.  Because of 
their association with precedent and proper procedure, and their solid existence as social 
fact, genres may be ideal symbolically charged landmarks over which to mount a not-an-
inch-further last-ditch defence of the status quo, under the banner of ?This is how it is 
done?? (Freedman and Medway14). 
Traditionally, it has been believed that ?full access to, and control of, literacy is 
essential to full participation in all aspects of social life? (Kress, ?Genre? 29).  This 
means that freedom of choice is dependent ?on access to the most powerful forms of 
writing, the most powerful genres in one?s own society? (29).  Therefore, genre theory 
pushes for ?equal access to the cultural and social resources and benefits of this kind of 
society? (28).  Genre theory widens ?the range of choices and possibilities, and 
[provides] freedom that comes from the possibility of choosing, rather than leaving 
people locked into particular situations? (29).  The ability to benefit from genre, rather 
than be subjected to continued oppression because of any social factor, is a benefit of 
genre theory.  Yet, fear and adverse effects of the traditional, dominant discourses?those 
genres that are ingrained by the status quo?are difficult to eradicate completely. 
J.R. Martin, in speaking about scientific discourse, a discourse that can be seen as 
one belonging to?that is, written and read by?the dominant faction in higher education, 
says, ?If you can?t write like this, you can?t be part of this process.  If you can?t read this 
text, you won?t even know what is going on? (119).  Martin, in his essay ?A Contextual 
Theory of Language,? refers to Michael Halliday, who wrote a paper called ?Syntax and 
 23
the Consumer.?  In this paper, Halliday explains ?that the kind of linguistics you devise 
depends on what you?re trying to do with it? (119).  Martin goes on to term Halliday?s 
idea as ?systematic functional linguistics? (119).  Systematic functional linguistics 
?challenges the kinds of writing usually taught in school, suggesting that there is more to 
writing than story writing and that a broader range of types of writing, reflecting the 
needs of both schools and the community, needs to be introduced? (119).  In other words, 
genres such as the scientific research paper and freshman composition?s expository essay 
need to be looked at in view of the functionality of such a linguistic mode of information 
delivery.  Is that type of genre beneficial to the writer and the reader, and if so, to what 
degree?  Who are being excluded from participation because of such a dominant-type 
discourse, and would modification or adaptation allow traditionally subverted ones to be 
included in the discourse? 
Martin believes that even the most rigorous and exclusive genres are adaptable.  
He says that ?adaptation illustrates one fundamental property of all semiotic systems, 
namely, the fact that they are dynamic open systems?for purposes of survival they have 
a built-in ability to adapt to their environment and so evolve? (122).  Again and again, 
adaptation and evolution are at the forefront of genre theory.  Considering the 
progressiveness of genre theory, it ?goes beyond the process pedagogies which stress 
?natural? learning through ?doing? writing.?  And, in effect, it attempts ?to create a new 
pedagogical space? (Cope and Kalantzis 1).  This new pedagogical space has exploration, 
adaptation, evolution, and change as the primary ingredients to strengthen language and 
discourse.  Because of its ?radicalness,? genre theory experiences hostility from those 
discourses that are not interested in change, evolution, adaptation, or exploration.  These 
 24
discourses are not interested in change because they are the discourses of power, the 
discourses that endorse patriarchal authority, that are male-normative.  For patriarchal 
discourses to be accepting of change would mean altering or negotiating with the 
ideologies that they inherently promote.  These ideologies have become almost blindly 
accepted as the unequivocal norms in academic composition as if they are intrinsic to 
each individual rhetor. 
The particular discourses that are dominant, ones of power, are both disruptive to 
genre theory as a means of adaptability and new presentation of information as well as 
possibly disruptive to new, burgeoning genres because of new genres? susceptibility to 
influence from traditionally dominant voices.  To allow dominant influences to interfere 
with or hinder the learning and using of nontraditional genres in the classroom is a force 
that genre and feminist scholars?along with progressive, younger teachers?have been 
struggling with for years.  As genre theory blooms and becomes more integrated into 
curriculums, though, the battle will be to keep dominant influences from creeping into 
nonstandard genres, subverting the progress because of the assumption ?that the 
discourses of power are intrinsically more worthwhile than other discourses? (Cope and 
Kalantzis 17).  The fear is well stated by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, ?[G]enre literacy 
could develop a tendency to restore a hidden curriculum whose linguistic and 
pedagogical presuppositions amount to a reconstituted cultural deficit model? (17).  To 
prevent this from happening, intrinsic pedagogical reasoning must be seen in a diverse 
discourse that incorporates genre theory while encouraging individual student voice and 
discouraging norms that are associated with the discourses of power.   
 25
In Chapter Three, I explicate how multigenre rhetoric, which is founded in genre 
theory, is composed of inherent pedagogical tools that prevent a ?reconstituted cultural 
deficit model??a hybrid patriarchal-ideology-endorsing rhetoric?from developing.  As 
a diverse discourse, multigenre rhetoric adheres to feminist pedagogies, such as narration, 
promotion of individual voice, dialogic reasoning, negotiation, and atypical arguments, 
within the construct of genre theory.  Understanding the development and pedagogies of 
feminist composition theory creates the necessary foundation for introducing multigenre 
rhetoric as a diverse discourse that is not susceptible to being converted into a discourse 
of power that promotes the ?male? voice and ideologies.  Rather, multigenre rhetoric 
mixes the functionality of genre theory as it allows for kairos with feminist pedagogies in 
a way that allows individual voices of both genders and all cultures to be heard as unique 
and forceful. 
 26
CHAPTER TWO 
 
Feminist Composition Theory 
 
 
Is it possible to challenge the traditional academic hierarchy which 
privileges expository prose by rejecting the distinction between personal 
writing and expository writing?  By showing that genre boundaries 
themselves are as questionable as gender boundaries and that all writing is 
a means of creating a self, not for expressing a self that already exists?  If I 
situate myself in the context of other voices, if I write about experiences 
and feelings, if I choose not to get to the point, it?s not because I am a 
woman, but rather because I want to discover the possibilities of 
representing a gendered self in writing. 
?Terry Zawacki, ?Recomposing as a Woman?An Essay in 
Different Voices? 
 
Diverse approaches are not being taught in freshman composition, which both 
limits students? cognitive/epistemic preparation and potentially disadvantages non-
paradigmatic writers.  Monologic (hierarchical, thesis-driven) forms of writing are the 
norm while the personal essay and other forms of narrative writing are not given impetus.  
As will be discussed in this chapter, monologic writing endorses male ideologies and 
voice while narrative writing endorses female ideologies and voice.  What would happen, 
 27
though, if a variety of genres representing monologic and narrative forms were combined, 
along with a variety of voices?  Would student rhetors find their own unique, confident 
voice (or voices) and be able to communicate that voice in a pragmatic way?  Multigenre 
writing is a compilation and negotiation of differing voices and multiple genres.  The 
success of this type of writing, when contending against freshman composition?s 
domineering traditional form?the academic, expository essay?will mean the creation of 
not simply a woman?s voice or a woman?s form in the academic setting, but multiple 
voices and multiple forms created from a consideration of all the voices and writings 
involved.  Since variable voices and forms have stemmed from exploration by feminist 
writers, an exploration of voice and form through the lens of feminist composition theory 
provides an understanding for the multiple possibilities of voice and form. 
The foundation for multigenre rhetoric that has been laid in Chapter One hinges 
on the relationship of writers to kairos.  Writers?student, professional, recreational?
must adapt their writing to fulfill the demands of individual situations.  But, at the same 
time, the writer must be true to her own voice.  Anne Cranny-Francis addresses the issue 
of voice and dominance and how women writers have found their voice in writing when 
she discusses genre in relation to gender.  The dominant text, influenced by centuries of 
male thought process (and, connectively, the male voice), is seen, according to Cranny-
Francis, as a composite of attempted change.  She says,  
[A]ll texts are generic; they are all constructed and read in relation to 
usually one dominant accepted literary (or non-literary) category.  They 
may diverge from the conservative functioning of that genre, perhaps 
through a mixing of different genres in the one text, but they nevertheless 
 28
can be identified and made meaning of by their relationship(s) with one or 
more genres.  (92)   
Thus, the dominant genre is influential, perhaps subconsciously or at least not overtly, 
even to those writers who are trying to break the norm.  A mixing of genres (or the use of 
nonstandard genres) on its own does not destroy the ?dominant accepted literary 
category.?  Writers must find their own distinguished voice as the beginning point to 
overcoming the dominant faction of society.    
In particular, Cranny-Francis highlights the evolution of the romantic novel; yet, 
her formula for the construction of the ?universal text??one that is male created yet 
hypothetically seen as the ?for-all? text?holds true to other types of writing.  The 
romantics tried to disguise the conventionality of their writings.  In doing so, their 
writings were seen as more natural than those that were overtly generic, clearly belong to 
a specified genre.  Thus, an attempt to hide genre in an attempt to be natural or authentic 
was made.  These genre-hidden writings came to be seen as ?universal? because of their 
less apparent commitment to a certain genre.  Cranny-Francis claims that these texts that 
were attempting to hide their genre, in a way, appealed to a so-called universal society 
since it was not easy to depict what audience they were appealing to.  She then relates 
how these romantic novels still enforced a specific ideology.  She says,  
[T]hese ?universal? texts?or readings of texts?enacted a set of values, 
attitudes and beliefs which could be precisely discursively located.  Their 
ideological function is as part of the reconstruction of that set of 
discourses:  to position readers as compliant subjects of those discourses 
and so to (re)produce the dominant social/ideological formation.  (94)   
 29
The ideology that the romantics encouraged and reproduced, even while they were 
attempting to write without genre, was one full of male values, attitudes, and beliefs.  
While they removed certain conventional aspects of the generic romantic novel, they 
were unwilling or unable to break the ideological trend. 
 Thus, universal texts got in the way of women who were trying to ?write texts 
which told their own specific story, not the patriarchal story told by these ?universal? 
texts and their (compliant) readings? (94).  The conventions of the universal texts were 
molded in such a way that women could not get away from the restrictions placed on 
producing similar-like texts that would be feminist.  In order to overcome, Cranny-
Francis says that ?feminist writers had to remake genres in which they wrote.  Genres 
which had been constructed and continually reconstructed to enact patriarchal ideology?
patriarchal ways of thinking and acting?had to be modified to enact a different, feminist 
discourse? (95).   
Because women were changing and reconstructing patriarchal ways (what most 
believed to be universal ways), many felt disappointed with the change.  They felt that 
the text produced was unsuccessful.  As Cranny-Francis puts it, ?In other words, their 
expectation of a (patriarchal) happy ending [was] so strong that they [were not] able to 
accept the feminist positioning entreated in the text.  Changing the genre might mean that 
you lose a few readers?but it may give voice to others who might not otherwise have the 
possibility of a voice? (95).  The texts that women were creating, sticking to a particular 
genre but telling it from woman?s voice, giving the feminist story, clearly ?showed that 
the story told by conventional texts in that genre [was] also a specific story, told from a 
particular perspective, a patriarchal one? (96).  When readers felt disappointed or the 
 30
feminist stories ?failed,? this highlighted the way the conventional texts were written and 
read, that is, in a male-oriented way.  The patriarchal stories were seen as actually ?not 
about ?universal? human endeavour? (97) as they had claimed to be.  The universal texts 
were thus put in their true light; they were seen as working against women and other 
minorities who were not part of the dominant discourse group. 
Kairos, as it fits in with genre theory and each individual writer, requires not only 
approaching each situation openly in regards to syntactics, but also in regards to 
semantics.  As a sublevel of semantics, voice must be considered as the primary or 
beginning point for change to be made.  Once the individual (female, minority, 
minimalized, or silenced) voice is realized, the physical adaptation of writing will be 
more easily developed.  As feminist writers have expressed their voice, they have 
realized that the ?universal? forms of writing do not always fit their voice.  So, they have 
begun to search for and develop new and exciting ways to express their voices physically 
in writing, breaking away from the dominant voice as well as breaking away from the 
dominant form.    
To understand what approach women writers have taken to begin overcoming the 
dominant (patriarchal) type of writing, an understanding of the foundation of women?s 
writing is needed.  In ?Composing as a Woman,? Elizabeth Flynn states, ?Feminist 
research and theory emphasize that males and females differ in their developmental 
processes and in their interactions with others? (245).  Flynn enlarges upon this statement 
by looking at three areas of development:  relational capacities, morality, and intellect.  
An overview of these three areas of development will set a basis for understanding the 
 31
reasons why men and women seem to inherently write differently.  Thus, the 
development of a feminist (alternative or diverse) discourse is seen as inevitable for  
women (and those who do not write well in relation to patriarchal norms) to naturally and 
fully express themselves in writing. 
In her book The Reproduction of Mothering, Nancy Chodorow distinguishes the 
relational differences in men and women.  These differences stem from the first 
relationship accessible to both boys and girls, that of their relationship with their mother.  
Flynn comments that ?[b]ecause all children identify first with their mother, a girl?s 
gender and gender role identification processes are continuous with her earliest 
identifications whereas a boy?s are not? (246).  That is, the boy breaks off the initial 
relationship he has with his mother because he does not fully identify with her.  The girl, 
though, is able to continue building on the relationship she has begun with her mother, 
continuing to put forth ?affective relationships to others? (Chodorow 176) because of the 
emotional reinforcement she receives from the relationship with her mother.  The boy, 
however, ?tends to deny identification with and relationship to his mother and reject what 
he takes to be the feminine world? (176); that is, he rejects emotions in lieu of a cognitive 
understanding of the world, one where emotions are not impetus.  The end result is that, 
even (or especially) as adults, ?[f]eminine identification processes are relational, whereas 
masculine identification processes tend to deny relationship? (176).      
Building on the work of Chodorow, Carol Gilligan comments on the moral 
differences between men and women in her book In a Different Voice.  She says, ?[For 
women,] the moral problem arises from conflicting responsibilities rather than competing 
rights and requires for its resolution a mode of thinking that is contextual and narrative 
 32
rather than formal and abstract? (19).  A contextual and narrative mode of thinking and 
writing is one that allows affective relationships to develop, that is, one that brings 
emotions into the writing.  Conversely, the ?formal and abstract? mode of thinking is 
contextualized by men when they develop their moral understanding as related to ?rights 
and rules? (19).  This, in turn, is related to cognitive and hierarchical thinking and 
writing.  What is considered the ?male approach? to writing, then, is developed from an 
argument-driven, right-or-wrong stance in opposition to the ?female approach? which is 
seen as negotiation with the topic in a more informal, dialogic way. 
Mary Belenky, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger, and Jill Tarule explore 
intellectual development in Women?s Ways of Knowing.  They expand William Perry?s 
1970 study of intellectual development which focuses exclusively on men at Harvard 
University.  In expanding Perry?s study, they highlight an inequity in the way human 
experience is viewed; that is, human experience in regards to intellectual development 
had been seen primarily by its relationship to men.  Belenky et al. state, ?The mental 
processes that are involved in considering the abstract and the impersonal have been 
labeled ?thinking? and are attributed primarily to men, while those that deal with the 
personal and interpersonal fall under the rubric of ?emotions? and are largely relegated to 
women? (7).  Yet, there must be some kind of equal ground, some way of mixing the 
mental processes that have been historically constituted to only men or women.  The fear 
of mixing these mental processes is stated by Belenky et al. when they say, ?Historically, 
it has been assumed that the development of women?s intellectual potential would inhibit 
the development of their emotional capacities and that the development of men?s 
emotional range would impair intellectual functioning? (7).  But following and building 
 33
on the work of Chodorow and Gilligan, Belenky et al. believe that women?s voices, along 
with their perspectives and values, can have an impact on academic disciplines in a way 
that ?new conclusions can be drawn and new directions forged that have implications for 
the lives of both men and women? (8-9).  Thus, an alternative, intellectual view of 
academic writing, one that encourages women?s voices, is not exclusive of men; rather, it 
is an avenue of approach that should be accepted as pointedly beneficial for expression in 
a different voice.  This different voice adds to the ?male? voice and initiates a multi-
voiced approach to writing which articulates differing points of view with the inclusion 
of those overlooked by a singular (male) voice. 
Flynn continues ?Composing as a Woman? by looking at student writings from 
the viewpoint of relational capacities and moral and intellectual development.  While her 
analysis of student essays does not fit seamlessly into the foundational information 
discussed above, Flynn does find that on the whole ?[t]he narratives of the female 
students are stories of interaction, of connection, or of frustrated connection.  The 
narratives of the male students are stories of achievement, of separation, or of frustrated 
achievement? (247-248).  She thus synthesizes ?not to assume that males and females use 
language in identical ways or represent the world in a similar fashion.  And if their 
writing strategies and patterns of representation do differ, then ignoring those differences 
almost certainly means a suppression of women?s separate ways of thinking and writing? 
(251).  Flynn agrees with Belenky et al. in that she pushes for a furtherance of 
understanding and developing pedagogical approaches that will empower women without 
insisting upon unquestioning assimilation. 
 34
Exploring a possibly empowering pedagogical stance, Andrea Lunsford and Lisa 
Ede enunciate two distinct types of collaborative writing.  One is hierarchical?being 
driven by someone outside of the immediate collaborative group or by a senior leader of 
the group.  Concerning hierarchical collaboration, they say, ?The activity of finding this 
information or solving this problem is closely tied to the realization of a particular end 
product.  This mode of collaborative writing is, we would argue, typically conservative.  
It is also, need we say, a predominantly masculine mode of discourse? (257).  The other 
mode of collaborative writing is dialogic.  This ?mode is loosely structured, and the roles 
enacted within it are fluid; one ?person? may occupy multiple and shifting roles as the 
project progresses?.Those who participate in dialogic collaboration generally value the 
creative tension inherent in multivoiced and multivalent ventures? (257).  While the topic 
of Lunsford and Ede?s dialogic discourse is centered on collaborative writing, the idea of 
one person fulfilling many roles lends itself to a type of writing that could be constructed 
by one person and still be termed dialogic by a proper exploration of voice and point of 
view. 
 Lunsford and Ede successfully set up what could be deemed binary opposites in 
the terms ?hierarchical? and ?dialogic? in that one is representative of masculine writing 
while the other is representative of feminine writing.  The hierarchical (masculine) 
approach, which is driven by the end product, ?is perceived as efficient and productive if 
sometimes unsatisfying? (259).  As the dominant approach, it is viewed ?as ?the way 
things are?? (259).  The approach in opposition to hierarchical writing is a dialogic one.  
The dialogic approach is creative, fluid, and multivoiced and ?represents the possibility 
 35
of subverting traditional phallogocentric, subject-centered discourse?for a rhetoric?in a 
new key? (259-260). 
 Concerning a new type of rhetoric, one that praises a dialogic approach in favor of 
a hierarchical one, that is, one that is driven by the end product, Cynthia Caywood and 
Gillian Overing comment on the academic norm for writing.  They say, ?The model of 
writing as a product is inherently authoritarian? (xii).  The result is that certain types of 
language and discourse are deemed more important and valued over others:  expository 
essay over exploratory; argumentative essay over autobiographical; thesis-driven essay 
over organic exploration; the impersonal, rational voice over the intimate, subjective one 
(xii).  The favored, authoritarian models are inherently male and reflect hierarchical form.  
The subjugated models are inherently female and reflect dialogic form.  A diverse 
discourse that caters to the needs and tendencies of feminine composition theory, then, 
will be one that is prepared to approach situations in less-than-assured ways.  That is, by 
following a dialogic approach, a diverse discourse will not be intimidated to be at first 
unsure, unclear, or multi-positioned.  Instead, by being so, it will allow creativity and the 
foundational elements that are deemed inherently feminine to be heard. 
 Another pedagogical approach to diverse writing has to do with removing 
argument from the composition classroom and by extension from the composition essay.  
Susan Jarratt, in her essay ?Feminism and Composition:  The Case for Conflict,? says, 
?Some feminists vigorously reject argument on the grounds that it is a kind of violence, 
an instrument specific to patriarchal discourse and unsuitable for women trying to 
reshape thought and experience by changing forms of language use? (263).  Sally 
Gearhart is one of those feminists; she believes that ?any intent to persuade is an act of 
 36
violence? (195).  Gearhart goes so far as to say that ?the difference between a persuasive 
metaphor and a violent artillery attack is obscure and certainly one of degree rather than 
kind? (197).  Expounding on and attempting to tone down Gearhart?s radical view of 
persuasion, Jarratt says, ?Gearhart suggests a shift from a speaker-oriented delivery of 
truth to a more peaceful context for communication? (265).  In this ?peaceful context,? 
differences are expressed without anyone seeking to inform or persuade another.  While 
this approach is seemingly too difficult to fulfill, a more careful reading of Gearhart 
exposes her desire to exchange male-oriented persuasion with ?a dialogic context for 
exchange of ideas? (Jarratt 265).  Contending on who is in the classroom (or to be more 
specific to written rhetoric?who is grading or interacting with the paper), Gearhart?s 
model will be hard pressed to endure as a mode of writing that does not seek to persuade 
in any way.  Jarratt points out that while avoiding argument leads a classroom to avoid 
conflict, it also leaves those who will not argue ?insufficiently prepared to negotiate the 
oppressive discourses of racism, sexism, and classism [that surface] in the composition 
classroom? (264).  So, instead of a peaceful context that does not acknowledge or identify 
with persuasion, what must be found is a type of rhetoric that uses atypical persuasion, 
that is, a persuasion that is founded not on hierarchical reasoning, but on dialogic 
expression. 
 Jarratt proposes the ideas of Peter Elbow and Donald Murray as expressionist 
writers who put forth theories of ?nurture rather than act as authority figures? (266).  In 
their classrooms, students share as a community of writers who read like writers.  When 
readers are taught that no reaction is wrong, to never quarrel with someone else?s 
reaction, and both the writer and the reader are always right and always wrong (Elbow 
 37
95, 100, 106), ?[t]he reader intuitively fills in the spaces because of an unspoken empathy 
with writers and their texts.  Although conflict is anticipated, it usually occurs because of 
a lack of clarity in the message? (Jarratt 267).  In other words, argument is led up to but 
not followed through with; instead, it is left for the reader to infer as she will, right or 
wrong?it does not essentially matter.  This type of student-centered approach displaces 
authority and typical male-driven argument or persuasion, achieving a feminist goal. 
 Another approach would be to follow Joyce Trebilcot?s idea of ?nonconflict.?  
This approach is one where women meet together ?in nonhierarchical and 
noncompetitive communication situations[;] they tell stories?past, present, and future?
and plan action? (Jarratt 272).  The downfall of Trebilcot?s idea is that for ?nonconflict? 
to take place, there must be no males present.  When males are part of the group, 
Trebilcot says, ?In these contexts I find that it is usually most effective to operate 
according to patriarchal ideas of knowledge and truth? (3).  A more functional mode of 
?nonconflict? would be one where all students could participate because, as Jarratt aptly 
puts it, ?persuasion of some kind must be going on in the space between telling stories?
necessarily different stories?and planning action, even in a group of like-minded 
people? (272-273).  Through these stories, then, another form of feminine persuasion is 
being conducted, one that downplays the authoritative aspects and pitfalls of argument. 
 Catherine Lamb, in ?Beyond Argument in Feminist Composition,? presents the 
idea of negotiation and mediation as a means of enlarging the sphere of feminist 
composition as it applies to argument.  She believes negotiation and mediation ?are 
consistent with the emphasis on cooperation, collaboration, shared leadership, and 
integration of the cognitive and affective? (281).  Lamb views argument not as an end, 
 38
but as a means.  She elaborates, ?The end?a resolution of conflict that is fair to both 
sides?is possible even in the apparent one-sidedness of written communication? (281).  
That is, if the writer fulfills her responsibility?to negotiate and mediate her own 
creation?both (or all) sides of an argument will be fairly represented.  As an example of 
authorial responsibility, Lamb refers to Elizabeth Flynn?s ?Composing ?Composing as a 
Woman?:  A Perspective on Research.?  Lamb says that Flynn?s reviewing her own essay 
emphasizes ?the open-ended, provisional nature of Flynn?s thinking?another quality that 
has come to be associated with (and prized in) feminist composition? (282). 
 Lamb juxtaposes negotiation and mediation with what she calls ?monologic 
argument.?  Monologic argument is what students have been taught from an early age; it 
encompasses hierarchical (anti-dialogical) modes of writing.  The problem with most 
students who have not explored diverse discourse is that they ?have uncritically assumed 
there is no other way to write? (283).  Lamb says that monologic argument is, in essence, 
?the ability to affect what happens to someone else? (?Less Distance? 100).  Yet, what 
negotiation and mediation does is empowering to feminist and minority writers because it 
views power ?not as a quality to exercise on others, but as something which can energize, 
enabling competence and thus reducing hierarchy? (?Beyond Argument? 285).  This idea 
is analogized by Hannah Arendt, who in The Human Condition, explains that the power 
of the classical Greek polis or city-state came from the people ?acting and speaking 
together? (198), not from physical boundaries or the polis itself.  Lamb says that such a 
power is limitless and fleeting in that ?[i]t ?springs up? when people act together and 
disappears when they separate? (285). 
 39
 So not only must the creator of a text use negotiation and mediation, but the 
reader must as well.  Using Arendt?s above-mentioned notion of power, Lamb believes 
that negotiation and mediation ?result in a paradoxical situation where the distance 
between writer and audience is lessened (as they explore the dimensions of the conflict 
together)? (287).  The only way such distance can be lessened, though, is if students are 
taught to negotiate, to interact, with what they read.  To do this to the proper degree, 
students must read as writers; that is, they must anticipate situations as they are occurring 
in the text and be open to more than one eventuality for those situations.  In the 
composition classroom, a mediator may negotiate between writer and reader as to what is 
expected, and in doing so, each side should ?come up with as many options as possible in 
the process of arriving at a solution? (289).  In this way, the dialogic aspect of this 
atypical persuasion can be progressive. 
 Monologic argument is still necessary for being as clear as possible about a 
certain conflict; yet, ?even at its best, [monologic argument] inevitably separates itself 
very quickly from [shared power] because of its subject/object, I/it orientation? (Lamb, 
?Beyond Argument? 286).  Some monologic writing may still be necessary inside of 
negotiation and mediation; that is, monologic writing may need to be used to arrive at 
what needs to be negotiated or mediated to find a common ground.  Therefore, Lamb 
rejects Caywood and Overing?s ?judgment that ?writing as a product is inherently 
authoritarian?? (290).  Monologic writing?a male-driven discourse?can have its place 
among such a diverse discourse as negotiation and mediation.  But its place must be 
within the diverse discourse, part of the means, not the end.   
 40
Lamb says, ?When we practice and teach monologic argument as an end, we are 
teaching students that conflict can be removed by an effort that is fundamentally one-
sided? (288).  This, in turn, fights against the efforts of feminist composition theory and 
dialogic approach.  Teaching monologic writing as an end reestablishes the dominant 
writing norms, those of having a thesis-driven, argumentative essay.  The advantages of 
negotiation and mediation are that they are cooperative approaches that encourage 
problem-solving in an indirect way.  They are also collaborative in that both parties (the 
writer and reader) use the process to identify interests and outcomes.  And, finally, they 
are a structured form of conflict resolution.  As such, ?in both negotiation and 
mediation?the goal has changed:  it is no longer to win but to arrive at the solution in a 
just way that is acceptable to both sides? (288); that is, the goal is to convince or persuade 
without arguing. 
In relation to freshman composition, monologic writing has been expressed 
predominantly in the generic expository essay form.  Keith Fort, in ?Form, Authority, and 
the Critical Essay,? considers the relational consequences of continuing to write in the 
same generic form.  He says, ?[W]e cannot have attitudes towards reality that cannot be 
expressed in available forms? (174).  Fort?s meaning is that if the only form of expression 
is the standard critical expository essay, then expression will be limited by the attitudes, 
ideologies, and rationales that are embodied by that particular genre.  Fort goes on to say 
that the standard form of academic writing, such as is seen in freshman composition 
courses, ?conditions students to think in terms of authority and hierarchy? (178).  Thus, 
freshman composition classes are forums for endorsing male viewpoints and means of 
communication through taught male voice and argumentation.  Even when a feminist 
 41
approach is taken in such a course, it will be difficult to remove the dominant 
characteristics from student writing if the form is left unaltered. 
Terry Zawacki, in ?Recomposing as a Woman?An Essay in Different Voices,? 
discusses the personal essay as a form of writing that is in opposition to the traditional 
academic essay, especially in relation to voice.  She says that ?the personal essay does 
not rely on positions staked out in advance, on straight arrangements and tightly 
connected points leading to a single conclusion? (315).  Thus, the personal essay is able 
to negotiate with its topic in a way that does not directly engage argument and allows 
room for multiple viewpoints and a variety of possible solutions.  Expounding on the 
dialogic advantages of the personal essay, Zawacki says, ?Differences can be cultivated 
in the personal essay?there is room to talk and room to listen? (315).  She does not, 
though, give ultimate or sole regard to the personal essay.  It is simply one alternative to 
the traditional form, one that many women are able to use as a foundation for broadening 
their understanding of their own voice because of the feminist characteristics of the 
personal essay.  Zawacki goes on to suggest that an effort be made to find more 
alternatives to the traditional academic discourse in freshman composition courses.   
Speaking about what is a ?natural? or ?authentic? woman?s voice, Zawacki 
realizes that ?[t]here are dangers?in saying that certain forms of writing might somehow 
represent women?s ways of constructing knowledge better than other forms? (316).  
Women, Zawacki contends, suffer from being subjected to the idea that they can only 
write from ?the perspective of their own personal experience, whereas men can transcend 
narrow self-interests and ?write? the world? (316).  This idea has caused many women to 
view the personal essay on its own as unfulfilling because of the negative connotations 
 42
associated with it.  The gender identity of women, though, must come under scrutiny if 
their voices are to be heard, especially since there is a cultural insistence that the 
prevailing mode of discourse in the academy is rational argument (316).  Women must, 
then, put their voices forth in a different form than the traditional academic one if their 
voices are to be heard and seen as equal to men and at the same time legitimately 
academic.  In order to find a middle ground, that is, a form that is not disloyal to 
women?s personal voice and one that seeks to be ?academic,? Mary Belenky et al. 
suggest that women integrate knowledge that they feel is intuitively and ?personally 
important with knowledge they [learn] from others? (134).  By negotiating with voice in 
such a way, women (and all who want to share their personal voice in an academic 
setting) will be able to advance their voices in a way that Belenky et al. say weaves 
?together strands of rational and emotive thought? (134).  Thus, there is a melding of 
what is seen as inherently masculine (rational/hierarchical) with what is seen as 
inherently feminine (emotive/dialogical). 
The idea of melding these two types of writing leads Zawacki to ask, ?If we 
privilege other ways of knowing and representing the world, what new forms will 
emerge?? (316)  Zawacki analogizes an answer to her own question.  She says, 
Instead of writing I have spent the afternoon digging compost into a small 
area of the garden I?ve reserved for tomatoes.  The compost comes from a 
pile which lies about three feet into the woods behind one of the shady 
perennial beds.  The pile starts with leaves and grass clippings, and to that 
I add peelings, cores and seeds, coffee grounds, wood ash, even shredded 
newspapers.  Last year plants I couldn?t identify but which looked like 
 43
tomatoes grew up in a patch of sun on the edge of the compost pile.  Small 
yellow-spotted beetles ate all but one, which grew until its large ungainly 
stalk flopped over onto the hostas in the flower bed.  Finally I decided to 
pull it out.  Tiny potatoes scattered around me; the potato peelings had 
rooted in the compost.  (316) 
What does happen when the ?compost pile? is seriously given attention?  If different 
voices are listened to within the same setting, what will be produced?  Zawacki?s 
compost pile produced hybrid tomato-like vegetables with potato roots which were nearly 
all destroyed by aggressive yellow-spotted beetles.  The surviving hybrid, though, turned 
out to be interesting, developed by all the ?ingredients,? and ?eatable.?  Whatever is 
produced by a compilation and negotiation of differing voices and experimental writings 
will have to contend against the dominant traditional form, that of the academic, 
expository essay.  Endurance of a new form (or forms), though, will equal the creation of 
not simply a woman?s form or a woman?s voice in the academic setting, but multiple 
forms and multiple voices created from a consideration of all the voices and writings 
involved. 
 Getting all voices involved in such a ?compost pile? is not an easy task.  Zawacki 
says, ?Men have decided upon the conventions and have established the values which 
will prevail? (317).  Attempting to overcome these conventions, Jane Tompkins, in 
?Pedagogy of the Distressed,? tries to ?break down the barrier between public discourse 
and private feeling, between knowledge and experience? (658).  When she is able to do 
so, she gets her students to feel a personal connection with a professional job or topic 
they are composing for.  Thus, Tompkins?s students? writing is done both professionally 
 44
(or academically) and personally, a melding for many writers in her feminist theory 
courses of cognitive rationalization and emotional feelings.  Such an approach is 
considered by Olivia Frey as ?the adversary method? (524) because it forces students to 
go against traditional writing methods.  Yet, such a method, such a bold standing up 
against the traditionally indoctrinated norm of academic writing, is not conducive or 
feasible for those who do not have the authority that well-known feminist theorists have.  
The average student, especially the new college student, will be much more conservative 
when conflicting with or attempting to negotiate with academic writing. 
 Even amongst women teachers, the trend is to follow the indoctrinated patriarchal 
norms.  Varying voices have had difficulty being accepted as fresh and ?right? when 
presented in the same academic setting that has for so many years been seen as the 
conventional forum for patriarchal voice and ideology.  Pat Sullivan relates how a female 
student of hers was having difficulty writing in a patriarchal voice.  Instead of writing in 
the accepted form, she was giving multiple viewpoints and incorporating a variety of 
voices in her writing; that is, the student was negotiating and mediating among different 
voices without putting forth any final conclusions.  Sullivan, admittedly not ?hearing? the 
student?s discourse, helped the student change her writing until it was presented in a more 
academically acceptable voice and put forth more definite conclusions.  Only later did 
Sullivan realize that she approached the situation in a way that silenced the true voice that 
the woman writer was trying to effectively use (Zawacki 318). 
 Sullivan realized from this event that there is no ?right? way to approach writing, 
only ways of composing as individuals, males and females.  Teachers of writing must be 
willing to ask and meditate on what Zawacki asks, that is, ?If we as women (or we as 
 45
men) listen with the expectation of discovering differences, what differences will appear? 
(318)  Using another gardening analogy, Zawacki follows this question by stating that she 
wants to see how her garden would grow if she used the ?voices? (the plowing and 
planting techniques) of her mother and father, one sporadic and one straight-lined.  How 
would those work not in separate areas of the garden, but how would they work if used 
together? 
 In Chapter One, I elaborated on Carolyn Miller?s and Gunther Kress?s views of 
how genres are developed because of social necessity.  Thus, when differing cultures and 
societies interact, language is deeply affected, altered.  When language is thus altered, 
change becomes manifest by a continuous using of certain distinctions which eventually 
results in the acceptance of a new spoken or written genre.  If diverse discourse is to be a 
means in which the non-dominant group excels or a means of liberation from a 
patriarchal, limited writing society, then the foundation of that diverse discourse must be 
steeped in genre theory; that is, it must get its beginning from varying cultures and 
societies as they are influential enough to create genres.  From those genres will evolve 
pragmatic types of writing that take into account semantics and syntactics, such as 
multiple voices, dialogic approaches, atypical persuasion, and differing physical forms.  
 46
CHAPTER THREE 
 
Multigenre Rhetoric 
 
 
A multigenre paper arises from research, experience, and imagination.  It 
is not an uninterrupted, expository monolog nor a seamless narrative nor a 
collection of poems.  A multigenre paper is composed of many genres and 
subgenres, each piece self-contained, making a point of its own, yet 
connected by theme or topic and sometimes by language, images, and 
content.  In addition to many genres, a multigenre paper may also contain 
many voices, not just the author?s.  The trick is to make such a paper hang 
together. 
?Tom Romano Blending Genres, Altering Styles:  Writing 
Multigenre Papers 
 
 My first exposure to multigenre writing came during an undergraduate methods 
class in English education.  One of the assigned readings was Tom Romano?s Writing 
with Passion:  Life Stories, Multiple Genres.  In this book Romano devotes only two 
chapters to multigenre, but those two chapters fascinated me, and I chose to write my 
final ?essay? as a multigenre piece.  Earlier that semester, my 23-year-old cousin, who 
had long struggled with depression, committed suicide.  I had attempted to explore and 
write about my feelings, which were a mixture of uncertainty, anger, and grief, but had  
 47
been largely unsuccessful.  All I had actually been able to get on paper was a poem of 
remembrance that was set out at the funeral parlor.  When I finished writing the 
multigenre paper, though, I had a piece of writing that explored two distinct yet 
connected facets that I believe had impeded my ability to properly understand and cope 
with my cousin?s death; that is, I had a piece that explored the cognitive side of his life 
and death (ecstasy and bipolar disorder) and one that explored the emotional side (from 
many points of view).  Through the use of multiple genres, I came to agree with Romano, 
who says, ?Each genre offers me ways of seeing and understanding that others do not? 
(Writing 109).  My personal experience with multigenre instilled the belief in me that 
genres can be used in writing not only as creative, emotional outlets, but as ?cognitive 
instruments for making sense of the world? (Newkirk, More Than Stories 5).  The use of 
different genres creates a dialogic experience, as will be discussed below, where the 
writer as mediator is able to intellectually and emotionally involve the readers, allowing 
each individual reader to negotiate with the writing, deciding what meaning(s) to take 
away. 
 Romano believes that a multigenre writing is ?a complex, multilayered, 
multivoiced blend of genres, each revealing information about [a] topic, each self-
contained, making a point of its own, unconnected to other genres by conventional 
transitional devices? (Blending Genre 4).  The way different genres are incorporated in 
the same writing is by the use of crots?with crots often being separated by white spaces.  
Winston Weathers, in An Alternate Style:  Options in Composition, describes the crot as 
?an obsolete word meaning ?bit? or ?fragment?? (14).  Each crot consists of a separate 
genre or subgenre, normally taking up one page within a multigenre paper.  For example, 
 48
three possible crots in a multigenre paper about the need to increase school funding in a 
poverty-stricken district could be a handwritten letter to a congressman from a student 
(lack of funds equals no computer to type the letter), a discussion in dialogue format 
between two legislators with opposing views on the subject that incorporates actual 
discussion from a senate meeting, and a mock denial letter to a graduating senior from a 
university that cites poor computer skills as one of the reasons for denial.  Each of these 
hypothetical crots makes meaning on its own; that is, each individual crot has what 
Weathers calls ?a certain integrity? that allows it to stand on its own, and because the 
crots are separated by white space, rapid transitions from one point of view to another are 
possible in a way that ?is similar to a slide show? (14-15).  When put together, the series 
of crots becomes the whole multigenre paper, providing as many genres, voices, and 
points of view as the writer deems necessary.  In order for the paper to be cohesive and 
have unity, the individual, generic crots must be bound by some commonality; that 
commonality is negotiable, but can be things such as topic, theme, or content.  In the 
hypothetical topic above, the three crots are bound by a mixture of topic, theme, and 
content. 
 An important factor of crot creation is that students learn how to do synthesis and 
analysis within the same work.  Students synthesize by putting together distinct and 
different genres that are bound by some commonality.  When students look at the same 
experience from multiple viewpoints or explore the cognitive and emotional elements of 
a situation (as will be discussed more below), they are able to put together different yet 
related crots which eventually comprise the whole writing.  At the same time that the 
students are building up to a complete piece of writing, they are analyzing the individual 
 49
crots as separate, meaning-making units as well as analyzing all the crots together to 
evaluate their effectiveness (unity and cohesiveness) as a complete work.  This analysis 
for meaning making and effectiveness is, in turn, reinforcing synthesis since it is a means 
of insuring the solidity and forcefulness of the written piece.  In Romano?s terms, ?The 
act of synthesis is the act of analysis is the act of synthesis? (Writing 95). 
 In order to understand the basic premise of multigenre rhetoric, Romano 
introduces Jerome Bruner?s term paradigmatic?which can be viewed as a synonym to 
Catherine Lamb?s earlier-mentioned monologic argument?to refer to the type of 
expository writing that ?is concerned with reportage, facts, analysis, chronology, and 
logic? (Blending Genre 22).  Examples of such writing are found in text books, academic 
essays, and biographies; after junior high, schools are devoted to teaching paradigmatic 
thinking and almost exclusively require students to write paradigmatically.  While 
paradigmatic thinking is prevalent and ?indispensable? (22), narrative thinking?a tool 
favored by feminist rhetoricians?is another tool that can be used to develop and relay 
cognition (all the while delaying finality).  Romano says, ?Instead of explaining or 
analyzing as paradigmatic knowing does, narrative knowing renders experience or 
phenomenon.  Narrative knowing shows? (22).  As an alternative to paradigmatic seeing 
and reporting, narrative writing avoids ?telling readers what to think? by ?showing them 
with such indelible detail that they go beyond understanding what they have read to 
experiencing it? (23).  It is by experiencing a piece of writing that the reader comes to 
understand what is cognitively being said even if it is not outlined in a paradigmatic 
structure.  Too, the writer is better able to understand her subject cognitively by exploring 
the topic from multiple viewpoints and recording the information in a way that allows the 
 50
reader to undergo experience.  Romano shows the relationship of the two (narrative and 
paradigmatic) types of thinking when he says, ?I often have to tell a story in detail?
render it fully?in order to know what it means, in order to come to a paradigmatic 
thinking about it? (23).   
Lamb says that monologic argument is necessary, even in a diverse discourse 
such as negotiation and mediation, especially ?at the early stages of resolving a conflict? 
(?Beyond Argument? 286).  That is, monologic argument plays its part as a means to 
arriving at the end.  Similarly, paradigmatic writing is a beneficial and sometimes 
necessary part of multigenre rhetoric.  It serves a role within the multigenre construct, 
perhaps as a biographical or analytical crot or introduction to the piece.  In this way 
paradigmatic thinking and writing plays a joint role with narrative thinking and writing in 
the development of multigenre rhetoric.  Because hierarchical (paradigmatic) thinking 
and writing is not privileged, multigenre rhetoric should be viewed as a rhetoric that 
promotes a feminist-type or atypical form of argument and persuasion.   
 Elaborating on how multigenre rhetoric employs atypical argument and 
persuasion, Julie Jung, in Revisionary Rhetoric, Feminist Pedagogy, and Multigenre 
Texts, considers ?the multigenre text as an example of an inherently disruptive and 
therefore potentially revisionary written form, a kind of writing that brings together 
previously divided genres within the frame of a single academic essay? (xiii).  Jung calls 
such a collection of genres an ?academic? essay because argument and persuasion are 
being constructed, but in a feminist style.  The feminist style of argument and persuasion 
is one that again enforces Lamb?s idea of negotiation and mediation in that, as Jung 
claims, ?juxtaposing genres within a single text disrupts readers and delays meaning 
 51
making?.[In turn, this delays] clarification of meaning so that differences can be heard, 
explored, and understood? (3).  The different voices and viewpoints given credence in 
multigenre rhetoric allow several (if not many) explanations or ideas to carry force.  By 
exploring multiple voices and viewpoints, the writer plays the dual role of mediator in 
that she is able to analyze and synthesize approaches and issues in a way that allows 
development of multiple answers.  This type of argument and persuasion is atypical to the 
academic norm, hierarchical presentation of analysis that focuses on one ?right? answer.  
Thus, the readers of multigenre rhetoric are able to negotiate the meaning of the work as 
a whole since they are given many options in different voices, viewpoints, and genres in 
the various crots. 
Jung expounds the benefits of her feminist approach to argument and persuasion 
saying that she seeks ?ways in which delaying consensus might actually foster 
understanding among participants within communities where conflicts exist and where 
participants believe in the need to give voice to the differences that create them? (7).  
While Jung has successfully used multigenre rhetoric to give voice and explore conflicts 
non-combatively in her upper-level English and feminist classes, she has not 
implemented multigenre rhetoric in freshman composition.  Jung does believe, though, 
that the need to give voice and delay consensus is just as viable at the freshman 
composition level and that it is a mistake to solely privilege clarity and connection?that 
which is praised in typical expository writing in entry-level composition courses.  Always 
privileging clarity and connection leads students to believe ?that when they cannot relate 
to or connect with something they read, they can simply skip it, ignore it, forget about it, 
and move on? (11).  Students, thinking thus, will not challenge themselves to become 
 52
critical thinkers or writers; instead, they will take the avenue of least resistance, writing 
about safe topics that they understand enough to put forth (what they think to be) a 
logical, clear, and connected argument. 
The disconnections that appear in most freshman composition essays provide 
avenues for deeper critical thinking.  When there is conceivably no ?right? answer, 
students who thoroughly explore multiple possibilities before coming to any conclusion 
(if they come to a conclusion at all) logically explore the question more deeply, 
mediating their own experience.  In doing so, they develop a keener understanding of the 
topic they are researching and how that topic is interrelated to other topics.  Deeper 
understanding of a topic and realization of its interrelatedness with other topics is the 
beginning of a dialogic approach to writing.  Disconnections also provide opportunities to 
explore voice and viewpoint and develop audience.  Analyzing a subject (such as the 
effects of the drug ecstasy) from various personas and points of view (such as a doctor 
and a user) leads to better cognitive and emotional understanding of the subject.  Voice 
and viewpoint exploration also continue dialogic development in that if sequenced 
properly, the voices carry on a ?conversation? amongst themselves and resonate with the 
reader.  By developing more insight and deeper thinking, the audience becomes more in 
tune with the writing, feeling connection because of having a much better chance of 
being able to relate to some part of the disconnections that are being explored.  And in 
this way, the audience enters the dialogic discourse, negotiating with the possibilities that 
the writer, as mediator, presents.   
A subjective view of kairos in relation to ?inevitable disconnections? (Jung 11) 
that students will encounter when writing means taking the most logical, creative, and 
 53
effective rhetorical approach to the writing situation while understanding the importance 
of critical thinking, voice, and audience as they are used to develop a dialogic approach.  
Thus, the idea of having freshmen revise seeming contradictions when they have 
disconnected from their own writing instead of exploring these disconnections sends the 
early academic message that new writers should conform to and always write in the 
standard, so-called universal style (10-11).  Jung believes that using multigenre rhetoric 
in composition classes advocates that ?texts should be written in a way that works against 
universalizing tendencies? (10) and prepares students to be able to adapt to the inevitable 
disconnections that will be abundant in academia and beyond. 
 Multigenre rhetoric, while adhering to a dialogic approach, inherently works 
against universalizing tendencies in that it entwines the cognitive and emotional; Romano 
says that multigenre writing demands students to ?meld the cognitive with the emotional? 
(Blending Genre 24).  Juxtaposing narrative thinking (what is commonly considered 
emotional writing) with paradigmatic thinking (what is commonly considered intellectual 
or cognitive writing) leads to an evenly balanced and fully rhetorical type of writing 
where an alternative, intellectual, and academic rhetoric is produced that incorporates the 
standards of masculine and feminine writing.  Romano wants ?students with more 
conventional analytical minds to expand their cognitive repertoire and rhetorical skills by 
gaining further experience with narrative thinking? (56).  It is by devaluing narrative 
thinking?which should not be seen as merely affective thinking, but as an extension of, 
or a means to developing, cognitive thinking?that students who use such thinking to 
explore and negotiate with the world are penalized.  The open-endedness of multigenre 
 54
rhetoric demands analytical-oriented students to struggle cognitively to think in ways that 
enhance and deepen their intellectual and emotional growth (56-57). 
 The reverse is also true; that is, students with more conventional narrative minds 
need to expand their cognitive repertoire and rhetorical skills by gaining further 
experience with analytical or paradigmatic thinking.  That is why multigenre rhetoric 
should not be seen as a replacement for the conventional expository essay or as a 
replacement for teaching purely analytical skills, but should be seen as an alternative tool 
for instruction and preparation.  In fact, inclusion of such paradigmatic thinking as 
(perhaps) mandatory expository crots may be a necessity in freshman composition so that 
students do not start to view multigenre rhetoric as merely ?fun? writing.  Jung highlights 
well the fear of unconventional or exploratory writing when she says, ?Anything that 
smacks of fun or pleasure is bound to be devalued in academic contexts, sites where rigor 
is synonymous with drudgery, and everything else is, well, cute? (xvi).  Yet, while 
allowing room for ?fun? and creativity, multigenre rhetoric is developing cognitive 
understanding in writers and readers through nonstandard rhetorical tools. 
 Exploring how intellect is involved in multigenre rhetoric, Jung comments on a 
?feminist ethos founded not on mastery but on?a willingness to go in search of? (25). 
This type of feminist ethos is one that relies on the attempt to combine personal 
(narrative) and academic (paradigmatic) writing.  In a similar sense, Douglas Hesse uses 
the term ?narrativizing? (36) when referring to how academic, article-type essays employ 
?their author?s experiences, ideas, readings, and so on? (37).  For example, Nancy Mairs, 
in ?In Search of ?In Search of Our Mothers? Gardens?:  Alice Walker,? attempts to ?read? 
Alice Walker.  The desire to read Walker correctly causes self-questioning by Mairs.  
 55
Mairs says, ?I was?and am?intractably white and thus, possibly by my very nature, 
incapable of accurately reading a black writer? (631).  Mairs has to let go of her desire to 
master Alice Walker; instead, she lets ?Alice Walker teach [her] how to read Alice 
Walker? (632).  In so doing, Mairs identifies the wide range of discursive strategies 
Walker uses, including challenging ?composition pedagogies that stress conventional 
notions of ?focus? and ?development?? (Jung 26).  (Walker?s essay has no identifiable 
thesis statement and relies on many one-sentence paragraphs.)  After going in search of 
these discursive strategies in order to ?find? Walker, Mairs uses similar strategies in her 
own essay.  The purely paradigmatic thinking mode is obscured so as to include narrative 
thinking in a way that promotes cognitive understanding by employing and validating 
?many of the cognitive modes?indirection, associative reasoning, anecdotal 
development, reliance on folk wisdom and intuition?which patriarchal critics have 
traditionally devalued by ascribing them to women and other primitive thinkers? (632). 
 If student writers go ?in search of? varying discursive strategies that are employed 
by the texts they read, they will be able to negotiate and mirror narrative-based 
techniques that employ cognition.  Concerning the unnatural mix of what is read and 
what is written in school, Romano says, ?In four years of high school English and as an 
English major in college, although I read plenty of fiction, poetry, and exploratory 
essays, I did not write those genres? (Blending Genre 22).  Romano wrote what others 
wrote:  exposition.  Yet, students understand the cognitive value of the various genres 
they read; that is, they are taught to analyze and deconstruct poetry and fiction.  They also 
receive an emotional stimulation from reading narrative writing; that is, they feel Emily 
Dickinson and Harriet Beecher Stowe.  In effect, paradigmatic understanding of narrative 
 56
writing combines two benefits:  cognitive and emotional experience.  Romano clarifies 
this view as it relates to writing when he says, ?More than I am interested in reflecting on 
or abstracting from experience, I am interested in rendering it so that readers live the 
page? (24).  Such a rendering ?penetrates? experience (Newkirk, Performance 95) or gets 
the reader intellectually and emotionally involved.  And when an experience has been 
penetrated, that is, when readers live the page or live the told experience, ?it is often 
solely up to the readers to reflect upon meaning and make abstractions? (Romano 24).  
Thus, multigenre rhetoric involves what can be seen as a dialogic approach to experience, 
one that intellectually and emotionally involves the reader and allows her to decide what 
meaning(s) to take away. 
 A facet of multigenre rhetoric that helps to penetrate experience, to get the reader 
to live the page, is what Weathers calls Grammar B.  While Grammar A is standard 
academic writing, is conservative and follows the traditional rules of style, Grammar B 
develops from the vernacular and breaks the standard rules of sentence structure, syntax, 
spelling, voice, and form ?as a means of communicating powerfully? (Romano, Writing 
75).  Grammar B is not a haphazard way of writing that requires little effort or attention 
to detail; rather, it is a sophisticated style that has been around for a long time, and most 
students have read and been affected by skilled writers (Walt Whitman, Virginia Woolfe, 
Gertrude Stein, Mark Twain) who use Grammar B resourcefully.  Weathers describes the 
validity of this alternative to standard grammatical rules when he says, 
[Grammar B] is a mature and alternate (not experimental) style used by 
competent writers and offering students of writing a well-tested set of 
options that, added to the traditional grammar of style, will give them a 
 57
much more flexible voice, a much greater communication capacity, a 
much greater opportunity to put into effective language all the things they 
have to say.  (8) 
Weathers goes on to say that even students who are still learning to write in the standard 
style deserve to be introduced to this powerful alternative.  Weathers? belief that students 
should be introduced to Grammar B while they are still attempting to perfect Grammar A 
agrees with Mikhail Bakhtin?s understanding of speech genres.  Bakhtin says that we 
master speech genres ?fluently long before we begin to study grammar? (78).  A natural 
understanding of speech genres means students have a natural inclination toward 
Grammar B since it is rooted in the vernacular.  Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis agree that 
?there can be no fixed language facts, only language and dialect variation that is relative 
to different cultural needs and interests? (5).  The promotion of a never-to-be-broken 
standard grammar is a construct that encourages ?cultural universality? (4), fostering 
patriarchy while denying individual voice. 
Before students can feel comfortable enough employing an alternate style to 
modify and expand genres, they must be given a basis for genre development.  One such 
basis for genre development is the Martin/Rothery curriculum cycle, which involves 
modeling, joint negotiation, and independent construction.  In the modeling stage of 
Martin/Rothery?s curriculum cycle, ?the social purpose, text structure and language 
features of the genre are investigated? (Callaghan 181).  Students are in an 
observe/question-asking mode as they see examples of texts that fulfill certain purposes 
by writing in a particular genre, such as seeing how a poem fulfills its social purpose 
 58
(perhaps to motivate response or express feelings) and the varying types of structure and 
language features that poems can employ. 
The joint negotiation stage of the curriculum cycle involves students writing in a 
particular genre, usually constructing a text as a class or in groups.  The teacher plays an 
instrumental role again in this stage as she listens to what group members are saying, 
negotiates with their ideas, and transforms what they tell her into a generic writing (182).  
The production of a type of poem, for example, is created by students? understanding of 
the poem genre as it relates to a specific social purpose, as it meets generic requirements, 
and as it has been modeled to them.  Through discussion, research, and practice writing, 
for example, students can create?with the teacher facilitating?a Petrarchan sonnet. 
Without the developmental modeling and joint negotiation stages, the independent 
construction stage will be met with confusion and resistance.  In this stage, students use 
their growing knowledge of genre to create their own text.  The steps of the independent 
construction stage include preparation, drafting, conferencing, editing, and evaluating.  If 
students have a good understanding of the practiced genre and seem confident working 
with it, a final and worthwhile step to this stage is to have the ?students explore the 
possibilities of the genre by working creatively within and beyond it? (182).  That is, 
through proper scaffolding, students should be able to think beyond the specific genre 
they are writing in, imagining and creating new possibilities.  Perhaps students combine 
the structure requirements of a sonnet with the subject requirements of a haiku, creating a 
new subgenre.  Or perhaps students, with enough scaffolding and practice, mix genres 
(cooking directions written as a lyric poem or a biography written as a list), seeing how 
their modifications affect the communication process (182). 
 59
Whereas the Martin/Rothery curriculum cycle teaches genres as something to be 
replicated, and then if the student is successful, she may explore the creative possibilities 
of genre work, Callaghan et al. proposes a process-based orientation to genre as a basis 
for genre development.  This process ?argues for a more flexible concept that views 
genre not as an end product, but as the process that produces text types?a dynamic 
interaction of social participants and appropriate generic resources? (192).  Callaghan et 
al. present five processes that are regularly used to fulfill social action:  describe, explain, 
instruct, argue, and narrate.  These processes become the core of discussions that lead to 
understanding the products such processes can create.  The products that can be 
constructed through these processes are negotiable, fluid, and changing as social demands 
change.  Thus, this process-based orientation to genre does not focus on the teaching of 
individual genres, but on ways to construct genres through specific demands of culture 
and society.  The necessity of such development is made clear when Callaghan et al. 
explain that students must be able to thoroughly think through post-primary-school 
?essay? questions in order to produce what is expected of them:  multigenre texts (193).  
That is, questions that are naturally asked in secondary school and college regularly 
require a combination of description, explanation, instruction, argument, and narration. 
With technology more readily available in composition classrooms, Callaghan et 
al.?s five processes have unlimited possibilities to create products that are more than just 
written.  Gunther Kress explores ?multimodal? texts and messages in the light of needing 
a theory which deals adequately with the processes of integrating composition into the 
world of technology (?English? 83).  Kress backs this need by saying that the ?single, 
exclusive and intensive focus on written language? is being questioned by many within 
 60
the composition field because of technology (85).  And Jody Shipka, in ?A Multimodal 
Task-Based Framework for Composing,? gives impetus to the visual, saying that 
?combination, juxtaposition, and even three-dimensional layering of words and 
visuals?provides us with still other ways of imagining the work students might produce 
for the composition course? (278).  Shipka also points forward to the incorporation of 
?textures, sounds, scents, and even tastes? (278) being part of the burgeoning multimodal 
world of composition. 
While the future is full of exciting multimodal exploration in the field of 
composition, what I am interested in at present is for written multigenre texts to be 
incorporated into freshman composition.  My vision of multigenre writing is one that 
combines pedagogical aspects of the feminist composition rhetoricians, such as 
negotiation and mediation, atypical argument, and dialogic approach, with the fluidity 
and progressiveness of genre as advocated by genre theorists.  I believe this combination 
will lead to the discovery of strong, individual voice and the application of the idea of 
kairos, where students take advantage of the rhetorical tools they learn to create ?essays? 
that answer writing prompts in the most effective ways. 
Besides introducing the idea of using different genres in a composition classroom 
and writing in those different genres, instrumental in developing my vision of multigenre 
rhetoric in the freshman composition classroom is the use of Weathers? and Romano?s 
crot.  The crot embodies the essence of my idea of multigenre rhetoric in that it makes 
meaning on its own while at the same time contributes to the overall development of the 
entire writing.  Within the crot, students are able to explore the different genres and 
subgenres they already know and ones they are developing, creating individual texts that 
 61
are self-sufficient and meaningful.  These texts allow students to explore not only 
multiple genres, but multiple voices and scenarios, expanding and developing genres by 
using rhetorical tools such as Grammar B.  Thus, the student mediates what is presented 
in her paper and negotiates between individual crots (crot arrangement, for example, may 
juxtapose two opposing views of the same subject in different genres), and this creates a 
dialogic experience within the paper.  Reader and writer benefit from the use of crots in 
that each is able to draw her own conclusion after negotiating with the crots, and in this 
way, atypical persuasion is accomplished. 
The other primary rhetorical tool that I envision multigenre rhetoric using is 
narrative thinking and writing, used to combine the personal and the academic.  As 
mentioned earlier, Douglas Hesse uses the term ?narrativizing? (36) when referring to 
how academic writing includes personal experience.  And while some argumentative 
writing may include personal experience as evidence to support a specific thesis or make 
a specific point, multigenre rhetoric focuses on narrative thinking as a means of exploring 
emotion and intellect, allowing the reader to come to her own conclusion.  The reader is 
not simply presented personal experience along with data and facts in order to lead her to 
a stated or implied best solution.  Rather, the reader is presented with narrative writing, 
through such constructions as personal experiences or character sketches, from multiple 
viewpoints and voices in order to allow her to interact or negotiate with the information 
given.  While she is persuaded, she is done so in a dialogic way and entirely by her own 
negotiation of the material presented.
 62
CONCLUSION 
 
Further Research 
 
 
 In ?Novelty in Academic Writing,? David Kaufer and Cheryl Geisler argue that 
?freshmen composition?[has] remained silent about newness as a rhetorical standard, as 
a hallmark of literacy in a post-industrial, professional age? (309).  This silence, they say, 
is not justified on an ?intellectual or pragmatic? level (309).  Lillian Bridwell-Bowles 
agrees that something must be done regarding the rhetorical standard at the freshman 
composition level.  Bridwell-Bowles realizes ?that students may need new options for 
writing if they?are struggling with expressing concepts, attitudes, and beliefs that do not 
fit into traditional academic forms? (295).  Her understanding of the needs students may 
have stems from her own exploration of alternative styles of writing and their benefits.  
She has sought a type of writing that has ?a more personal voice, an expanded use of 
metaphor, a less rigid methodological framework, a writing process that allows [her] to 
combine hypothesizing with reporting data, to use patterns of writing that allow for 
multiple truths?rather than a single thesis? (295).  In giving few restrictions to what she 
names diverse discourse, Bridwell-Bowles leaves room for continued exploration into 
alternative ways of constructing the freshman composition paper. 
 Experimental writing usually happens slowly.  Pamela Olano says, ?[E]ventually 
we step off the limb?we write in a new voice, we experiment, we return to the limb? 
(qtd. in Bridwell-Bowles 297).  Although there is a certain amount of fear in 
 63
experimental writing, it is necessary for students to adequately function and handle 
varying expectations within school and beyond.  Min-zhan Lu, in ?From Silence to 
Words:  Writing as a Struggle,? says, ?[B]eyond the classroom and beyond the limited 
range of these students? immediate lives lies a much more complex and dynamic social 
and historical scene.  To help these students become actors in such a scene,?we need to 
call their attention to voices that may seem irrelevant to the discourse we teach rather 
than encourage them to shut them out? (447).  In other words, students and teachers alike 
may reject the ?interference? of experimental writing, not wholly being sure of its 
necessity or viability, especially within the academic community.  Ultimately, though, 
working with experimental writing prepares students for the ?complex and dynamic? 
society that awaits them throughout academia and beyond.   
Most would agree, though, that experimental writing frightens teachers and the 
boldest of students.  One logical fear is stated by an anonymous student, ?I still fear that 
it will lack coherence to any reader excluding me, and maybe me, too? (Bridwell-Bowles 
307).  Such fear is warranted, but the advantages of successfully implementing a diverse 
discourse must not be overlooked.  If traditionally marginalized students can express their 
own distinct and pragmatic voices and develop their rhetorical skills in a way that 
prepares them for future academia and the real world by writing in an alternative to the 
expository essay, they must be given that opportunity.  Freshman composition is primed 
for the introduction of multigenre rhetoric, a diverse discourse that incorporates 
negotiation and mediation, dialogic approaches, atypical persuasion, multiple voices, and 
varying physical forms. 
 64
Depending on how advanced a particular freshman composition class is, a mixture 
of the earlier-mentioned Martin/Rothery curriculum cycle and Callaghan et al.?s process-
based genre orientation could be used to introduce multiple genres.  Romano and Jung 
have their own formulas for introducing genre exploration and writing, which range from 
everyday quick writes in different genres to commenting on past work in a multigenre 
format.  The important thing is to get students to work with different genres so as to build 
a basis for being able to combine genres in the most effective, rhetorical way.  Students 
are able to think more critically on a given subject by enlisting multigenre rhetoric 
because it delays decision making, explores different voices and viewpoints, and 
entwines cognitive and emotional thinking.  Even if a student is required to write an 
expository essay, the benefits of multigenre rhetoric will help the critical development of 
a hierarchical argument. 
The next logical step of exploration would be to introduce multigenre rhetoric into 
freshman composition courses.  Romano has taught multigenre rhetoric to high school 
students, and he and Jung have taught multigenre rhetoric to upper-level English classes.  
The benefits of finding individual voice and deepening critical thinking would seem to be 
best utilized when students are not fully indoctrinated into the currently accepted and 
expected way of writing in higher education:  exposition.  Freshman composition courses 
present a forum where diverse students are able to engage in critical discussion.  Diverse 
students (different genders, races, ethnicities, cultures, religions, upbringings, etc.) bring 
social and cultural awareness and knowledge that is specific to them to the classroom.  
By allowing students to foster their diversity in critical discussion, their knowledge and 
world experience, which is continually developing and changing, blends with that of their 
 65
classmates.  The classroom becomes a melding pot where known genres can be explored, 
developed, and expanded by the students, personally involving them in the experiences 
they read and write, allowing and motivating them to penetrate experience, to make the 
page alive. 
Further research with multigenre rhetoric should include empirical studies to 
determine whether or not students who are instructed in a combination of expository and 
multigenre rhetoric benefit more than students who are only instructed in exposition 
during freshman composition.  Advantages and/or disadvantages can be distinguished as 
short and long term.  Short term criteria could involve determining which students have a 
better understanding of voice, types of argument and persuasion, organization, logical 
development, and critical thinking.  To determine long term advantages and/or 
disadvantages, students from each type of subject group would need to be followed 
throughout their academic careers to see how they handle writing and presentation 
prompts.  Beginning questions may include:  To what degree does the majority of each 
group employ the concept of kairos; that is, which group on the whole takes more 
creative approaches to meaning construction?  When creative approaches are taken, do 
professors respond positively or negatively?  Or, if professors encourage different 
approaches, what kind of advantages does the student trained in multigenre rhetoric 
have?  As the demands of functional and purposeful writing continue to grow and 
develop, research conducted involving multigenre rhetoric will be instrumental to the 
field of composition.   
 
        
 66
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 
Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958. 
Bakhtin, Mikhail. ?The Problem of Speech Geres.? Speech Genres and Other Late 
Essays. Trans. Vern W. McGee. Ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. 
Austin: University of Texas, 1986. 60-102. 
Belenky, Mary Field, et al. Women?s Ways of Knowing. New York: Basic Books, 1997. 
Berkenkotter, Carol, Thomas N. Huckin, and John Ackerman. ?Social Context and 
Socially Constructed Texts.? Textual Dynamics of the Professions. Ed. Charles 
Bazerman and James Paradis. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. 
191-215. 
Bridwell-Bowles, Lillian. ?Discourse and Diversity: Experimental Writing within the    
Academy.? Feminism and Composition: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Gesa E. 
Kirsch et al. Boston: Bedford, 2003. 294-313. 
Callaghan, Mike, Peter Knapp, and Greg Noble. ?Genre in Practice.? The Powers of 
Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary 
Kalantzis. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993. 179-202.  
Campbell, Karlyn K., and Kathleen H. Jamieson. ?Form and Genre in Rhetorical 
Criticism: An Introduction.? Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action. Ed. 
Karlyn K. Campbell and Kathleen H. Jamieson. Falls Church: Speech 
Communication Association, 1978. 9-32. 
 67
Caywood, Cynthia L., and Gillian R. Overing. Introduction. Teaching Writing: 
Pedagogy, Gender, and Equity. Albany: State University of New York, 1987. xi-
xvi. 
Chodorow, Nancy. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of 
Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. 
Cope, Bill, and Mary Kalantzis. ?Introduction: How a Genre Approach to Literacy Can 
Transform the Way Writing Is Taught.? The Powers of Literacy: A Genre 
Approach to Teaching Writing. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. Pittsburgh: 
University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993. 1-21. 
Cranny-Francis, Anne. ?Gender and Genre: Feminist Subversion of Genre Fiction and Its 
Implications for Critical Literacy.? The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to 
Teaching Writing. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. Pittsburgh: University of 
Pittsburgh Press, 1993. 90-115. 
Doheny-Farina, Stephen. ?The Individual, the Organization, and Kairos: Making 
Transitions from College to Careers.? A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written 
Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy. Ed. Stephen P. Witte, Neil Nakadate, 
and Roger D. Cherry. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. 293-
309. 
Elbow, Peter. Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University, 1973. 
Flynn, Elizabeth. ?Composing as a Woman.? Feminism and Composition: A Critical 
Sourcebook. Ed. Gesa E. Kirsch et al. Boston: Bedford, 2003. 243-55. 
Fort, Keith. ?Form, Authority, and the Critical Essay.? Contemporary Rhetoric. Ed. W. 
Ross Winterowd. New York: Harcourt, 1975. 171-83. 
 68
Freed, Richard, and Glenn Broadhead. ?Discourse Communities, Sacred Texts, and 
Institutional Norms.? College Composition and Communication 38 (1987): 154-
65. 
Freedman, Aviva, and Peter Medway. ?Locating Genre Studies: Antecedents and 
Prospects.? Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. Aviva Freedman and Peter 
Medway. London: Taylor and Francis, 1994. 1-20. 
Frey, Olivia. ?Beyond Literary Darwinism: Women?s Voices and Critical Discourse.? 
College English 52 (Sept. 1990): 507-26. 
Gearhart, Sally Miller. ?The Womanization of Rhetoric.? Women?s Studies International 
Quarterly 2 (1979): 195-201. 
Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women?s Development. 
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982. 
Harris, Joseph. ?The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing.? College Composition 
and Communication 40 (1989): 11-22. 
Hesse, Douglas. ?Saving a Place for Essayistic Literacy.? Passions, Pedagogies, and 21
st
 
Century Technologies. Ed. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Logan, Utah: 
Utah State, 1999. 34-48.  
Jarrat, Susan. ?Feminism ad Composition: The Case for Conflict.? Feminism and 
Composition: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Gesa E. Kirsch et al. Boston: Bedford, 
2003. 263-80. 
Jung, Julie. Revisionary Rhetoric, Feminist Pedagogy, and Multigenre Texts. Carbondale: 
Southern Illinois University Press, 2005. 
 69
Kaufer, David, and Cheryl Geiser. ?Novelty in Academic Writing.? Written 
Communication 6 (July 1989): 286-311. 
Kinneavy, James. ?Kairos: A Neglected Concept in Classical Rhetoric.? Rhetoric and 
Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric to Practical Reasoning. Ed. Jean 
Dietz Moss. Washington, DC: Catholic U. of America, 1986. 79-105. 
Kress, Gunther. ?English at the Crossroads: Rethinking Curricula of Communication in 
the Context of the Turn to the Visual.? Passions, Pedagogies, and 21
st
 Century 
Technologies. Ed. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Logan, Utah: Utah 
State, 1999. 66-88. 
---. ?Genre as Social Process.? The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching 
Writing. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh 
Press, 1993. 22-37. 
Lamb, Catherine. ?Beyond Argument in Feminist Composition.? Feminism and 
Composition:  A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Gesa E. Kirsch et al. Boston: Bedford, 
2003. 281-93. 
---. ?Less Distance, More Space: A Feminist Theory of Power and Writer/Audience 
Relationships.? Rhetoric and Ideology: Compositions and Criticisms of Power. 
Ed. Charles W. Kneupper. Arlington: Rhetoric Society of America, 1989. 99-104. 
Lu, Min-zhan. ?From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle.? College English 49 (April 
1987): 437-47. 
Lunsford, Andrea Abernathy, and Lisa Ede. ?Rhetoric in a New Key: Women and 
Collaboration.? Feminism and Composition: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Gesa E. 
Kirsch et al. Boston: Bedford, 2003. 256-62. 
 70
Mairs, Nancy. ?In Search of ?In Search of Our Mothers? Gardens?: Alice Walker.? 
Writing as Re-Vision: A Student?s Anthology. Ed. Beth Alvarado and Barbara 
Cully. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster, 1996. 630-35. 
Martin, J.R. ?A Contextual Theory of Language.? The Powers of Literacy: A Genre 
Approach to Teaching Writing. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. Pittsburgh: 
University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993. 116-36. 
McCarthy, Lucille. ?A Stranger in Strange Lands: A college Student Writing Across the 
Curriculum.? Research in the Teaching of English 21 (1987): 233-65. 
Miller, Carolyn. ?Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science.? A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on 
Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy. Ed. Stephen P. Witte, Neil 
Nakadate, and Roger D. Cherry. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 
1992. 310-27. 
---. ?Genre as Social Action.? Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. Aviva Freedman and 
Peter Medway. London: Taylor and Francis, 1994. 23-42. 
Newkirk, Thomas. More Than Stories: The Range of Children?s Writing. Portsmouth, 
NH: Heinemann, 1989. 
---. The Performance of Self in Student Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton, 1997. 
Onians, Richard. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, 
the World, Time, and Fate. 1951. New York: Arno, 1973. 
Romano, Tom. Blending Genre, Altering Style: Writing Multigenre Papers. Portsmouth, 
NH: Boynton, 2000. 
---. Writing with Passion: Life Stories, Multiple Genres. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton, 1995. 
 71
Tompkins, Jane. ?Pedagogy of the Distressed.? College English 52 (October 1990): 653-
60. 
Trebilcot, Joyce. ?Dyke Methods or Principles for the Discovery/Creation of the 
Withstanding.? Hypatia 3 (1988): 1-13. 
Weathers, Winston. An Alternate Style: Options in Composition. Rochelle Park, NJ: 
Hayden, 1980. 
Zawacki, Terry Myers. ?Recomposing as a Woman?An Essay in Different Voices.? 
Feminism and Composition:  A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Gesa E. Kirsch et al. 
Boston: Bedford, 2003. 314-20.