Epilogue
Palmeri’s text is significant in the field because it points to how contemporary conversations about the relationship of alphabetic writing with our digital moment echo the concerns of past compositionists. Rather than view our moment as unique, Palmeri underscores the importance of contemporary compositionists to draw upon the field’s multimodal heritage. Palmeri argues composition theory has a rich multimodal heritage; however, contemporary compositionists have lacked the affective capacity to see or hear voices from this rich history. In every chapter he not only points to how past compositionists drew upon their technology, but suggests non-prescriptive ways to remix contemporary technology with multimodal technologies of the past. Moreover, he playfully remixes pedagogies to forge inventive and critical combinations such as Murray’s pedagogy with Haraway’s attention to sites of difference.
Instead of presenting an either/or argument about alphabetic writing vs. multimodal composition, Palmeri’s text collapses this binary and argues that multimodality can help students understand rhetorical concepts and the composing process of alphabetic writing. In no way does this imply, however, that multimodal pedagogy is important only insofar it enhances alphabetic composing. In fact, Palmeri contends alphabetic writing is a multimodal process. Moreover, Palmeri encourages composition students “to make informed rhetorical choices abut which modalities will best enable to convey their persuasive arguments” (183).
In addition to collapsing binaries, Palmeri remains sensitive to how alphabetic writing is still a pervasive and valued mode of composing. This acknowledgement builds a compelling case for all rhetoricians and compositionists to tune in to multimodal pedagogy turn up the volume of past voices and re-imagine current pedagogies. Lastly, Palmeri’s role as a remix artist challenges compositionists to rethink rigid classifications and be open to new possibilities of sense and meaning. What if we could rethink Janet Emig as more than a process theorist? Can we see her early social-epistemic questions when she asks, for example, “If writing is essentially a selection among certain sorts of option—lexical, syntactic, rhetorical—what governs the choices students make” (229). What if?
Works Cited
Emig, Janet. “The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders.” The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: Norton,
2009. 228-251. Print.
Palmeri, Jason. Remixing Composition: A History of Multimodal Writing Pedagogy. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 2012. Print.
2009. 228-251. Print.
Palmeri, Jason. Remixing Composition: A History of Multimodal Writing Pedagogy. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 2012. Print.