In “Re-Composing Space,” Binkley and Smith argue that Composition Studies has become a biased and exclusionary field, by privileging Western discourse as the preferred rhetorical mode, against which all other rhetorical traditions are compared and often found lacking in some aspects. The authors see this problem as a result of a geopolitical dominance of Ancient Greek rhetorics, itself also a prejudiced and exclusionary system, in the West that leaves out everyone who does not share this common historical, social and ideological frame of reference (2006: 1). Adopting a postmodernist stance, Binkley and Smith set out to deconstruct Composition Studies as a “spatially specific and time constrained” field that tends to follow the Western rhetorical framework and, under an appearance of democracy, excludes those who do not fit into the dominant discourse (2006: 2).

According to the authors, instead of focusing on an equalizing analysis and discussion of/between different rhetorical modes, Composition Studies still seems to function under the pretense that Western discourse is in some ways superior to other cultural discourses. This guiding pretense comes, Binkley and Smith argue, from the “origin narrative” of rhetoric and composition, Athenian rhetoric, which was in itself politically, socially and culturally prejudiced, as only a small group of citizens met the requirements necessary for their voices to be heard and valued (2006: 4), and also failed to recognize the existence of previous rhetorical modes such as those of the Sophists and of civilizations like China and Egypt – dubbed as pre/proto-rhetorical (2006: 3). The suspicion with which those who did not fit into the political, social and rhetorical requisites of the Athenian agora were regarded has been redirected nowadays, according to the authors, towards every type of cultural discourse that presents alternatives to the dominant framework (2006: 3).

However, the problem does not seem to be the predominance of Western discourse so much as it is its unproblematic and unquestioned acceptance by the academic community, that tends to regard rhetoric as a natural, static concept instead of seeing it as a social construct and, therefore, “a flawed and partial world view” that is permeable to social and political change and must, then, be examined within and across a specific time and place (2006: 4). This becomes even more complicated when we put it in the context of higher education, as students are forced into an either/or paradigm where they must conform to the dominant discourse or be barred from further education (2006: 4), a paradigm that is never explicitly acknowledged but is implicit in the pedagogical approaches to composition taken by most American university professors.

Appropriating Foucault’s concept of heterotopia, Binkley and Smith see Composition Studies as an extension of Greek rhetoric and politics, a “dual illusion” of democracy that “masks the Eurocentric, alphabetic dependent, gendered, and ethnocentric basis of its formation” (2006: 5). Although the authors explain in some detail what a heterotopia can be and make a good case for the underlying problems of Composition Studies, I was not entirely convinced with their appropriation of the term, as they seem to convey a negativity that is not present in the original concept. Foucault’s heterotopia is essentially a place of difference – another place, a “counterspace,” – not a place of bad difference or attempt to mask difference. In fact, according to his explanation in “Of Other Spaces” (1986), a heterotopia functions as a sort of a mirror that reflects and inverts reality, thus allowing us to perceive it more critically. The concept of heterotopia is complex and rather messy, but it allows for all sorts of variations, which can be positive or negative, isolating or interactional, and always different and fragmentary. If anything, I believe this uncomplicated and equalizing, yet deeply exclusionary visage of Composition Studies resembles more a utopian, or even dystopian, discourse than a heterotopia.

As it stands now, Composition Studies does not appear to be a suitable medium for the study of non-Western rhetorical practices, as it remains a “regional-spatial interpretation of knowledge” that does not seem to acknowledge and is, therefore, not applicable to spaces outside this specific discourse. Not only is there no acknowledgement of their unique discourse, there seems to be also no acknowledgement of their existence, as these other spaces often stay on the margin of the main discourse, and lack the means to promote their own discussions and participate outside their own rhetorical sphere (2006: 5). Adding to the classical rhetorical tradition is what the authors call an implied ethical superiority of alphabetic cultures and the monolingualism of American composition, which further promote the exclusion of non-conforming discourses (2006: 6). In face of this situation, how can we go about integrating these different spaces/rhetorics within Western discourse (is it even desirable)? How can we change Composition Studies so that it really becomes the democratic system it appears to be? Can these other rhetorical spaces be the heterotopias Binkley and Smith were talking about?