|
|
|
Started: 10/27/2008 8:18 PM | |
|  | Response:21 century Revelations and Prophecies for Composition
Bring on the theoretical theory wars! I side with the Chesire Cat. Composition teachers agree on an end (for students to effectively wield rhetorical weapons), but not on the strategies for creating rhetorical warriors. We believe only that eternal conflict is the desired result of a writing course.
Ann George’s asserts that “Liberation” is the desired result. She believes this liberation occurs when students learn to negatively interpret their culture, and ultimately themselves in terms of domination and injustice. For her, justice and decency have no place in our culture or writing. I disrespectfully disagree, mostly with the claim that George is a writing instructor. She teaches negative Critical/Cultural studies classes with writing components.
For all my pessimism, I am however interested in the possibility of major specific 1101 courses. Unlike Cultural Studies courses, such classes would focus on the craft of writing through the lens of students’ major fields of study. This would eliminate such uninspired remarks as, “what does analyzing ads and writing a personal memoir have to do with me?”
I agree with the idea that all writing is autobiography, but Expressivism takes this notion to the extreme. Yes, it is necessary to foster students’ voices, but it is also important to teach them to speak in a standard scholarly voice, neutered of any wisp of personality. If language was meant only for personal expression, we would all have our own barbaric system of grunts for expressing ourselves. Language was developed as a means for translating the personal into a standard mode of communication. Students must learn to speak fluently in this neutered voice so their ideas may be widely understood. This neutering in not an entirely negative experience. America embodies similar disjoined beliefs in individuality and community. To successfully integrate themselves into a company, students must learn to suppress the self in exchange for a more widely understood voice.
Having said all this, it is true that there can never be a standardized “language” for teaching composition programs. The cultural wars will rage on. And yet, this community of conflict is possibly the greatest strength of rhetorical studies. It forces the extreme ideologies of rhetorical studies to meet on a common battlefield, be tested, redefined, strengthened, and defeated etc. | |
Posted: 10/27/2008 9:14 PM | |
| |
Okay, this article actually hit on a concern that I hadn’t quite been able to articulate yet: The notion of cultural studies in the classroom. While grading the “Analyzing Advertisements” papers I’ve had to stop myself several times and question whether I was evaluating the student’s argument and writing abilities or if I was being reactionary to their claim. Have I taken points off a paper because I disagree with the student’s argument or because the paper actually warrants deductions? More commonly, however, I have to be careful not to be easier on a paper because I agree with what the student is saying. While this article doesn’t really suggest any remedy to this problem I believe it did articulate part of the subjectivity of the grading process that I hadn’t quite wrapped my head around.
I tend to agree with Shawn’s critique of Ann George’s theory of the classroom as a battleground for culture wars. While critical thinking and analytical skills are certainly important, ultimately, I don’t feel it is my job to lead my students towards liberation from dominant culture. I’m mean, let’s face it, I’m part of dominant culture. I’d like to teach them how to write and intelligent response to a piece of writing. If they want to take a popular culture class go ahead and take a pop culture class.
| |
Posted: 11/1/2008 8:34 PM | |
| | Jumping on the mini-bandwagon going on here, I do think there is valid concern for our own personal ideologies and those of our students. While the classroom should by no means become a battleground (aren't we supposed to / don't we want to foster a comfortable and open zone??), there should be room for openly debating or discussing differing viewpoints. And just like you said, Liz, I worry that if I do this, I will allow my personal judgment to overshadow my grading methods or my behavior in the classroom. I think for the most part this problem has been kept under control by all of us, what do we do when it actually becomes a problem?
Another problem (maybe problem isn't the right word) with the structure of our 1101's is that they are so incredibly impersonal. Like the Miller and Jackson article states, "departments have minimized that fact by lumping all writing classes into a few isolated 'service' courses'" (684). While I think Miller and Jackson are not discussing service in the terms of what service are we actually doing our students, that is a question that needs addressing. As you state Shawn, there is validity in gearing courses toward a theme, so students are not left asking how this applies to them or what they are personally contributing to the classroom. Even though 1101 is required, it shouldn't feel superfluous to the students. I know we teach them writing skills, but are we actually showing them how to apply writing to their lives? I guess that comes with teaching methods, but, still. The discussion in the article concerning differing methods between public and private is interesting, but somewhat problematic. Should students who attend private university receive more specialized classes and such? | |
Posted: 11/2/2008 8:14 PM | |
| |
Like you three, I’m very conflicted about this whole “CCS” issue. Here are some scattered thoughts of my own:
Reading and grading my students’ final drafts for project 2, I find myself in a rut similar to the one Liz described. I read my students’ description of each ad and immediately think to myself, “Okay, the theme in these ads is gender inequality” or “These ads use pathos to appeal to people’s sense of patriotism,” etc. But if the student doesn’t point these things out, I’m sorely disappointed. I want to say, “There was a greater subtext at work! Why didn’t you get it?” Even when these students use examples to support their thesis, I have to strain to avoid viewing the students’ analyses as “trivial” or “incorrect” in comparison to my own. I hate feeling the need to penalize a student for writing about a small “theme” of a text but not noticing a greater “ideological issue” at stake.
While I think that it is important for students to be able to situate their writing (and themselves) in a greater cultural context, I don’t know that a first semester composition course is the best place for that to happen. I tend to sympathize with the unnamed graduate assistant who commented satirically on CCS by saying, “[Students] will be astonished as I, layer by layer, unveil their ideology.” I would rather leave it up to sociology professors to teach these concepts, but I suppose if we are expected to more aggressively integrate these things into our teaching, there needs to be a set of criteria that will narrow the focus perhaps to one or two cultural issues. (This might tie in to the idea of having “themed” courses.)
By the same flip of the coin, I’m a little uneasy with eliminating “CCS” completely. When I was a freshman, my composition instructor assigned four papers: a description paper, a compare/contrast paper, a cause/effect paper and a persuasive paper. That was it. My instructor emphasized rhetoric over content. This approach helped me become a better writer (sentences, paragraphs), but I’m not sure it helped me become a better critical thinker (analyses, arguments).
Another thing: If we try to develop “theme” comp courses that appeal to specific majors, how do we go about teaching them? Personally, I would not want to get stuck teaching a comp course catered to biomed majors. I don’t want to be in a position to appear an expert in a particular field when I am not. | |
Posted: 11/3/2008 3:44 PM | |
| | I agree completely -- I've seen many papers that are technically sound (the rhetorical strategies employed -- thesis, parallel structure, etc. are all there) but the arguments are specious at best. What does it mean that an advertisement "entraces women?" How is that a sexist argument? At what point is the student being sexist, and at what point is the student merely reporting on sexism that exists in today's marketing? It gets very shady.
That said, I do respond to the CCS view of writing, because I see its main purpose as trying to get students to CARE. Writing is a powerful tool, as we've discussed, but if you have nothing to express, what's the point? Many of my students have commented that they enjoyed the first paper (travel writing) because it was about them, whereas the second paper wasn't as much. One thing I'm trying to teach is that it can always be about them, or about their passion or their cause. If they have a topic that interests them, almost any paper could be skewed to be about that topic in some way. Interested in World War II? You've got the psychology of the Nazis, the sociology of the German people, the science of technology and claims of a "master" race, the primary and secondary literature about the events, the history of Anti-Semitism, the use of covert diaries and leaflets to express oneself in that time. So, in that regard, I like a CCS way of teaching -- by allowing students to think about the broader picture, I hope it teaches them to care about something. And personally, I'd rather a shoddily written piece that a student is passionate about than a well-written empty shell of a work. I feel like mechanics can be taught. But you have to give a damn about what you're writing about first, or else you'll never care to learn them. | |
Posted: 11/3/2008 4:55 PM | |
| | It seems that Fulkerson has delivered a fairly easily distinguishable synopsis of the compositional landscape that we as composition teachers find ourselves wading in. And it appears to me, that I find I am believing that 'cherry-picking' from (1) critical/cultural studies, (2) expressivism, and (3) procedural rhetoric. I wonder if in time, there will be a name for the hodge-podging that seems to be what is occuring in the program we currently teach in. I found that I was caught under the expressivism umbrella during the memoir project, tackling and running with the critical/cultural studies approach for the advertisment project, and the procedural rhetoric theory of composition seems as though it is being forced down on us from the gods above, as we push rhetoric onto our students.
So, I ask you, what will be the newest name for the hodge-podge axiology? Perhaps Cultrual Expressive Rhetoric?? Sounds like the winner of the twenty-first century compositional theories to me. | |
Posted: 11/3/2008 5:12 PM | |
| | Kudos and Hurray Alicia!
I agree that we must keep cultural studies a part of FYC, in that it not only makes the topic of rhetoric relevant but it is the perfect functional place to instruct critical thinking. Everyday I try to go into my classroom thinking, "If they drop out of college after this semester-did I give them an important skill?". If I have taught them to critically examine their everyday world, then I think the answer is yes.
I also teach my students that an academic argument is one that considers both sides of the issue seriously. This has been a great topic in the last few weeks in my class as we discuss the evengelical Christians that have been parading and berating on in front of Cooper. We discuss not only the cultural context, but their use of rhetorical device to attract and keep an audience.
While I agree it is difficult to keep my own personal opinion from coming across too strong, I just try to show my students that it is okay to have your own opinion on a subject AFTER you have considered and understood both sides of the issue.
Use life to teach! | |
Posted: 11/3/2008 5:38 PM | |
| | Careful...w/ a move like this you may just be ready to publish on your new pedagogical model.... | |
Posted: 11/3/2008 5:39 PM | |
| | What are we doing that is foundational to academic discourse?
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|