[Teaching_Composition] Critical vs Radical
Kathy Fitch
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:45:19 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C6E7AA.91949C10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<<It seems to me that the change in students you want is driven by a
political ethos as much as mine is, but somehow you view your goals as not
crossing a line while mine do.>>
Actually, yes, I think that 's a pretty accurate assessment. For me, there
is a big difference between professing writing-generally a political
thing--and professing the particulars of some narrower political position.
As I've said, as far as I'm concerned, the observation that "all writing,
all education, and all rhetoric is already political, and already always has
been" does nothing to support or excuse agitating on behalf of any
particular political position or cause. The former, for me, does not
contain the latter, so where you're objecting to the "either/or," I'm
rejecting the assumption that this one is an automatic "both/and." Think of
what Jennifer said, earlier: "I used to be fierce about my political
beliefs in the classroom--as a grad student TA, I argued a lot with students
about issues in hopes they would come to agree with my anti-status quo,
pro-feminism, anti-war view (I felt that much of the composition theory I
read encouraged such an approach)." To me, that's a very telling comment,
especially the parenthetical phrase. I would posit that these are the
approaches that motivate creation of the SBR (which, actually, would be a
wonderful thing to look at with students, but only if one were prepared to
wrap one's mind around the inevitability of some students agreeing with the
document, others disagreeing with it, and both groups (as well as those all
along the continuum of possible stances) having some intelligent reasons for
doing so-reasons one would have to be willing to help them explore and
express in some depth, without feeling moved to deem any of them inherently
wrong and in need of reversal). Urging the development of an ability to
view things in all their richness and complexity isn't the same as urging
the development of a given interpretation of the phenomenon in question.
Doug's solution-making what we know about writing the content of
composition-seems to me to do little to solve things. As you've noted,
Bill, there's no content that can't be spun into something else. And while
I'm on Doug's point (can you tell that the rain, rain, rain, is making me
something of a contrarian?), I'd suggest that his view of what transpires in
a History class is inaccurate, which makes the comparison problematic. In
fact, Historians have precisely these same sorts of debates, and have been
for a long time. There may still be some college History profs out there
simply requiring memorization and regurgitation of some set (of the many
available sets) of facts, but it's probably important for us to realize that
the kind of course in which "Why study History? What is History? What do
Historians do? and Which history *is* History?" are the questions of the
day is fairly typical. Today's students are as likely to be studying
histories as history. I'm relatively ancient, but even in my day, History
had already claimed its complexity, at least at the college level. At any
rate, "what we know about writing" is hardly a settled question. Indeed,
few of the terms within the question are settled. Which "we"? Which
"what"? Which "writing?" On another list where a similar discussion was
underway, someone suggested that anything covered in our journals would be
fair game for the content of the course, given this approach, but that would
appear to leave virtually nothing out. If what Doug is suggesting is a kind
of overview of the going theoretical arguments, then that sounds like an
awesome course-and one that would probably be most edifying for both
students and teachers if the teacher didn't feel any particular urge to
promote a given stance on the arguments as *the* correct one-but it also
doesn't really sound like FYC.
Fascinatingly, maddeningly complicated, isn't it? The History students are
still, for the most, not asked to be practicing Historians in Intro to
History (though this is shifting, too). But we do ask FYC students to
become practicing writers-and right off the bat. So, is the content of the
course writing theory, writing practice, the students' actual writing, some
combo? We seem not to know. Agreement on desired outcomes, such as those
delineated in the WPA Outcomes statement, seems far easier to achieve than
agreement on how to reach them. (Though, of course, at some schools, even
*that* much agreement proves elusive.) And, not to put too fine a point on
it, though the Outcomes are inherently political in the broadest sense,
embracing them requires neither students nor teachers to align themselves
with any narrower political stance. Presumably, both feminists and
anti-feminists (or revisionist feminists!) can learn to write, as can those
who have, as yet, developed no clear-cut stance on the issue.
Kathy
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C6E7AA.91949C10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><<It seems to me that the =
change in
students you want is driven by a political ethos as much as mine is, but
somehow you view your goals as not crossing a line while mine =
do.>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-autospace:none'><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy
face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Actually,
yes, I think that ‘s a pretty accurate assessment. For me, =
there is
a big difference between professing writing—generally a political =
thing--and
professing the particulars of some narrower political position. As =
I’ve
said, as far as I’m concerned, the observation that “all =
writing,
all education, and all rhetoric is already political, and already always =
has
been” does nothing to support or excuse agitating on behalf of any
particular political position or cause. The former, for me, does =
not
contain the latter, so where you’re objecting to the =
“either/or,”
I’m rejecting the assumption that this one is an automatic =
“both/and.”
Think of what Jennifer said, earlier: “I used to be fierce =
about my
political beliefs in the classroom--as a grad student TA, I argued a lot =
with
students about issues in hopes they would come to agree with my =
anti-status
quo, pro-feminism, anti-war view (I felt that much of the composition =
theory I
read encouraged such an approach).” To me, that’s a =
very
telling comment, especially the parenthetical phrase. I would =
posit that
these are the approaches that motivate creation of the SBR (which, =
actually,
would be a wonderful thing to look at with students, but only if one =
were
prepared to wrap one’s mind around the inevitability of some =
students
agreeing with the document, others disagreeing with it, and both groups =
(as well
as those all along the continuum of possible stances) having some =
intelligent
reasons for doing so—reasons one would have to be willing to help =
them
explore and express in some depth, without feeling moved to deem any of =
them inherently
wrong and in need of reversal). Urging the development of an =
ability to
view things in all their richness and complexity isn’t the same as =
urging
the development of a given interpretation of the phenomenon in =
question.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Doug’s solution—making =
what we
know about writing the content of composition—seems to me to do =
little to
solve things. As you’ve noted, Bill, there’s no =
content that
can’t be spun into something else. And while I’m on =
Doug’s
point (can you tell that the rain, rain, rain, is making me something of =
a
contrarian?), I’d suggest that his view of what transpires in a =
History
class is inaccurate, which makes the comparison problematic. In =
fact,
Historians have precisely these same sorts of debates, and have been for =
a long
time. There may still be some college History profs out there =
simply requiring
memorization and regurgitation of some set (of the many available sets) =
of facts,
but it’s probably important for us to realize that the kind of =
course in
which “Why study History? What is History? What do =
Historians
do? and Which history *<b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:bold'>is</span></b>* History?”
are the questions of the day is fairly typical. Today’s =
students
are as likely to be studying histories as history. I’m =
relatively ancient,
but even in my day, History had already claimed its complexity, at least =
at the
college level. At any rate, “what we know about =
writing”
is hardly a settled question. Indeed, few of the terms =
within the
question are settled. Which “we”? Which =
“what”?
Which “writing?” On another list where a similar =
discussion
was underway, someone suggested that anything covered in our journals =
would be
fair game for the content of the course, given this approach, but that =
would
appear to leave virtually nothing out. If what Doug is suggesting =
is a
kind of overview of the going theoretical arguments, then that sounds =
like an
awesome course—and one that would probably be most edifying for =
both
students and teachers if the teacher didn’t feel any particular =
urge to
promote a given stance on the arguments as *<b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:bold'>the</span></b>*
correct one—but it also doesn’t really sound like FYC. =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Fascinatingly, maddeningly =
complicated,
isn’t it? The History students are still, for the most, not =
asked
to be practicing Historians in Intro to History (though this is =
shifting, too).
But we do ask FYC students to become practicing writers—and right =
off the
bat. So, is the content of the course writing theory, writing =
practice,
the students’ actual writing, some combo? We seem not to =
know.
Agreement on desired outcomes, such as those delineated in the WPA =
Outcomes
statement, seems far easier to achieve than agreement on how to reach =
them.
(Though, of course, at some schools, even *<b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:bold'>that</span></b>*
much agreement proves elusive.) And, not to put too fine a point =
on it,
though the Outcomes are inherently political in the broadest sense, =
embracing them
requires neither students nor teachers to align themselves with any =
narrower
political stance. Presumably, both feminists and anti-feminists =
(or revisionist
feminists!) can learn to write, as can those who have, as yet, developed =
no
clear-cut stance on the issue.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Kathy <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C6E7AA.91949C10--