FoolsCap

Think about. . .Underlife!!!  With special guest Thin Lizzy!!

p. 144: "Underlife allows individuals to take stances towards the roles they are expected to play, and to show others the stances they take."

I like the fact that Brooke is sure to note that identity–even in the underlife model–is in part performative as well.  I don’t have anything to add to it, though–only that performativity is something that interests me, so I was happy to see this be part of his argument.

p. 151:"Writing teachers want to produce writers, not students, and consequently we seek to change our pedagogy to allow the possibility of the writer’s identity."

I wonder whether this is the same as the administration’s goal, or even of it holds true across many of the readings we’ve done so far.  Many of our texts, starting with Jos. Harris on, have emphasized our role in shaping critical thinking skills, with composition being a product of those developing skills.  I don’t think Brooke is denying the importance of critical thinking, but I wonder whether he is oversimplifying to equate critical thinking with writing.  Or, maybe, rather, the link he’s asking us to make is this: a critical thinker–or at least, one at the level we would hope to find in a freshman comp class, should be able not only to consume a text, but produce a well argued response to it as well.  I suppose in that sense–the construction of the argument–can be equated with "writing" regardless of pen being set to paper or no.

p. 152: "If the student in a chemistry class grew to think of herself as someone who thinks in certain ways to solve certain problems rather than as someone who must ‘learn’ equations to pass tests, then the student would begin to see herself as a chemist, and act accordingly."

I think what Brooke is addressing here is the same thing Bartholomae describes as "appropriation"–that process through which the demands and customs of a particular discourse community are made available to a student.  Assuming, then, that other disciplines aren’t really open to the task of teaching critical thinking–at least, not in the way that is expected of our own–we’re sort of responsible for helping students appropriate the methodology of whatever discipline they’re studying.

Some general comments: There’s something sort of disconcerting going on between the readings in our course abuot the nature of the self.  Harris describes the voice of writer (which, as Brooke demonstrates is closely tied to ideas of selfhood) as being constructed through the relationships between various cultural voices that produce one’s self: family, school, pop culture etc.  Here, Brooke (drawing on Goffman) creates a self that is defined through social interaction, information games, organizational roles, and the underlife.  While I agree with both Harris and Brooke, the idea sort of scares me: can I really be reduced to little more than a subset of cultural and social functions?  I don’t know if I really understand the larger implications of that question. . .but they sort of scare me.

Today’s subject line is a punchline I came up with a few years ago that doesn’t have a set up.  It’s an ongoing thing I have for my colleagues: anyone who can come up with a valid set up for my punchline wins a prize.  It won’t be a great prize, but a prize nonetheless.

Comments on Gilyard follow:

p. 629: "curriculums"

I’m not trying to be snide or snotty here, I just have a question:  Shouldn’t this be curricula?  Or is there a specific difference between curriculums and curricula of which I am ignorant?  Let’s see what Dictionary.com says. . .dum de dum dum dum. . .oh, wait.  "Curriculums" is correct after all.  Question withdrawn.

p. 636: "[. . .] [T]hey were particularly peeved because white ‘instant experts,’ as some termed them, were invited to present papers now that [. . .] Black language and literature had become hot topics."

This is really fascinating to me, because when I took African American Literature with Dr. Jordan, one of the pieces I wrote was about my own uncomfortability as a white liberal male writing about African American male experience.  (It was in regard to Charles Johnson’s Middle Passage if all y’all are wondering.)  I was really interested in Black lit, but I felt somehow that I didn’t have the "right" to read and write about it–that somehow I was incapable of understanding it fully.  I can’t find the passage right at the moment, but Gilyard writes elsewhere about the fear that white critics had "colonized" black literature. . .that’s something close to what I feared doing.  I guess it’s not so much a question with some black literature, but others, like the Johnson novel, depend upon extrapolations about contenporary black culture and politics I wasn’t sure I had the authority to make.

p. 637: "Musgrave argued that many Freshman Composition courses were disabling for most students."

Without sounding callous, the question I want to ask is this: So what?  Let me explain.  Isn’t the Comp class suppoed to be rigorous and demanding?  I don’t mean to imply any slight at students who may be having legitimate troubles in Comp classes, though.  I guess what I wonder is whether this "disabling" effect is a feature of pedagogy or student behaviors.  I don’t know, not having read Musgrave’s article–I’d like to, though.

p. 638: quoting Reed et al.:"[. . .] [W]e are merely trying to improve the students’ linguistic versatility, thereby enabling them to perform effectively in a variety of speech communities and social settings."

I really like the idea that Black English–or, I can think we can extrapolate, any non-Standard specialized language system within English–enables a "versatile" speaker.  I think it probably holds true for many of us–I don’t really use my academic/pedagogical jargon much at home, but I can say "generative ethos" around my colleagues and be understood.  I wonder, though, if it might not be limiting the idea of Black English to compare it to jargon?  I have a copy of the current Bedford Reader in my office that has an essay abuot Black English, including syntax, grammar, et cetera.  I’d like to read that article in light of Gilyard’s essay.

It’s um. . .not much of a pun, really.  You sort have to picture me cutting down a tree and yelling it.  Got it?  Okay.

On with the show:

p. 190: On "delivery"

A question that I thought Trimbur was going to address but doesn’t: If we acknowledge the "diffuse, fragmented, and geographically separated" elements of modern forums, how do we address whether these forums demand new methods of composition?  That is, do we (should we?  must we?) produce texts differently because of the very nature of the production/consumption cycle as Trimbur explains it?  I don’t have an answer, it’s just something I’m thnking about.

p. 195: "Instead, they have turned to assigning what is sometimes called ‘real world’ writing [. . . .]"

Hmm.  I like this idea because of its endorsement of civic participation (although to be honest, my only civic participation is voting every two years) but I’m skeptical whether I could use it for my own pedagogy.  First, in our particular case, 1020 is called "Intro to College Writing," right?  I’m not sure the examples Trimbur offers are really going to work to prepare students for college writing as such; although I do understand that it is the application of writing skills that is probably the point here.  Maybe in 3010. . .Second, not many people that I know personally write the sort of documents suggested in the "real world" examples.  Granted, I hang with a bunch of lazy ne’er-do-wells [present company excepted, natch] who are about as politically inclined as a tree stump–and I mean that collectively.  Hmm.  The use of writing something other than essays appeals to me, but I’m afraid that using it exclusively (not that I have to) would leave my students ill prepared for other courses.

I don’t really have a lot to say about this piece–but I do want to add this.  I picked up some flak earlier this semester–rightfully so–for hinting that I didn’t see what lit theory had to demonstrate about comp pedagogy.  While I still don’t think Derrida has anything to offer (Deconstruction–bah!–it’s all a scam, I’m telling you!) I really like what Trimbur does with Marx in this essay.  Now I can convince people that when I’m staring into space and thinking about what I’ve read I’m not just "wasting time"–I’m in the production phase of writing.  ;0)