Spittin' Mad

Smith "Students' Goals, Gatekeeping, and Some Questions of Ethics"

I'm half-way through this article and I have to take a break. I'm so angry I'm not sure I can finish it. Is this guy for real? Could he be more condescending? I especially love the way he attacks Griffin for her feminism. That's my favorite part. What was that we discussed early on about composition theorists not attacking each other? I'll show you attack if the rest of this article doesn't shape up really, friggin' fast.

Nope. Still hate him.

I don't want to engage this article. I don't want to talk about what I think. I sure as hell don't want to summarize it. But this is a graduate class and I "willingly" entered into the system so I will present my ticket to the gate and we'll see if I can pass through.

Smith has several good points; it is important that we remember the purpose of writing composition and gear our curriculum and classes towards fulfilling that purpose. If you aren't engaging in activities that promote/teach better writing than you can't very well call yourself a writing teacher. He raises excellent objectifications to the blind acceptance of many composition theories and points out the ethical obligation to students. He also calls teachers to task for their forgetfulness of where they work and interact. All of these things are insightful and, one could argue, justifiably required. All composition theory should be self-examining and open to criticism and it is as necessary to keep dialogue open as it is to initiate it in the first place.

However, I still think Smith is an ass. Students are not my clients and I will not think of them that way. I will teach them what they need to know of basic writing skills that are necessary for further education; I will grade them to the standard they will be held to in the future. I completely understand that English 101/102 is not a large part of their life nor do I expect to be held in some vaulted peace, love, and happiness place in their hearts for all eternity. But the question remains how best to teach writing. And my answer to that remains to teach thinking/speaking/reading/writing all together. You cannot do this if you think of your subject as a skill because writing (and I will argue this to the grave) IS NOT LIKE OTHER SUBJECTS. There. I said it. Call me feminist, call me naive, call me egotistical. But be prepared to have a discussion.

Hariston "Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing"

AAAHHHH!!!!!

Can that be my response?

"I'm convinced that the push to change freshman composition into a political platform for the teacher has come about primarily because the course is housed in English departments" (702). And she follows that up with, "But I think this is what happens when composition theorists remain psychologically tied to the English departments that are their base. Partly out of genuine interest, I'm sure, but also out of a need to belong to and be approved by the power structure, they immerse themselves in currently fashionable critical theories, read the authors that are chic--Foucault, Bahktin, Giroux, Eagleton, and Cixous, for example--then look for ways those theories can be incorporated into their own specialty, teaching writing" (703).

Let's examine her "key elements": "student's own writing must be the center of the course" (705). Okay, I agree with you there, though, I would still argue there is value to bringing in outside text (not silly essays about college drinking) to expand thought. "Second, as writing teachers we should stay within our area of professional expertise: helping students to learn to write in order to learn, to explore, to communicate, to gain control over their lives" (705). Oh fantastic. Because none of those "chic" theorists help with this goal at all. I'm so glad you clarified that.

I'm being unconventional. I am, perhaps, not engaging the text properly. View my unorthodox response as a response in itself.

Berlin

A soothing balm to my fiery nerves. I'm Scotch-Irish, can blame this response on genetic disposition to anger?

Berlin makes the points I am too tired and angry to bring up. The problem isn't the ideology of teachers--you can't get outside of your ideology which is what Smith and Hariston don't seem able to admit--but an awareness of that ideology and a use of it to further writing instruction. Not touchy-feely oh I feel good about myself crap, but a demand of yourself as a teacher that you don't pretend you have no ideological goal. It also demands that you don't judge your students; something I would argue is impossible unless you are self-aware enough to recognize you have an ideology and ideological goals.

It isn't the fault of "English departments." It's the fault of our failure as teachers. And yes, I'm a social-epistemic.

Wow. I'm not even capable of a neutral response to these readings. But I admit it. See? That's social-epistemic at work baby.