I Am Compstar

Berlin "Contemporary Composition"

My love for Berlin knows no bounds. I find his labeling of composition theories to be helpful and insightful. Most importantly, though, I feel as if he is able to put into language the meaning I am constantly striving to make. At times as I read this article I almost felt as if I were reading a version of what I have said to myself over and over again: "I...strongly disagree with the contention that the differences in approaches to teaching writing can be explained by attending to the degree of emphasis given to universally defined elements of a universally defined composing process" (765). This comment is clarified later when he states: "Pedagogical theories in writing courses are grounded in rhetorical theories, and rhetorical theories do not differ in the simple undue emphasis of writer or audience or reality or language or some combination of these" (765). Everyone is engaged in the process of teaching writing, and I feel, as I think Berlin does, that often we draw lines in the sand unnecessarily instead of examining what underling beliefs are the same and what is producing results and why.

I could go on quoting this article at length, but I will skip to the end in the interest of time. I am, as Berlin would label me, a New Rhetoric follower. I studied at the school of Berthoff and it was incredibly exciting to see him using language to state what I believe to be one of the best ways to teach writing at the end of his article. He says, "Language is at the center of this dialectical interplay between the individual and the world. For Neo-Aristotelians, Positivists, and Neo-Platonists, truth exists prior to language so that the difficulty of the writer or speaker is to find the appropriate words to communicate knowledge. For the New Rhetoric truth is impossible without language since it is language that embodies and generates truth" (774). As teachers of writing we aren't teaching a scientific formula or even how to use such a formula--we're teaching how to create one and making meaning with it. That is, I think, a large difference.

Fulkerson "Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century"

Sigh. Here is my beef with Rhetorical approaches (I finally have the language for it I think): rhetorical theories don't teach meaning-making. They address what to do with the language once you have it, but not how to create it. I also feel that Fulkerson works really hard to convince the reader that everyone he like uses the rhetorical approach, even when he admits that they might fit somewhere else. We are back to the good old either/or problem. I think pedagogies that succeed have more in common than can be labeled with the characteristic Fulkerson puts forth. I also feel that he misunderstands CCS to some degree; in fact, I feel that most people who disagree with the approach misunderstand it--at least its goals and strategies. Finally, I am against modeling. I do think reading and writing are connected and that we often write similar to what we read, but I think modeling is what you do when you don't know what/how to teach. Is that to argumentative?

Fulkerson had some interesting things to say and I appreciated his survey of the composition theories, but I felt that Berlin did a better job of putting forth categories. I also think Berlin named the problems of the "theory wars" in a superior fashion.

And, if I may digress for just a second? I might scream at the next person that accuses writing teachers who teach students to critique themselves and their world of being "leftist ideologues" who "brainwash" students. No doubt there are some extremists out there (as there are in any pedagogy) but forcing you to question does not brainwash you, it simply unsettles you. And I will not be sorry if you realize that being a racist misogynist is a bad idea. I won't grade you for being an asshole, but I refuse to apologize for teaching in such a way that you have the best chance possible of realizing your asshole tendencies and changing them. Are we, as composition teachers, really going to quibble over whether it is okay to say racism is wrong in the classroom? Really? I'm gonna have to take a stand on that one and say that racism is a non-defensible position; that doesn't make me a brainwasher, it just means I don't allow obscene stupidity in my classroom.

Downs and Wardle "Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions"

I like this article. I say I like it as a demonstration of my view that we should include the personal with the academic (since I don't think you can ever really remove it) and because it seems to fit with what Downs and Wardle are discussing. Now I will explain why I like it, you see.

I feel they name the biggest problem of FYC very well. The issue of "academic writing" as being a dead, created term that actually carries no meaning. This is why we can't agree on how to teach it, and why so many FYC classes fail to carry across the curriculum. They state, "a number of assumptions inform the premise that academic writing is somehow universal: writing can be considered independent of content; writing consists primarily of syntactic and mechanical concerns..." (555). But of course, correct? All we need to do is teach to the rhetorical moves made in "academic writing" and the students will be set! But wait, there's more: "even when FYC courses do attempt to directly address the complexity of 'academic discourse,' they tend to operate on the assumption that writing instruction easily transfers to other writing situations--a deeply ingrained assumption with little empirical verification" (556). An assumption without critically thinking about it? Surely writing teachers would not make the error for which they judge their students. I don't believe it.

But I think that is exactly what many writing teachers do, and I think this article nails that point. We assume that "academic discourse" is achievable because it is what we were taught. It is what we do. So to speak. But even as we do whatever it is we do, how many of us actually know how we are doing it? Can you put it into words? Or do you find yourself struggling with content, style, and ideas? I find that in my own writing I have reached an impasse--I am no longer able to write in way that conveys the complexity of my ideas. Huh. Maybe academic discourse doesn't quite cover everything.

Breuch "Post-Process 'Pedagogy'"

This article reminds me of Knoblauch and Brannon's plea to the reader to understand that every teacher should understand "why they do what they do." This seems very similar to Breuch's statement that "post-process theory encourages us to reexamine our definition of writing as an activity rather than a body of knowledge, our methods of teaching as indeterminate activities rather than exercises of mastery, and our communicative interactions with students as dialogic rather than monologic" (98-99). I also think that her effort to understand post-process theory is one that should be taken by theorists about most theories.

That may sound odd coming from me as I am often argumentative and sometimes negative about what we have read. I hope, however, that I am not misunderstood for not attempting to understand that theory itself. Often my objections come from what I perceive to be the theories lack of understanding itself and the writing process itself. To that end I jump to the conclusion of her essay and would like to say that her remarks about "letting go" are also incredibly useful to any pedagogical approach. As she says, "it means becoming teachers who are more in tune to the pedagogical needs of students, more willing to discuss ideas, more willing to listen, more willing to be moved by moments of mutual understanding" (122). I think such a strategy can apply not only to post-process theory but also may illustrate how post-process theory can be used in conjunction with other theories or vice versa. It isn't about either/or, but entirely both/and.

This concludes my final response and in a moment having nothing to do with composition theory or this class I urge you all go see Ironman. Perhaps some day I will write a comic book about a superhero named "Compstar"--the hero of all composition theorists.