Resistance is Futile

"Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key"

I kind of hoped this article was going to be about music, not just a play on "quartet." Not to mention she uses quartet incorrectly--her composition being made up of four parts is a quartet, not quartets 1-4. Sorry, I was trying to figure out what bothered me about that so much and it just came to me. Stupid non music people. That almost makes my point before I even have to say anything.

I'm going to do my best to be brief after my explosion over the blogging article. I shouldn't have read that after a day of teaching and discussing Spenser. Bad choice on my part.

No doubt someone will misunderstand me so I will say it again--I am not against blogging in the classroom, the use of internet and other media, or the pursuing of a curriculum that does more than teach "traditional" writing. I, in fact, do not teach traditional writing. In actuality I teach something more along the lines of a philosophy class when I can and a rhetoric class when I can't.

That being said (lord how do I keep this short?) the idea that writers are right now, in this moment, writing without teachers for the first time is ludicrous. You don't need a teacher to write, never have. What the issue is, or should be, is not kids are writing and we should enable that--because of course we should enable that just as we should enable "common" reading materials or movie watching--but how do we help them gain a better grasp of language? A better grasp of language and all it implies, improved thinking process, more introspective and critical thinking abilities, dialogism, is achieved through the sequenced, recursive challenging of thought. You can get that with or without computers, with or without media.

It works best (I think) when the media used is of interest to the students; I've seen my best results when using V for Vendetta, for example. But the problem-posed, as Freire would say, is inconsequential. It doesn't matter what inquiry you set up in the classroom or where they write about it. What matters is that there is an inquiry, that there is human interaction and discourse and that they write. The rest is just working towards the best results, and that may very well include internet use.

But this computer worship I see, this "computers are so fantastic they fix all our problems" attitude being expressed is not a good way to approach things. Trust me, I've been there. Computers make bad boyfriends.

"The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued"

I am very glad Canagarajah explained at the end of her conclusion that she was unsure how to implement "code-meshing" into her own writing. This explained many of the (what I would deem) rudimentary understandings that I saw in her article. I promise, I am not this much of a hater all the time.

I could write another 1000 words on this article too--it really is frustrating to me not to interact with each text in a thorough way. I will attempt to hit the high-points and am more than willing to offer deeper explanation in conversation or writing.

I think Canagarajah misunderstands the difference between ethnic languages and social/economic languages. Much of what she calls AAVE is not specifically African-American but dependent on the location and economics of the place. Growing up in the midwest I used many of the same phrases she quotes from Smitherman. That isn't to say there isn't an AAVE (ebonics being proof of that) but I seriously question how much Canagarajah understands the finite differences and reasons for what make discourses different and why.

She fails to reference significant theorists that have already concluded much of what she discusses in her article. This irritates me not because she is wrong (though she does nearly plagiarize Bartholomae at one point) but because instead of moving forward from past scholarship she acts as if she has made new discoveries. Our goal as scholars is to do our homework so that we can assume our place within the academic discussion not restate it, right?

She, and other scholars like her should seriously consider researching music as they begin attempting to understand how to manipulate language use. I actually think that is true to some degree for everyone, but many of the principles are the same between language theory and music theory. Things are right or wrong because we say they are; western society has learned to hear a particular thing as “correct” and now it is. For that reason it is important to consider shaking things up a bit. Beethoven did it and launched us from the Classical into the Romantic age, and academic writing is out of touch and stodgy. I also agree that students need to remain in touch with their natural discourses. However, like music, you can’t just do what you want. Well you can (look at 20th century pieces in writing and music) but you won’t connect with people as is your intention. It’s a foreign language. If you want to make your point powerfully in rhetoric you must use the discourse of your audience and bend it with your own authorial voice. People react to that; they like what they know and they like what is cleverly manipulated. That’s why Smitherman’s meshing was interesting (in places) and Canagarajah’s was fake. She said it herself, she didn’t know how to do it.

And finally, how can you write an article about something you don’t understand? And she doesn’t understand. She gets it in principle, but her lack of ability to implement it shows she doesn’t really get how it works. She knows it when she sees it. You can’t talk about theory in those terms; I would call that bad scholarship.

So again, I don’t disagree with the principles here, but I do think Canagarajah is lacking the sort of insight and understanding I want from my scholars. Speaking of history, she is also missing that as well as evidenced by her restatement of past revelations as her own with no footnote or acknowledgement that someone said it before. When I began this article I asked “why do we all agree composition is screwy but keep teaching it this way?” The answer seems pretty obvious; because too many of us don’t get why something works, we just know it when we see it. You can’t teach that. And you can’t build off of it.

"Written Communication"

What can you say about this other than okay? I see that writing and technologies is the least researched (or one of the least) areas in writing research and that is interesting. I also thought the remark in the conclusion about the "narrow definitions of what constitutes valid scientific research" (471) was an interesting starting point for the art/science discussion and writings place within it. Overall this article was an interesting "connector" between the other articles.