I truly enjoyed seeing a coherent response to the only logical solution to the Bartholomae/Elbow conflict: synthesis! Rebecca Wasil, and, by extension, Erika Lindemann, makes a needed and coherent call for reason when approaching the the issues these two very talented and intelligent gentlemen are broaching.
While the magnitude of the conflict and the unbending, absolute positions taken by both scholars as a result of such strong opposition makes it seem an almost Hegelian synthesis of opposites, Wasil presented Lindemann's synthesis very clearly as a common sense combination of two theorists not nearly as far apart as they make themselves seem.
The presentation clearly showed that the middle way is the best approach citing the presence of both "referential" and "persuasive" writing, the desire to empower writers, and the presence of tasks resmbling those "students encounter in academe, among others. This system approach echoes the presence of other theorists as well promoting collaboration, emphasizing the social (dialogic) nature of all writing, and allowing for textual analysis as part of the course.
Interestingly, Lindemann pushes against the use of literature in writing courses. I love literature, and I love writing about literature. Most of my experience with writing at the undergraduate and graduate level has been writing about literature. Part of what made the midterm so difficult for me was that I was no longer writing about literature. There was no principal text to analyze or expound upon. However, as we have pushed through the semester I have spent a lot of time rethinking the combined form of English course where we teach literature and writing simultaneously. In practice, we do, of course, write about literature all the time. And I think a writing component is absolutely necessary to a literature course. However, I would have to agree with Lindemann that the reverse does not hold true. The act of analyzing literature has been and will be a central component to the English profession, but what is its place in the composition classroom? Especially in a course like freshmen comp? We aren't instructing students in the writing of novels or poetry, or, generally the personal essay. In fact, should the students submit papers in these genres they would almost undoubtably fail the course becuase it fails to address what we hope to accomplish, which is analytical writing.
There are many types of writing, and many reasons to write. I love creative writing, I still harbor the dream (the delusion?) that one day writing will be my prince charming, scoop me (and my family) up onto its big white horse and carry me off to some far away place where I won't have the long hours of homework drudgery that are the trade off of teaching. However, the purpose of the type of writing course Lindemann discusses, that which is meant to prepare students for writing in an academic/professional setting, is not that type of writing. There is a place for this type of writing - many places - but the composition course is not one of them.
Therefore, if we are looking for argumentation and analysis, isn't that what we should be showing our students? Literature, as wonderful as it is, and it is the reason I have pursued my education in English and a key reason I teach, does not model the type of writing we want in these courses. Narrative writing is not a good model for analytical or persuasive writing except on the most shallow levels of style. The bits of six traits that make promoting wriitng across the curriculum a living hell because the other teachers say they shouldn't have to teach that (and they're right!) are the only thing that the types of writing generally have in common.
In addition it is rare, and at most secondary, in my experience that when dealing with literature we look at the surface instead of through it. The time is spent on the meaning, the ideas, the content, and rarely, if ever on the writing itself. Furthermore, I believe that discussing the surface, the writing itself, is fundamentally different when I am discussing literature than when I am discussing the type of analytical, academic writing asked for in composition classes. While I find that I cannot articulate it well, there is between discussing word choice in the context of the clarity of style that Lanham and Graff promote and word choice in the poetry of Yeats, Wordsworth, or Shakespeare. One is generally applicable to the study of composition, one is specific not only to our own discipline (lumping us all together in English whether we are primarily Lit people, Linguistics people, or Comp people academically/professionally), but to a subcategory of our own discipline.
If we are teaching poets, novelists, playwrights, memoirists, or the next Montaigne in our classes that is incidental to the fact that we are teaching the broad purposes of academic/professional writing at a high level, which is much broader than literature. While Literature can play a role (Who could argue against the use of Swift's "A Modest Proposal" as an example of persuasive writing?), it should not dominate the course as it fails to model the type of writing we are asking our students to produce.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Scott, you write with a lot of passion about literature and composition. Thanks for your thoughtful post. It's evident you've given it some consideration.
ReplyDeleteI think we have to determine what our purpose is in teaching comp. Most of the students we have are not going to become English majors, so I think we have to think about who we are serving. Because most folks who teach comp are English majors, they have trouble understanding why anyone would object to using literature.But I can see why a math or science teacher who thinks of writing as only literature would object to being asked to teach writing. However, if we think composition is critical thinking, then it is every teacher's job.And writing across the curriculum doesn't necessarily mean the teachers have to teach writing; they just need to try to get students to write in their classes.
Have you participated in the National Writing Project's Summer Institute? We learned many ways to incorporate writing into any kind of class. It was exciting to see how easy it could be to use writing in math, history, or science. If you haven't done the Institute, I suggest you look into it. It's a great way to work on your own writing while you are developing your teaching. It was a wonderful experience.