Mostly, what I read in Inoue is the implementation of postmodern theory. This is something I encounter quite a bit and my classmates probably get, after my rantings in Intro to Grad Studies, that I have some reservations about these types of philosophies that, as Inoue says (and does), are "structured" into programme and praxis.
I'd like to just start, however, by saying what I do like is Inoue's insistence on what is really an "inter-subjective" and dialogical approach. I think that generating discussions is key. I like this idea in Inoue and the insistence on "reflection" is also important. What I really have problems with I will discuss below.
Firstly, Inoue uses the term "self-conscious" which to me is imprecise usage. I think if there is too much self-consciousness the writing is often "workshoppy" or pretentious. I suppose it depends on the type of writing, the genres, and this complicates it if it is expository or creative, not that it can't be both!
Secondly, I have learned to recognize the rhetoric behind the rhetoric. The problem with rhetoric, as Plato and his endless progeny have discussed, is that if there is no "criterion" (truth, foundationalism, etc.) than this actually just makes the rhetor another version of rhetoric, making no claim and deferring the responsibility of being an agent in a communicative space on to a "discourse," or in this case the students. And frankly, I think students like to have a teacher who takes responsibility and can provide them guidance. There is a difference between teaching self-reliance and throwing them in the water while they're still wet behind the ears.
When Inoue talks of "assessment isn't the word really just critical reading? The problem is that, like most postmodernists, their is a drive to disavow any standard criterion, blindly seeing it as "essentialist." Honestly, I'm not sure if there is ever a reference to what "essentialism" really means, historically, and the complexity of arguments about it; ut the term gets bashed about a lot with no really critical understanding of what existence and essence entail. You see the problem with this is how can we judge a person who claims there is no criterion for judgement? How do we judge that claim? In their terms we don't. So in the end it's trivial.
Now, like Inoue, I also see problems with quanititave grading, certainly. But I have also known people (one lad in particular) who went to a non-graded high school and he was given a rain-cloud or a sunshine instead of an A or a F. There are many ways of judging, but personally, the final criteria--and this is huge for me--shouldn't come from the students. The criteria must come from the trained professionals (i.e. instructor's like us who have read these very types of articles and discussed them with our professors of upper-level, graduate composition!).
For all the postmodern (I should say "pomo") notions of "subversion" and "institutional critique" there is a place in our society for authority and training. Otherwise we're just here to hang out and complain about the "reified discourses" we hang out and complain in. Students often need someone to take pedagogical responsibility... in my experience. I certainly do from time to time. It's part of the reason why I'm taking the courses and talking to advisors. I read books by experts who know the field, mindful of said expert's possible lack in mastery, but I'm also in a reader-writer contract with them where they must take responsibility for their claims and research. In a teacher-student contract a student should feel confident that a teacher can answer their questions (at lower-levels of course).
But there is a distinction where I agree whole-heartedly with Inoue's approach: the community-based approach helps them develop the ability to generate their own criteria. This is thinking critically. The problem I have is that there is an elevation of one community at the expense of another, more qualified community, namely the professors and instructors trained in rhetoric/comp. Also I do not want them to become dependent as writers on close-community involvement. There may be situations where they will have to become critical where they must take responsibility for their own writing practice.
Ultimately it is important to recognize rhetoric, especially in rhetorical "interventions" like Inoue's. When the terms "static, essential, evaluative, universal" are used negatively I immediately understand the overarching "discourse" that confronts me. And I do not think Inoue is able to stand outside the "class" and not accept pedagocial involvement in the situation, without coming across as a transcendent rather than immanent authority (an authority pretending they aren't an authority is worse: it's dishonest).
There is nothing wrong with being evaluative and relying on rubrics generated by professionals in the field. A panopticon, in reverse, is also a light-house. Writing is not a "set of conventions" (220), in all cases. Why is there always an "ivory tower" (cliche?) reference? (221). And is "opposition" always bad? Here is the pomo cant of "difference" but no knowledge or critical thinking comes from agreeing to disagree, no rhetoric without persuasion.
I think we need polemics, dialectical engagement, dialog, and conflict (not offensive obviously, but it keeps things from being fascist). Maybe I think this to my own unpopularity as an academic in the Humanities, but so be it. When I see everyone nodding like zombies in a classroom to what is said I see no learning happening. I see control and polite intimidation by the very folks who claim to deconstruct it.
note: I have no problem with deconstruction, in fact I like to think I practice it fairly ok. But the term gets thrown around, co-opted by practices anything but deconstructionist. Derrida, so far as I've read, has claimed not to be anti-Elightenment and denied being Post-Structural. Just to note... and Post-Structuralism, taken as "focusing on conflict and change" and outside of its overt agenda-pushing, I actually like and agree with whole-heartedly. I just don't want to be a priest of correctional politicking. It's not my job.
Panopticon as Metaphor (Foucault)
No comments:
Post a Comment