Concrete Strategies in hooks

When bell hooks talks about the conferences she held to help teach her fellow instructors how to be more multicultural in the classroom, she states that "Hearing individuals describe concrete strategies was an approach that helped dispel fears" (38).  The paradigm shift is tricky, yes, and often painful, but I was willing to go along for the ride. From the rest of the reading, however, I felt primarily that hooks was telling me what not to do in the classroom, giving me little by way of actual strategy.  However, the few concrete strategies it did promote were compelling and useful, many of them things I have often questioned in the course of my own higher education.

The most concrete and best articulated strategy hooks includes is particularly relevant for English instructors.  That is: question the canon.  Are we not including works by authors from disenfranchised groups because these works don’t exist?  Because they are not good or thought-provoking?  Or are we not including these because these weren’t included when we were taught?  After all, it is English departments who, to a large extent, create the canon.  (Nobody took Moby-Dick seriously until Carl Van Doren wrote on it and taught it at Columbia University in the 20s.)   If we continue to set aside minority groups as they were set aside for us, even in canons that we consider sealed or established, the consciousness can never properly shift.  I know that I will take this into consideration when constructing text lists for future classes.

I still would have liked more concrete strategies.  I feel like this is a common thread throughout the semester, really, reading theoretical approaches, deciding what I like and don’t like about them, and having no idea as to practical application.  Perhaps it’s a fault of my own, that I just can’t think critically enough to put these ideas into practice; after all, hooks’s text wasn’t even as lofty as most of the others we’ve read.  Even so, I can’t help but wish that each theorist could speak more openly, not only about which approaches to avoid in order to conform to their theories, but which ones to incorporate, as well.

Can You Break Rules You Haven't Learned?

Bourgeois Cat

Love this:

"What does it mean," she asks, "when primarily white men and women are producing the discourse around Otherness?"

Nothing is more gratifying than to know that someone else gets it. The excerpt above is from a differnt paper of hooks', but it is about the racism of postmodernism, something allegedly all-embracing. Really, it is a projection of relativism onto cultures that have been not relativistic (can I say "relativistic-in-a-different-way"?) since time immemorial.

But I have some problems. hooks was writing pre-2000. Much of her complaints aren't translatable to our time.

"Loudness, anger, emotional outbursts, and even something as seemingly innocent as unrestrained laughter were deemed unacceptable, vulgar disruptions of classroom social order.  These traits were also associated with being a member of the lower classes" (hooks 4).

Obviously we want students to engage passionately, but if a chair gets thrown... well, I suppose pain is rhetorical. Note that she states silence in the classroom is

"a by-product of progressive efforts to question canonical knowledge, critique relations of domination, or subvert bourgeois class biases."

But once you learn the canon you can subvert it. I remember a "colleague" of mine, a professional in film archiving and restoration, who was returning to school to get a PhD, switching from film studies to English. He said "it's all about the canon and that's everything I'm against...". In the same conversation I brought up Shakespeare, even Pynchon. He didn't read either. Most of the people who bash the Canon aren't familiar with its liberatory force. Admittedly I drilled into a self-education with the "great books," but did so in order to undermine Western Civilization and Science, ideas which I (a freshman in college) disliked passionately. I hated everything it stood for, yet the more I delved into it the more I realized Western Civilization and The Canon are infused with so much contrary undercurrent that I began to access these distant, subconscious forces underlying the tradition.

As for the feminist critique, I agree. However, in spite of the issues of publication still weighted against females, we can't ignore how bad readership has gotten amongst young males. And English Majors are more female than male.

I agree with this deeply:

"pedagogical strategies that create ruptures in the established order, that promote modes of learning which challenge bourgeois hegemony."

But woah! a string 90's buzzwords! I simply can't read writing this bad... regardless of the ideas conveyed.

"Trained in the philosophical context of Western metaphysical dualism, many of us have accepted the notion that there is a split between the body and the mind.

 Believing this, individuals enter the classroom to teach as though only the mind is present, and not the body"

What? Metaphysical dualism is very present in non-Western Cultures: buddhism, modes of hinduism, jainism, Zen, even (I would argue) certain shamanic practices do this. Also, I simply don't think the people who lamented this dualism have engaged the literature related to the problem, the mind/body problem. If they did they'd have a better handle on what they are arguing. When I see a person as a mind, which is to say, as a person, and not a mass of meat, I have all the more respect for them, regardless of their race, class, or gender (not to mention appearance). Further, I find it odd to critique Western Culture and its legacies, yet to cite "Eros"  (originally a Western god at that) as a pedagogical tool in the classroom.

Do you want to be loved by your students? Are you a composition teacher or their eternal guru? Their angelic savior, liberating them from Capitalism one comma at a time?

beyond straw men

Like most of the class, I found Kroll’s perspective on argument useful and interesting, and would also have a goal for my students “to get people who disagree with you to listen rather than respond defensively,” (Kroll 38). That sounds like a high but feasible goal for students, a skill that they can apply in future classes, life and perhaps even political participation. If done well, I think his methods could work well in a freshmen comp class (though I don’t know if I’d spend twelve weeks on it, as Kroll did). I don’t remember Kroll using the term “close reading,” but it seems like some of that skill would necessarily go along with teaching conciliatory, integrative and deliberative approaches to argument.

The conciliatory method of beginning an argument with “a respectful summary of the opponent’s viewpoint” may often be a good way to “leverage fairness,” (41) and to ensure that students research a variety of viewpoints for the assignment. Elbow talks about a similar approach, but warns of readers interpreting that approach as disingenuous – the straw man approach that shows perspectives “the writer never really took seriously,” (Elbow 641). Point taken, but I think students are capable of and should be expected to consider nuance and write a variety of perspectives. I do expect the especially opinionated students to employ the “thunderous however,” (Kroll 47), but there are worse methods a student could use in an argumentative paper.

I had some issues with Kroll’s reconstructive strategy. Yes, reframing the debate can be a really powerful and effective tool in arguments, but it can also completely miss the point of the current debate, especially when the legality of a certain practice is what’s at stake (or, um, being discussed by freshmen). In the discussion of assisted suicide, the assertion that “pain can always be alleviated,” sounds bogus and trivializing of suffering terminal patients and their loved ones, and the final “let’s do what is needed to make it irrelevant,” almost made me roll my eyes. In this case, taking a reconstructive approach (without also taking a stance) ignores the actual dilemma and makes the writer sound wishy-washy, like they’re trying too hard to make sure the instructor/grader doesn’t disagree with them. 

Arguing Differently?

I really liked that the Kroll article identified specific techniques that writers – especially less experienced writers – can use to make their arguments less oppositional and confrontational.  I particularly thought that the section on introductions that demonstrate an empathetic understanding of the opposing viewpoints would be useful for writers. However, I find Krall’s article a bit too insistent on the prevalence of oppositional argumentation in beginning composition students. 

My experience in the Writing Center so far has not led me to believe that a too heavy reliance on argumentation is a real problem faced by incoming composition students. Instead, it much more often seems to me that students either don’t realize that they’re supposed to make an argument or that they don’t know how to make one at all. It seems to me as thought in order to teach someone how to use multiple modes of argument, he or she must first understand what an argument is and should do in the first place.  I think the problem Krall identifies is likely more of a problem for intermediate composition students rather than beginning students. 

Arguing Differently - Who Benefits?

The standout article for me this week was Kroll's "Arguing Differently."  I actually found myself responding to him quite positively, and I thought that his ideas were certainly employable in the writing classroom.  Kroll makes several good points throughout the article - teaching students to argue in different ways not only enhances their argument but also makes paper-reading more interesting for the teacher.  Forcing students to reconsider the way they present arguments in their papers also puts them in a problem-solving position - it is clear from the article that the students struggled with implementing these different styles, and parts of the essay that once seemed so easy to craft, like transitions, suddenly had to be rethought.  Some of my best writing has come out of my own experimentation with different mode of argument, and I think it is a wonderful exercise for students.  It is also great preparation for arguing in other disciplines and even outside of academia - these methods have plenty of utility.  They're good life skills, not just academic skills.

That being said, I agree with Devin that this may not be the best exercise for freshman writing students.  Without a good foundation for argumentative writing, students cannot begin to experiment with new modes of it.  I think it is telling that the student that he quotes as having gotten so much from the class was one of his best students - the reason she was so negative towards the class at the beginning was because she already had a good foundation of writing skills, and was being forced to reconsider those already perfected methods.  I once considered taking an Advanced Writing course back in Providence, but after reading the course description, I decided that I already liked my way of writing and that I did not want to try out any new methods.  I know I would have had the same reaction as that girl in Kroll's class, and I probably would have benefited just as much as she did had I taken it.  As I said earlier, though, I was already at an advanced stage of writing, just like that student.

Finally, what I liked most about Kroll's article (and this goes for Elbow too, to an extent) is that he was able to provide the theoretical and the practical at the same time.  Unlike Sirc, I was not waiting for what seemed like an eternity to find out how to put these ideas into use in the classroom - Kroll gave examples of the ways in which the students implemented all of these different types of arguments into their papers.  This would be especially useful if I were to implement it in a classroom, already having ideas of how to help students craft these kinds of arguments if they got stuck.

As an aside, I did like Elbow's article, and I agree with him that academic essays can get a little dry and that the best ones are those that are interesting to readers and keep them turning the pages.  I thought that this was not very far from our conversation in the classroom last week about the differences and similarities between creative and academic writing, and I still believe that both have something to learn from each other.  Elbow, of course, makes this conversation more interesting with his music metaphor - and I think that there is definitely something for academic writers to learn here.  Whether or not they will listen or change their ways, though, is another story entirely.  They could be just like that advanced student in Kroll's class, averse to change in her forms and methods.

Like most of you, I did not find anything to revolutionary about "Arguing Differently," partly because taking a conciliatory stance is what I have been taught as a "member of the advanced tract." I had a course in college that was basically built around Elbow's "Believing and Doubting Game," a more theoretical version of this argument which uses lots of "cursory" examples from different areas of study to make his point. Anyway, like Devin, I had the whole semester to produce an argument in which I show that I had considered the other side (metaphorically speaking--I don't think there are literally two sides). However, even in this advanced course I basically got out of the course what I put into it. What I got out was a introduction to the allnighter. A couple days before the essay was do I started actually considering the other side, and I became really convinced by argument that undercut my premise. After a frantic search the other side of the argument which I had not been looking for before, I completely overhauled the essay from one that was dogmatic to one that was basically conciliatory if not quite as subtle as Kroll advocates for.

My point is maybe there are good and bad ways to organize a course where you experiment with other types of arguments. Devin, I like your suggestions. Learning about different types of argument through reading together should held the student or their peer-reviewers or their profs diagnoze the approach that was used. Many times an adversial approach will be used when it is not appropriate or the claims and evidence are not that strong, but students feel forced into one way of arguing.

Though the student that seem to get the most from Kroll's approach seem to be the one that was most prone to be adversiarial, we should take sometime to consider another kind of student who doesn't use either approach well. Should we backtrack and try to teach that student the kind of argument that student rely to much on so we can then try to teach them not to rely on, or does the order they learn these things really matter. From my experience in the writing center, teacher seems to be thrusting the students in the world of argument and telling them not use exposition. Are students going to know how to arguing a thing from more than one side if they do not have reading comprehension skills and know how to summarizes those points. I know we have focused on the creative or inventive process so far but maybe we should pay some more attention to the exposition side of the course.

Are We Already Effective Temporal Writers?

One thing I find so refreshing about Peter Elbow is how I recognize my own tendencies in what he describes.  To some extent, this is the same with Boice, but that's in a more intellectual, theoretical way.  With Elbow, once he surfaces from the theoretical and deals with the concrete, I realize that I'm more or less on board with him.

This brings me to why I found the exploratory paper so difficult.  Elbow writes that "[i]f a piece of writing were really a record of all the writer's thinking as it occurred in the process, it would almost inevitably be a wandering mess" (640).  Elbow recognizes and articulates what I continually found while writng: that it is hard for a trained writer to be so frustratingly informal.  Of course, Elbow has all of the same good things to say about enactive writing that we've already discussed in class; it is an effective way to feel out multiple sides of an argument, to lead yourself through your research and effectively analyze all available points of view.  All of this, I understand.  What I most appreciated was Elbow's focusing on why he understands that kind of writing might be difficult to read or to compose.

There were other moments when I also recognized my own writing tendencies in Elbow.  The dynamic outline, for instance, is far more along the lines of what I've been using for years than the static one is.  Obviously the way Elbow translated binding writing temporally from the narrative to the nonnarrative captured me, a primarily narrative writer.  Do I construct my academic essays in the same frame of mind as my stories?  I can't say I do, although there is something of the more active, creative element going on the more engaged I am with a piece.  In Elbow's itch-and-scratch talk, I recognized all of the "But where is the conflict?" questions from my creative writing workshops throughout the years.  The talk about voice is all creative, nebulous; ethos is "the most powerful of the three sources of persuasion" indeed (643).  Many of the things I began to do writing essays once I started to think of essay-writing as "fun" line up with many of Elbow's observations on temporal writing.  As a creative writer who has only just begun to think of essays more and more creatively, Elbow's temporal lessons had lots of advice for ways I might speed up that process.

I'm not sure I've been converted entirely to thinking about essays temporally.  I'm still quite visual; Elbow's earlier critiques of the ways in which we as writers pigeonhole writing into the spacial parts of our minds includes a mention of visual planning, flowcharts and the like.  I love mapping out essays, both for myself and for tutees in the Writing Center.  On a fundamental level, Elbow concedes that the spacial element will not disappear; ultimately, he concludes that the two can and should work together, rather than canceling each other out.