I like to curse. Blame that on the military if you must. Bootcamp is where I discovered the joy of profanity. Swearing was cathartic. A way to alleviate stress and tension. And who knew that one word, a word like ‘Fuck’ could be so diverse (for more on the diversity of the word Fuck, see blog titled “Warning: Some Content May Not Be Suitable for All Adults”). Unfortunately, for me and my sailor’s mouth, the classroom setting rarely
presents a platform suitable to express myself fully. I must self-sensor. This is not the case when blogging. I am free to be me – ol’ Johnny Potty Mouth!
But more than just having the ability to drop an occasional “F” Bomb, blogging allows the user to express themselves through a cacophony of media. I am reminded of that old adage, “A picture is worth a thousand words”. And if that is true, what is the going rate for a picture supported by a few lines of text and a YouTube clip?
As useful as blogging as a tool for the classroom may be, I do have one minor reservation – and that would be over when to introduce it. Blogging worked well with our class because, at this point in our education, we are established writers. I see blogging as one step in the process of writing/rhetoric/expression but, from a pedagogical perspective, I believe that the first step should be focused on development of plain old boring writing.
To use technology or not to use technology in the classroom, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the minds of men to suffer the slings and arrows … My apologies to Jack Shakespeare.
I am against technology in the classroom. I know that this position puts me at loggerheads with most. As the readings point out, most students have a better grasp on the latest and greatest technology than the faculty. As such, our attempts to integrate that technology into the classroom could run the risk of fostering a feeling of inauthenticity akin to when my parents told me they were into Nirvana and Sonic Youth when I was in high-school. The end result is another barrier we have to overcome to reach our students.
The exception to this might be inner city schools, or community colleges. But these students are likely facing far greater challenges than lack of technology in the classroom. For those in community colleges, technology may be down-right intimidating. The greater need is to get students comfortable with writing first. Technology can come later. There are fringe benefits to a technology-free approach too.
The less technology is involved the more we reduce opportunities for plagiarism. By simply forcing students to freewrite in journals in the classroom for the first few weeks we force the students to take responsibility and ownership of their own writing (note: This approach may not be practical for those teaching in secondary ed. where state and federal standards are a part of the curriculum.). Still, I understand the ubiquitous nature of technology and its prominence in the 'real' world. So, I am not suggesting we completely ignore it. It is more a question of when.
And for you further reading pleasure, this timely NY Times article by Nobel Prize winning Princeton Professor of Economics, Paul Krugmen:
American Thought Police
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Recently William Cronon, a historian who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, decided to weigh in on his state's political turmoil. He started a blog, "Scholar as Citizen," devoting his first post to the role of the shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council in pushing hard-line conservative legislation at the state level. Then he published an opinion piece in The Times, suggesting that Wisconsin's Republican governor has turned his back on the state's long tradition of "neighborliness, decency and mutual respect."
So what was the G.O.P.'s response?
A demand for copies of all e-mails sent to or from Mr. Cronon's university mail account containing any of a wide range of terms, including the word "Republican" and the names of a number of Republican politicians.
If this action strikes you as no big deal, you're missing the point. The hard right — which these days is more or less synonymous with the Republican Party — has a modus operandi when it comes to scholars expressing views it dislikes: never mind the substance, go for the smear. And that demand for copies of e-mails is obviously motivated by no more than a hope that it will provide something, anything, that can be used to subject Mr. Cronon to the usual treatment.
The Cronon affair, then, is one more indicator of just how reflexively vindictive, how un-American, one of our two great political parties has become.
The demand for Mr. Cronon's correspondence has obvious parallels with the ongoing smear campaign against climate science and climate scientists, which has lately relied heavily on supposedly damaging quotations found in e-mail records.
Back in 2009 climate skeptics got hold of more than a thousand e-mails between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia. Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety; at most, we learned — I know this will shock you — that scientists are human beings, who occasionally say snide things about people they dislike.
But that didn't stop the usual suspects from proclaiming that they had uncovered "Climategate," a scientific scandal that somehow invalidates the vast array of evidence for man-made climate change. And this fake scandal gives an indication of what the Wisconsin G.O.P. presumably hopes to do to Mr. Cronon.
After all, if you go through a large number of messages looking for lines that can be made to sound bad, you're bound to find a few. In fact, it's surprising how few such lines the critics managed to find in the "Climategate" trove: much of the smear has focused on just one e-mail, in which a researcher talks about using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a particular series. In context, it's clear that he's talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence. But the right wants a scandal, and won't take no for an answer.
Is there any doubt that Wisconsin Republicans are hoping for a similar "success" against Mr. Cronon?
Now, in this case they'll probably come up dry. Mr. Cronon writes on his blog that he has been careful never to use his university e-mail for personal business, exhibiting a scrupulousness that's neither common nor expected in the academic world. (Full disclosure: I have, at times, used my university e-mail to remind my wife to feed the cats, confirm dinner plans with friends, etc.)
Beyond that, Mr. Cronon — the president-elect of the American Historical Association — has a secure reputation as a towering figure in his field. His magnificent "Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West" is the best work of economic and business history I've ever read — and I read a lot of that kind of thing.
So we don't need to worry about Mr. Cronon — but we should worry a lot about the wider effect of attacks like the one he's facing.
Legally, Republicans may be within their rights: Wisconsin's open records law provides public access to e-mails of government employees, although the law was clearly intended to apply to state officials, not university professors. But there's a clear chilling effect when scholars know that they may face witch hunts whenever they say things the G.O.P. doesn't like.
Someone like Mr. Cronon can stand up to the pressure. But less eminent and established researchers won't just become reluctant to act as concerned citizens, weighing in on current debates; they'll be deterred from even doing research on topics that might get them in trouble.
What's at stake here, in other words, is whether we're going to have an open national discourse in which scholars feel free to go wherever the evidence takes them, and to contribute to public understanding. Republicans, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, are trying to shut that kind of discourse down. It's up to the rest of us to see that they don't succeed.
Fuck is such a diverse word. It can have both positive and negative connotations. You can tell someone to fuck-off. Two people can share a good fuck. There is also the ambivalent and pervasive, "I could give a fuck." [and its more intense utterance that uses flying as a modifier]. Fuck is probably the perfect expression to convey how I feel about teaching in a classroom for the first time.
On the one hand, buried in that fuck is a fear of the unknown. As in, "What did I get myself into?"; "Are these students going to really care what I have to say?"; "Do I really know enough to teach these kids anything useful?"
On the other hand, fuck is more an expression of relief. As in, "I finally made it."; "This is what I always wanted to do."; "I can't wait to share the experience of learning with my classroom."
That is what made this Lynn reading so perfect. For me, it alleviated some of the more heavier connotations behind my fuck. From the construction of the syllabus, to what to wear in the classroom, even what to be called Lynn lays out a very cogent plan to attack classroom logistics. As helpful as I found the last 20 pages on logistics, it was the section on pedagogy that I would like to devote the remainder of my commentary.
In suggesting that,"Writing pedagogy arguably begins (and I'm not kidding here) with your answer to the question of the meaning of life.", Lynn makes one of the most profound statements on pedagogy I have ever come across. Its profundity lie in the fact that the statement seems more suited for a class in Existentialism (or the punch-line to a Monty Python film) than a class in Rhetoric and Composition. Instead of asking us to explore what we already know about writing, Lynn is challenging us to do some intrinsic soul searching.
And yet, if we agree with Berlin's assessment that "a way of teaching is never innocent" (and all the discussion that preceded) Lynn's statement makes perfect sense. I am what I believe. Right now, I believe in America.[Fuck Yeah!]. More specifically, I believe in the form of Democracy aspired to in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and in the Declaration of Independence. But, when I say Democracy, there is need for clarification. Just as Democracy is an idea, Democracy is also rhetorical device. A way of drumming up feelings of nationalism and patriotism. A way of framing an issue. Which can lead to more nefarious ends such as politicians arguing the necessity of military action on the grounds of making country X safe for Democracy. The effect is one of framing the issue in an either "for" or "against" dichotomy. And who, in this country, can be against Democracy? For my purposes, I mean Democracy, the idea, that challenges systems – both political and economic –that create or encourage inequality:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Equality. Life. Liberty. Happiness. These are powerful words. They do much to stir feelings deep inside of me. They set the foundation for how I think and how I interact with the world. What the creators of the Declaration could not know was the future. They could not know that unbridled Capitalism would lead to jaw-dropping levels of inequality. They couldn't know that Corporations would threaten Life, Liberty, and our pursuit of Happiness. The Patriarchy, the hegemonic force that has been leading our country since its inception, challenges and threatens all four of the above.
Before I put together my first syllabus, before I welcome my first class, these are the ideas that frame my view the world. And while I think Lynn is right - writing should be the aim of a course on writing. He was also correct to note that these frameworks would somehow, either explicitly or implicitly, find their way into my classroom.
One minor point of contention I have with Lynn is the statement that, "a course in writing should deal with writing." True enough, but that is not the only concern of a course in writing. Even Lynn admits that a course in writing has loftier aims - like developing critical thinking skills. And I agree, that way, when we watch something like this:
We can pull out our pocket constitution (doesn't everyone have one?) and read off Article II, Section I and ask the commentators on Fox [it is so hard for me to call it news] in a manner more succinctly than Keith Olbermann does (though less entertaining), "Why the fuck does the President's religion even matter?"
Article II, Section I of the US Constitution:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Nowhere does it mention that the President needs to be of a certain faith.
And that is what a writing course can accomplish. A good teacher can produce students who can assess information and think critically for themselves. But they can't entirely prevent who they are and what they believe from seeping into the classroom. My beliefs will inevitably shape pedagogy because my beiliefs frame how I view the world. But that does not mean I will be a poor instructor. It is my wish to be a good teacher who can educe good writing and critical thinking skills from my students. Lynn provides valuable insight on how to get there.
I know we are on break but, in a former life, I was a political science undergrad. Public policy affects all that we have been discussing to date, and is the reason why it is important to really pay attention to the political discourse as it unfolds in our country:
While growing up in the 80's, one of my favorite movies was Red Dawn. When HBO had it on high rotation, you could often find me in the dark of my grandparent’s basement comfortably sprawled, blanketed, and bepillowed on a seventies’ styled Brown on Beige checkered shag of a couch, eyes intently glued to a 13 inch color TV that Pap had rigged with cable. As the basement was adjacent to the garage, smells of oil, gasoline and grease permeated the atmosphere. I did not care (in fact, I came to love those smells). I had one thought and one thought only on my mind: WOLVERINES!
For those of you who have not had the great fortune to have experienced John Milius' opus, here is a brief synopsis (taken from IMDB):
"Red Dawn" envisions a mid-1980's America under siege from invading Russian and Cuban armies. Told at a boiling point of nuclear deterrence between the world's super powers, the threat focuses on a group of high school students who take refuge in the Rockies. First coping with survival and eventually fighting back guerrilla style, the students take the war to the invading armies in the hope that they can help turn the tide. As winter progresses; however, the group is worn down, physically, emotionally and mentally by war's attrition. As only a few remain, they must decide how to reach America's safe zones and see if tomorrow will bring another Red Dawn.
Without spoiling the ending I will say that as a kid, I missed the Cold War / Anti-Soviet propaganda pervasive throughout the film. Back then, I watched movies solely for entertainment value. Now however, I see Red Dawn as an opportunity for mental exercise. The question:
How would you react were the United States actually invaded and then occupied?
From the safety of home, it is easy to say you would react the same way the kids in Red Dawn did. But, experience has shown me that what we say and what we actually do are not always the same. And what if the occupying army was offering shelter, provisions, medical care and so on? Would that make it harder to resist? What if the ideology (if not the practice) of the occupying army matched your own?
While Steven Lynn’s “Den of Error” lacks the panache of a soviet-style communist invasion, the comparison (and subsequent mental exercise) is nonetheless useful. In a word, Lynn’s ultimate goal is to ‘liberate’ the student from “grammar-based pedagogy that generations of students have endured.” Says Lynn, “We’ll know that pedagogy has caught up with expert knowledge when the general public stops thinking that English teacher are grammar fussies, spotting errors wherever we go, clucking self-righteously.” Or, to translate, Lynn is seemingly proffering a giant ‘Cluck You’ to the status quo outmoded approach to writing pedagogy.
What I like about Lynn is his eagerness to embrace an all-of-the-above approach to writing pedagogy. As if to suggest that the best way to 'liberate' students from the regime of pedagogies past requires use of all weapons in the arsenal. But perhaps even more important than this is Lynn's attention to cultural issues in the classroom such as gender,race, and class. And instead of commenting on that portion through more writing, I thought I would get more mileage out of these two YouTube clips I put together back in November for a different class with Julie where I make comments analogous to those in this reading.
And Alice Glarden Brand wrote "The Why of Cognition: Emotion and the Writing Process". A lot has changed since then. Both Michael Jackson and Ronald Reagan have passed. Ellen Page had a baby of her own in the movie Juno. And does anyone under the age of 30 even know who Tom Selleck is anymore? Cognitive Science has changed too.
It has embraced emotion - one of Brand's critique of Cognitive Theory. Says Brand, "We choose. Psychologists tell us that these choices are not random, but the cognitivists come up short when they try to explain why we choose what we choose, and how." This has changed. Cognitive Science now understands the role emotions play in choice (only the fist 11 minutes of the clip are necessary):
Another point of contention I have with Brand's essay is the notion that "The act of writing demands that concepts... be forced into linear patterns of writing". This may hold true of academic writing. But there are other modes of writing - poetry, creative, etc - which do not necessarily fit linear patterns (think Gertrude Stein). Are we to ignore poetry and creative writing? We are not to think of these forms as real writing?
These minor differences aside, Brand was clearly ahead of her time. Before Cognitive Science had a chance to catch up with her, Brand understood the importance of emotion in thinking and writing saying "being both human and impartial is a contradiction." Cognitive Science now agrees.
The implication of such sentiment is staggering. The idea that logic is not a significant agent of human thought or the writing process goes against all that we have been taught for decades if not millenia in the field of writing pedagogy. Process writing - putting together an outline, then producing a rough draft, followed by revision/editiing is, according to this new paradigm, simply makes no sense. It is, in Brand's words, "mechanistic" when humans are not computers. "The model assumes a motivation that does not exist." The question, then, is what would this new approach to writing pedagogy look like in the classroom? And even if we had an answer, how do we convince millions of people that, as Sir Ken Robinson already knows, the current model needs changed?
I like to curse. Blame that on the military if you must. Bootcamp is where I discovered the joy of profanity. Swearing was cathartic. A way to alleviate stress and tension. And who knew that one word, a word like ‘Fuck’ could be so diverse (for more on the diversity of the word Fuck, see blog titled “Warning: Some Content May Not Be Suitable for All Adults”). Unfortunately, for me and my sailor’s mouth, the classroom setting rarely
