Warning: Some content may not be suitable for all audiences.

A-M-E-R-I-C-A. [Fuck Yeah!]

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.

True story.

The End.