Posted 3:29 PM by Marcie
Josh seems to be a gifted theorizer – I think that he could write a chapter for the book! I admit that certain chapters make my head spin and leave me thoroughly confused. Occasionally, however, I am able to decipher some meaning and pull something important out of the text. In fact, out of Josh’s blog, one sentence really stood out to me:
“I think it a mistake tantamount to treason to give these foundations more value than the end product of our work as educators.” Some of the essays we read for last week (or two weeks ago) stressed this point, and I think that it is really important. I have considered following Fish’s theory of no-theories, but then I would have to read his long-winded essays! No, I really do think that there is value in studying theory. But it is important to remember the student. It seems that all theories, taken in too extreme of doses, seem to have negative effects on the students. For example, in George and Trimbur’s essay, it is pointed out that Cultural Studies in the Comp classroom, in its “desire to find a ‘content’ for composition can all too easily lead to the neglect of writing.” The essay also quotes Maxine Hairston’s ideas that the Cultural Studies advocates are “forcing leftist ideology on vulnerable young people instead of teaching writing.” Conversely, (correct me if I’m wrong) the argument against Expressivism is that there is not enough content and students don’t learn how to write for the real world. Perhaps the key, then, is simply moderation.

I did enjoy Tobin’s essay. He sounds like a veteran of the comp theory world and like he has lived through many changes (“pre-process, process, and post-process”). I admire the zeal with which he exclaims “I refuse to develop a postprocess course […] because I refuse to accept […] that process is dead,” and what he wanted to say, but resisted: “You don’t teach students to write by telling them that their views on issues […] don’t count as content or count only as naďve opinions to be corrected during the course.” But even Tobin admits that he uses postprocess (Social Epistemic/Cultural Studies?) language and methods “to help students see how texts and writers and readers are always and inevitably embedded in multiple contexts and cultures.” Maybe this all just shows that the lines between theories do run, or that many good things come from each camp. I don’t know. Maybe all this just proves that “theory hope” can never be justified because there is no such thing as a perfect theory.

But please, tell me if I am misinterpreting any of the key ideas! Please stop me if I’m obviously confused!

Posted 1:31 PM by Joshua
My initial reaction to reading these three chapters, or perhaps just the mental and philosophical void I’m attempting to fill for myself, is leading me on a different tangent than attempting to reconcile the similarities and breakdowns in negotiation between the comp camps.

In terms of the book itself, while it does get a bit thick with bibliographical information, it is an excellent resource for finding what I want to know more about, though I confess to being inexplicably drawn to the foundations of classical rhetoric for reasons I have been unable to decipher. Although the divisions are blurring as Kevin insinuated, I believe that more important than the theories is the scope that composition studies is projected to. As theorists and practitioners alike defend the styles that they have developed with varying degrees of success, the heavy reliance on debates of reality and truth, culture and the individual, begins to overshadow the most important question, which Tobin comes close to when he asks “should a writing course be organized around production or consumption?”(pg 15). While he is posing this question after asking that the answer disregard the philosophical foundations cross-referenced in discussions of rhetoric again and again, it is precisely this act, the disassociation of what we are attempting to do, teach writing skills, from questions that will never be answered, that I find appealing.

Understanding the possible ramifications of not only what is taught, but the manner in which it is taught, is vital in every field of study. What I am driving towards is that the original goal as I see it of composition studies, helping students cultivate confidence in their ability to communicate effectively and (hail the grammar Nazis) correctly through writing, is being mired with considerations that the history of our race has failed to even form correct questions for, let alone answers to. While this fits in well with my personal theory that readers and writers alike are being drawn to science fiction and fantasy specifically to alleviate anxieties embedded in modern culture and philosophy, I think it a mistake tantamount to treason to give these foundations more value than the end product of our work as educators.

If I’ve just confused any of you as thoroughly as I have myself, please help!!! I feel as if I’m trying to weave a rope without being able to see the strands or the cliff that I know must be somewhere close by.

Posted 12:59 PM by Kevin
Sybil's train of expressivist thought ran through a beatnik stop, so I feel compelled to make explicit a connection with Geoff Sirc. Sirc's recent book is called _Composition as a Happening_, and he has a chapter on the "American action writers," which can be another way of talking about the Beats. While Sirc doesn't go out of his way to call himself an "expressivist," he is happy to align himself with Donald Murray, Peter Elbow, Ken Macrorie, and he is happy to align his teaching strategies and writing strategies with the "teaching" and writing strategies of the Beats.

Interestingly, Trimbur and George slip Sirc in at the end of their cultural studies chapter because he has written about punk and composition, yet Sirc has lots and lots of problems with the cultural studies approach to teaching writing. Even as I write this, I can see the divisions among camps breaking down (help me, I'm melting!!), and I have visions of graduate students trying to pummel some sense into me or the texts. But that's okay--punch away, kick it around, and we will make as much sense out of the material as we need to.

Posted 11:53 AM by Kim
Sybil, I love your statement about accidentally buying bell hooks' book...isn't it funny how we kind of back our way into learning sometimes?


Since one of our ongoing discussions is about first-year teachers, I have to say that I think this book would be an excellent "text" to have for the TA Strategies class. George and Trimbur refer to theirs as a "bibliographic essay," (as are the others) which I think is helpful because it points you toward areas or names for further research, which can help you in the quest for creating your own theory cocktail. Some of the reading in this book is a little dense, but not overwhelmingly so--which means it wouldn't be too much to do for TA Strategies. Just finding out about some of these pedagogies is a great start to finding your niche for teaching. I believe that there is something to be said for "jumping in" to teaching (it's kind of like driving--you can read all the manuals, but you don't really develop the skills until you get behind the wheel) but I think this would be a great source to go through as part of the training. Without making it a full-blown theory class (this old dog is panting to keep up with these new tricks) it would at least be a way for newcomers to get familiar with some of the more common pedagogies. If this book is too much, a pared down version would still be helpful.


Before reading George and Trimbur's essay, I didn't really have a full picture of cultural studies. I chuckled at the line "--to explain how cultural studies has infiltrated composition studies." Sounds like spy games.


I think I'm going to pretend that I'm related to Sharon Crowley because she sounds really smart.

Posted 9:26 AM by Sybil
We're hitting a lot of repetition, but I keep on highlighting quotes and connections. First off, I am finding SO many connections from past knowledge and learning.. I know I have read of Lad Tobin before, and well, within his essay, I really got to see this theory stuff from the point of view of a person that "lived through it" and is still kicking. Another connection made: bell hooks. She is fabulous, and I accidentally bought her book when I was teaching high school. Found her voice and her thoughts extremely helpful. I am not done with the book, but nonetheless found her name mentioned a good thing. In the second chapter, she's quoted with "the aim of her pedagogy is to create a place for voices". Exactly. Perhaps the reason I secretly started unknowingly to use the expressivist theory back in the day was because I saw my students, the highly achieved and not, as separate people all worthy of representing their voices. Connection #3: Tobin talks about expressivism as "the sort of stuff [he] expected to find in Whitman or Emerson". Me too. I passionately taught Emerson and Thoreau because when they were introduced to me, I latched onto Individualism and Transcendentalism. (ooh, I do have a literature background- ugh!) Who knew then that they were most likely Expressivists in the making! Sheesh! Zen, zen, zen. Tobin brings up this Natalie Goldberg person and her Zen-inspired writing exercises and prompts. Need to find more out about her. I am constantly interested by Zen Buddhism and meditation, etc. That definitely coincides with freewriting. Other people that I can see as Expressivists in their own ways are the beatniks (right, Laura?). Burroughs and Kerouac among others.. I actually have a Beat Generation book that has lists upon lists of activities that take into account the meditation needed for writing as well as Individualism. All in all, the first chapter was the one that influenced me the most. The second chapter had a lot of background information, and the third seemed to repeat some information while adding the historical background of the expressivists. On page 40 of chapt. 3 there is a great list of things professors should do in this type of pedagogy. I am about to get to the 5th chapter and will respond to that soon enough.