Abnormal discourse

"The first steps to learning to thing Better,and learning to converse Better and learning to establish and maintain the sorts of social context, the sorts of community life that foster the sorts of conversation members of the community value." -K. Bruffee
Academic discourse truly is an amazing beast. It is unbearably pompous and I can't help but cheer those students who try to engage in "abnormal discourse"---- when someone joins in the discourse who is ignorant of the conventions governing that discourse, or who sets them aside." (Rorty ref. by Bruffee--Conversation of Mankind, 429)
I know that there are students out there who tend to manipulate assignments. I've always been a huge proponent of socially accepted rebellion-- those intellectual revolutionaries. I've participated in the occasional revolution and I've paid for it by not getting an "A." I've paid for it by having to re-write, or conference.
I've become weary of it.
I re-read D. Bartholomae's "Tidy House" this weekend. In his essay he discusses a student he had in his first year of teaching. The student wrote an essay which discussed the fact that he.....thought the assignment was stupid. The student used different language, of course, but that was the gist of it. It made me question the idea of rebellion and resistance within the classroom. Paired with Bruffee's essay, "Tidy House" once again, made me re-evaluate the acculturation that goes on within academia.
So many teaching "techniques" seem to be stifling, seem to be hoop-jumping, and when a student decides to vocalize frustration and annoyance via essay, the student is proverbially put in the corner to think about what s/he has done.
Is it always "wrong" or "right," "correct" or "incorrect" within the classroom?
I disliked the idea of abnormal discourse simply because it set the scene. It was/is abnormal because it isn't normal. Instead of realizing that abnormality has its roots in normality--its causal ancestor-- we set the two up against one another, and we pick one over the other, when, in fact, they are simply variations on a theme.

Other Others

At the University, in our literature courses, in our theory course, the idea of the misunderstood Other usually makes a few appearance and usually decides to hang around for the duration of the eighteen week course. A few students identify, a few students re-define and a few Others remain quiet and re-read the texts in order to understand something “else.”
We discussed the term “Other” in class the other day, and I once again pondered the significance. Every semester that I have heard and discussed this term it has been in reference to something different: race, women, caste. But this semester, being in a classroom chock full of teaching assistants, I feel that this semester the Other has significance in the English 100 and 110 classroom. We read Comp tales forever ago (or was it just two weeks?), and I thought about it then. Those undergraduate students who are taught. Those undergraduate student who are finding their place in their first semester writing class in college. They are the Others this year. They have the trivial place of being the unknown and sometimes misunderstood role of being “rubbish” writers.
Of course, I am at the disadvantage of not teaching them. I really have nothing to do with them. I merely hear the stories from TA’s. But in the classroom, in front of the graduate student, in front of the Associate Professor, in front of the tenured Professor, how can that student not feel at a disadvantage. How can that student not feel as if whatever voice s/he had before is now gone, lost to an academic version of laryngitis?
This will be the first year of learning to write academically. This will be the first year of stifling personal “voice” in order to fulfill that requirement. I have heard some teachers voice bemusement at confused and muddled essays wherein the requirements were not met, or the writing was dry and boring, or there was no essay at all.
I just remember thinking in my undergrad, “Okay, the first essay is the hardest, because you don’t really know what the Professor wants. My Mind or repeat after me.”

Multi-Vocal Listening

In class today, we discussed the idea of research and it’s inherent in/objectivity. Someone brought up the idea of an interviewee bending his/her “story” to accommodate the interviewer.
“That’s not the way people work,” was the response. Maybe, but maybe in certain situations they do censor self. Maybe the story is just a bit different. Maybe one aspect is left untold. I have a difficult time believing that all language is value-free or universal especially in the arena of research. Every researcher has a motive, something to find out, otherwise there wouldn’t be anything to research. The questions would not be there to ask.

I mean, when I say "Horse" what do you think of?

Michel Foucault in his essay, “The Discourse on Language,” writes of prohibition in discourse communities. “We know perfectly well that we are not free to say just anything, that we cannot speak simply of anything, when we like or where we like; not just anyone, finally, may speak of just anything.”
There are power struggles in discourse. What should be revealed and what should be hidden in any conversation? How will I, the researcher or the human-subject, interpret your symbols of communication?
“Whose theory, whose language, whose interpretation, and whose narrative voice would prevail?”
Language is subjective. Language is interpretive. Most things are, in fact, up for grabs.

Traveling with Exxon

I personally have never been a huge proponent of “freewriting.” I don’t like participating in the activity, and therefore, presume that most people couldn’t possibly glean anything from that sort of pursuit.

I must admit though, Elbow made me wonder.

Maybe it is a good idea, or maybe it’s not. Either way he added a certain amount of insecure charm to the whole process of not being able to string a few words together in some sort of pre-approved of rhetorical structure.

I taught English to...well, highschool dropouts in Anchorage, Alaska. The goal of the class was for the students to be able to answer a prompt, a basic question–“What are some qualities in a person whom you admire?” in the form of a five-paragraph essay.

It was difficult. Sometimes the students didn’t even understand the question. Some students grew tired of writing and never returned to class. Sometimes I had no clue what I should do with an essay. “Um, yeah, okay, the essay subject is good. Essentially, this is what I’m looking for. But are you aware that you wrote this entire essay phonetically?”

“It’s not right? But I did that free-writing thing. See?” The student showed me two crumpled pieces of paper which had been thoroughly written upon, erased and written upon again.

We teachers were pushed to get students to brainstorm using freewriting and webbing.

I guess what I’m curious about is whether or not freewriting and stream of consciousness writing can be effective in most situations? Is our center of gravity really located around the ability or inability to find topic sentences and the willingness to lose control of our writing?

Does freewriting even make sense beyond the hallowed halls of academia? It seems like a privilege to be able to use this style of writing. The students I had came to class on their lunch breaks. They came for an hour when they could get a friend to watch their kids.
Their goal was to take a test which culminated in a timed five paragraph essay. They didn’t have an hour to spend freewriting.

I’m not saying that I don’t agree with Elbow. I guess I’m just remembering the kid who just didn’t want to write a lot, or the girl who didn’t care enough to spend time growing and cooking. “Actually, I’m only here because my mom said that she would buy me this Coach purse if I came. No offense. Hey, do you want to go to this party with me tonight? There’s always tons of mushrooms. You should come.”

I think this would be the appropriate time to hearken back to Comp Tales.

I never saw that student again.