We need to figure out who we are, damn it! No, really. In our very own class, we all express a desire to break free from the authoritarian demons we call, always with a hiss of hatred, "the administration" and to be a more inclusive field, open to all walks of life. However, and I'm sure we'd all agree, college is still elitist in its pursuit to educate the masses. Miller says it best herself, when talking about composition, that:
"it is like the Old Testament God...always in a state of becoming, of reinventing itself to compensate for its perceived lack of fixed goals and methods. But it is nonetheless in many ways a ritualistic performance that does not change except by substituting new rituals and codes for old ones" (12).
To put into my own words, I have to elaborate a bit more here. Composition, loosely explained here, started in order to meet the demand for an educated population, spurned in part by technology (mass dissemination of literature). Needs were met by teaching students grammar and analyzing examples of "good English." Essentially, a style's course. This in turn churned out a population that could read and, thus, better communicate with their neighbors down the road. But, as Miller quotes from George Gordon and Terry Eagleton, English literature (a combined discipline that included composition), became the "poor man's classics" and "literature would rehearse the masses in the habits of pluralistic thought and feeling...[to] curb in them any disruptive tendency to collective political action" (added "to", 20). It's hard not to read that as "brain washing" but I did.
So what does this mean for us? For us lowly TA's who please the establishment because we're "cheap labor" (Miller 11)? Our hands are tied and we can't do much. But don't fear! We will all be a part of the bourgeois, upper middle class and can soon try to make a difference. Where do we begin, though? It's a question I'm not sure I quite know the answer to. Instead, I want to copy and paste the course goals from English 103. I've emphasized the goals that match up with "poor man's classics". It is also important to note how these goals have "changed" to fit a need but, in essence, still perpetuated an elitist agenda:
Course Goals
- Understand that persuasion—both visual and verbal—is integral to reading and composing
- Understand how persuasive visual and verbal texts are composed for different audiences and different purposes
- Develop effective strategies of invention, drafting, and revision for different rhetorical situations and individual composing styles
- Compose texts in various media using solid logic, claims, evidence, creativity, and audience awareness
- Integrate primary and secondary research as appropriate to the rhetorical situation
- Develop strategies for becoming more critical and careful readers of both their own and others’ texts
- Demonstrate a professional attitude towards their writing by focusing on the need for appropriate format, syntax, punctuation, and spelling
- Take responsibility for their own progress
- Develop the ability to work well with others on composing tasks.
So...I emphasized most of these and I want to leave you with a question, "Are we still teaching "poor man's English?" That is, what aspects of contemporary FYC are simply a reskinning of a systematic and elitist course meant to "curb disruptive tendency to a collective political action?" Are we free from that type of course or are we still teaching it, like a "quasi-religion"? And is it inherently a bad thing if we do? Our students MUST be prepared for their future in academia and beyond, right?
Miller, Susan. Textual Carnivals: The Politics of Composition. Southern Illinois University Press, 1991.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteI love your post here, and I, too, am grappling with Miller's arguments at times. I like your question about contemporary FYC are "simply a reskinning." In tangent, Miller declares, "We need to marshal the interpretive energy to 'read' composition as though the politics in question are equal to the workings of social interests that we have already recognized in a broader discourse" (3). In this sense of "equal" "social interests," I would like to answer a soft yes (?) to your question, as if we are still a part of the university serving the university's interest to make people that know how to write, then we are always going to be complicit in their system, and I'd wager that there's no good way to get away from it, regardless of our goals, until we break from those systemic structures, then we are covering it under the guise of newness and freedom.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteI think your post accurately summarizes how all of us are feeling about Susan Miller’s Textual Carnivals (100% drowning in it myself here!). The concepts are complicated, but her points are meaningful ones.
To answer the question you posed at the end of your post, I agree with Bethany’s comment above that we, as part of the system, are inherently complicit in their goals. We’ve repackaged the main elements of it, but it does still seem to be reflected in our course goals as you mentioned. Composition just seems to be another cog in the “making the ideal citizen” machine. As we discussed in class on Tuesday, there seems to be no good way to change this either.
As TAs, we are in the unique position of being both the student and the teacher. We are part of the system while also promoting its goals, whether we like it or not. Are we trusted with these positions because we just exited the system (the university) ourselves and are more likely to be complicit? Although that's kind of a reach, Miller seems to be making us question our roles within this system on a deeper level.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post this week--I read it once on Tuesday and again today, keeping in mind the questions you pose at the end. As much as I want to think that I am "fighting the system" in my ENG 104 course, I know that subconsciously I contribute to the conservative system of higher education.
For example, my entire academic career has been centered on the notion that knowing how to write well is the key to individual & intellectual freedom. If you write well (if you write white), doors will open for you. That was my initial motivation for pursing a degree in Rhet/Comp--I wanted to guide my students to an empowering state of individualism. Now, that idea makes me cringe. That individualism turned out to be the exact opposite of what I thought: students were learning how to fit within a system designed to oppress. I learned how to fit in the system. It wasn't until grad school that I realized how privileged I sounded.
Do we still teach in this system? Yes, and those outside of the field contribute as well. Many still see Freshman Comp as a service course--if you pass it, you should be able to tackle academia head on. In other words, if you pass it, you will become a product of an elitist system (sorry--I'm feeling cynical). Education shouldn't be a set of rules that governs how we speak, think, and act. Yet, as a TA, I am bound to rules & regulations. Sigh.
Hi Keith,
ReplyDeleteWhile historically I can see the purpose and divergent goals of teaching literature and composition, I think the responsibility of the instructor is something that should not be left out of the discussion. What I think we should remain aware of is that, at this point, I feel both composition and literature can be taught either as tools to create critical minds or to produce that pluralistic thought that Miller mentions. As we discussed in class, it is important not only to discuss what should be in the canon, but if there should be one at all. Being the pessimist that I am, I lack the hope that institutional norms can be disrupted in the dramatic way necessary to remove canonical requirements in either specialization. I do, however, think it is important to disrupt the canon in place and do two of the following things. First, it is important to rethink the canon when possible. Second, we must remain critical of the texts that are in circulation when assigning them to our students.
For example, Uncle Tom's Cabin is an example of literature that was not valued in the same light as "great" male literary works due to the twentieth century critics' degradation of Stowe's use of sentimentalism, categorizing her work as anti-intellectual consumerism and an encouragement of a womanly narcissistic reading experience. Jane Thompkins worked to debunk this form of academic parochialism and now Uncle Tom's Cabin can serve as a reading for certain curriculum. At the very least, canons should be up for renegotiation, although I am probably preaching to the choir at this point.
Additionally, as I said with my second point, it is important to show our students the necessity of being critical with what we assign as well. Sometimes, there might be a desire to assign things that we agree with, which is fine. However, it is important for students to have the space to be critical and not be given the impression that what we are assigning is gospel. For example, for all the good that Stowe did with Uncle Tom's Cabin, there are points to critique, such as Stowe's reliance on Minstrel shows to depict African Americans in her novel.
So, to answer your question, I think both specializations leave the opportunity to foster pluralistic thought if left unchecked by individual instructors and their courses. I think that fostering a desire for action, whether it be personal or political, requires instructors to be willing to challenge and critique what they assign rather than simply pass it off as gospel, to show students the complexity of argumentation.
Hey Keith,
ReplyDeleteI think you hit the nail on the head with this one. And like those above me state, we are very much apart of the system. I think as I have seen so far, our field knows this and tries its best to fight against this system. I do think we have gotten better at being transparent about our role in this system, I know I also discuss how Standard American English is racist, and I am very open about how grammar rules can also be seen as gatekeeping tools. I think we need to be more active in how we challenge these systems. Although I wonder what push back universities would have on us, what would a movement against them even look like?
Keith,
ReplyDeleteBetter late than never I guess (thanks technology).
Of course we're part of the system. Of course we're still a gatekeeping tool. That's why we're required. That's what they *think* we love to do and are here for.
The solution is full on mutiny in the classroom. We can hit every single one of the prescribed goals while challenging the system and the institution itself through the course materials we use and what we focus on. Rip it apart from the inside out.