I explain to them that the standards of evaluation for critical
thinking are different from what they are used to from high
school (i.e., there actually *are* standards of critical thinking
in college)(yes, that was bitter), and I explain that to succeed
within those boundaries they need to first understand what those
boundaries are and, second, understand how to break them
intentionally, creatively, and for effect. I usually grab an
example of a writer who uses sentence fragments for stylistic
effect to explain how "rules" are constantly broken purposely,
but that if you don't first understand what you're doing then
you will have no control over the outcome or effect.
(Incidentally, with the final version of each essay they also
turn in a one-page "writer's memo" where they explain what their
goals were, what they perceive their strengths and weaknesses of
their essay as, what they focused on in revision and why, etc.
This is really useful at getting them to think metacognitively
about their own composition process.)
Of
> course, I imagine that a teacher with less patience than you
have might
> say "Well that's the way we do things in an upper-level lit
course. I'm
> trying to introduce you to an interpretive community that you
don't
> already know about. We call it learning."
That's pretty much what I say, but not so snidely.
> This appeal would be pretty
> ironic, coming from avowed subjectivists, though,
Check out the really long Fish quote I posted in response to Tj.
Fish says (and I agree) that the division between subjective &
objective is really quite useless, so I wouldn't say that the
above is at all ironic because it's *not* coming from a
"subjectivist." Fish is neither a subjectivist or a relativist
and denies that entire binary opposition. At best we might call
him a . . ."contextualist" (in that meaning arises out of context
not text). I don't know, I'm making that up right now to give us
a better term than "subjectivist" which is wholly inaccurate when
talking about Fish.
> & in any case amounts
> to a kind of softcore brainwashing if such classes are required
of
> all degree-seeking students (those who seek lit degrees, of
course, have
> to have known what they were getting into...).
Oh, I couldn't disagree more. I think it's brainwashing if
meaning is presented as objective and acontextual (which almost
borders on religion, I think). Objective, acontextual meaning
centralizes the power in the hands of the "expert readers". When
I teach I try to have my students explore different kinds of
contexts within which they will have to write in their college
careers (and sometimes professional careers, though freshman comp
really can't cover that specific kind of writing very much),
understand the boundaries of those contexts, and work on
developing an individual voice within those contexts. I don't
consider it "programming" them to be college students; I think
it's saying "Here's what the standards are in college. Here's
what you can do within those standards. Here's how you can still
be yourself within those standards."
It's very tempting to me to *not* talk about what kinds of
writing will be expected of them in college, because the kinds of
essays you write for most undergrad classes are didactic, boring
responses to narrow assignments...unfortunately, it's my job to
(a) first and foremost prepare them to be successful writers in
college and (b) give them the tools to surpass those narrow
standards by being aware of their own writing process. It's only
in the upper level writing courses (which, unfortunately, very
few students take) that you really get to explore teaching and
learning "real world" forms...which, really, are just other sets
of interpretive models, but models that are less limiting and
narrow.
Writing is taught all ass-backwards in my opinion. In high
school they teach you the most rigid essay structure know to man-
-the dreaded "5-paragraph theme paper" and you progress into
college writing which dictates narrow responses to narrow
assignments (a dictate, I think, that is intended to make grading
"objectively" easier for the professor) (and don't even get me
started on the ludicrousness of trying to put an objective grade
on *writing*). Then you get in the real world where none of
those artificial constraints and structures that you've learned
do you a damn bit of good. Just *try* writing a business report
or a technical manual or a strategic plan in "5-paragraph theme"
form. Pshaw!
Writing should be taught in the reverse manner: giving grade
school and high school students broad freedom of topics to write
about, letting them follow their own interests (which will help
get them engaged with the process) & use their self-directed
assignments as examples to learn fundamentals of grammar from.
In late high school and college, they should begin to experiment
with forms that have real-world uses, forms that I bet many of
them would have stumbled across in their own self-directed
writing already. I think this is a much more "organic" method of
learning to write and probably would be far more effective in the
long run, but it's way too "subjective," "touchy-feely," and
unquantifiable to catch hold in the bureaucracy of education
(except in a few "alternative" high schools where I have seen
such programs turn out 16-year old writers who could put any
college senior to shame).
Check out Walker Percy's essay "The Loss of the Creature," for a
similar take on how learning is better when it is not directed or
"packaged" for the student in neat, tidy forms and structures.
:gets down of his soapbox.
> Also, the whole idea of the well-argued interpretation: isn't
this also
> just an interpretive stance now in the end-stage of its
ascension during
> the Enlightenment? Does Fish (or do you) address this?
Yes, it is also an interpretive stance, and yes, Fish addresses
this quite specifically. Remember--he's NOT a subjectivist (nor
is he an objectivist; he denies the usefulness of the
separation). *Everything*--and I mean *everything*--is an
interpretive stance according to Fish. But that's fine, because
it's only in the objectivist view that interpretation endangers
us with relativism. If you toss out the objective-subjective
dichotomy, relativism is no longer an issue because the contexts
that we use to agree upon meaning are not "individual or unique"
(which would require us to somehow exist in some ideal,
acontextual state); rather they are public and conventional--
social contexts from which we can never remove ourselves &
therefore which always inform our reading/interpretation in a
manner which prevents it from degrading into utter relativism.
>
> Thanks for your indulgence. Rest assured, you're doing a good
deed. :)
>
> Tony
-- Greg Ritter gritter@vcu.edu ritter@urvax.urich.edu http://www.urich.edu/~ritter