Main

August 16, 2009

Disembodied Discourse and the Failure of Internet Discussion

Disclaimer: I rarely if ever post things to this blog in "rough" form, but I've been stewing over this for a few weeks now and finally want to eject it out into the world. If anyone out there in academia would like to collaborate to further aspects of this, I am completely game. These thoughts are admittedly rough, but I feel have potential somewhere.

Even though the phenomena is nothing new, recently there has been a spate of commentary concerning...well...commentary on the internet. The problem is that it isn't working. Any look at the comments section of nearly any online publication will reveal that actual discussion is not taking place. Instead, it is mostly a pit of name calling, racism, shouting, and worse. This puts a damper on many of the hopes we had for the internet. It was supposed to be democratic. It was supposed to provide space for more voices to be heard. It was supposed to increase our awareness of issues. It was supposed to, in short, make the world better. And, in some small isolated ways, these things have occurred. But on a large scale, these hopes have largely proven to be a mirage of an oasis. Increasingly, we have begun to reach the oasis promised to us only to find more sand in a desolate environment.

Where educators, journalists, web advocates, technologists, bloggers, and nearly everyone else have erred is a misunderstanding of the role of the body in discourse. In short, the body matters. To remove the body from the equation removes the possibility of communication. The body is its own powerful and absolutely necessary rhetoric. Without the body, it is not discussion or communication that occurs, but rather pure routinized performance of big "D" Discourse.

We can explain this phenomena in even simpler terms. Any look over the un-moderated comments of a newspaper online will reveal little to no listening. In place of that, we have pure replication of "talking-points" that are often appropriated wholesale from other sources from media outlets to community values to racist, sexist, and classist convictions. Additionally, these comments are not employed in order to interact. Instead, these comments are employed and exist simply to be seen, hence their monologic character. The danger of this is extreme. Instead of discussion and hence public opinion rapidly modifying itself to adapt to current situations, we have static opinions and beliefs that prevent adaptation to new situations. Instead of entering into conversation and discussion so that we may change our own ideas as well as those of others, we simply seek to shut out all competing ideas. We become trapped by the past in a radically different present.

Continue reading "Disembodied Discourse and the Failure of Internet Discussion" »

October 18, 2008

Notes on the search for the student text

1. The commonly held belief among many instructors of writing at the post-secondary level is that the texts produced by students in classrooms are primarily a product of an individual, autonomous student mind and as such is able to be assessed according to concepts such as "proficiency," "achievement," "ability," "success / failure," "competency," and so forth. In short, this view on the production of student texts assures us that when we apply a grade to student writing, we are talking about the capabilities of the actual, biological students themselves detached and divorced from environmental (including social) factors. However, the "linguistic turn" in the social sciences threatens to deeply problematize these assumptions. If we are to grant that nothing exists outside of discourse, then we have to grant that student writing itself is a product of various discourses and as such, when we apply a grade, it is not that a grading of the biological student occurs, but rather various discourses position the student-as-subject into socially identifiable roles and positions. These various discourses not only determine what texts can be produced and who can produce them and in what manner they are produced, but also which texts are valued as social goods and which are not.

Continue reading "Notes on the search for the student text" »

August 20, 2008

Textbooks in the classroom: a few thoughts.

One might look, for example, at Ken Macrorie's books, or Elbow's Writing with Power or Brannon, Knight, and Neverow-Turk's Writers Writing. Here, in more intimate, self-conscious personas, the monolith of correctness is recast in a less important form, and attention shifts to the act of writing. But of course the result is no less propaganda. The only difference is that an alternative set of political values is at work. To frame it in somewhat oversimplified terms, the "traditional" texts present writing as a matter of learning to conform, with an emphasis on decorum as a means of identify- ing individual with group; whereas the "non-traditional" books present it as a liberating activity, a means of defining individual as separate from group. The point here is that writing is necessarily more complex, and more variable, than either position can depict-encompasses both of them, and more. In either case, then, the users of such books are presented with proselytizers who differ only in their particular doctrinal allegiance: in short, with propaganda. (31)

--Stephen North in The Making of Knowledge in Composition


* Writing manuals and how-to textbooks devalue the role and integrity of the composition instructor. They follow in a long and storied tradition of seeing the act of teaching as a non-academic or non-intellectual activity. In short, it turns the instructor from a practicing academic into a mere clerk or technician that carries out predetermined activities and routines. A writing manual allows instructors to think less about teaching and consequently prevents them from engaging in self-reflexive pedagogy.

* Textbooks remove the most important element of learning from the equation: the student. It relegates authority to entities external to the localized, specific classroom (e.g., publishing companies, textbook authors, etc).

* The yearly cost of tuition at the University of Minnesota is now over five figures. For many students, it is much more once living expenses are added in. The average student debt upon leaving the University of Minnesota is in excess of $20,000; one of the highest figures in the mid-west for a public university. Government funded aid is lessening and state support is drying up. A 60 dollar textbook represents a small fraction of the total expense of going to college. Yet, a lot of 60 dollar textbooks add up over the course of 4 years.

* Most (if not all) writing manuals are geared towards writing correctly to fill out mythical standard forms of writing with out considering that these forms are constantly changing as they are composed. Research of professional and technical writers has time and time again noted that "correctness" in writing is one small part of many factors that go into being able to "write well."

* The prevalence of writing manuals is a reflection of the state of the discipline and not a reason to use such texts in the classroom. Educators who specialize in composition are actually a tiny minority of people who actually teach composition. The majority of composition instructors are specialists in other areas or graduate students from other fields. For these instructors, the belief is that writing manuals and text books are necessary as the information and knowledge contained within them is too important to let a non-specialist handle on their own. Simply put, it "teacher-proofs" a classroom.

* Textbooks introduce corporations and their marketing into the classroom, whereby decisions of how to teach are guided by successful marketing of publishing company representatives and not necessarily academic or scholarly research/theory. Consequently, the available set of "teaching methods" becomes constrained by what the market makes available to instructors. Further, new theories of writing are constrained by what could be used in a textbook.

* Textbook publishers are typically for-profit endeavors who make a profit from first year writing classes, creating troublesome conflicts of interest for both instructors as well as departments.

* It is unavoidable that textbooks create an environment where students "discover" or "locate" the correct answers, principles, or theories instead of creating them.

* Local, community, individual, and inter-generational forms of knowledge are devalued while institutional, non-localized forms of knowledge via experts contained within writing guides are privileged.

* Writing manuals and textbooks perpetuate a specific ideology of what the classroom should look like and how it should operate. Reliance on textbooks makes it difficult (if not impossible) to envision other, alternative, and potentially viable/valuable ways of understanding the mechanics of the classroom space. An inability to even conceive of how a class might work with out a textbook at the center of it demonstrates how narrow our conceptions of how learning happens really are.

* Textbooks and writing manuals run the risk of being the educational equivalent of setting a child down in front of a TV in order to socialize it.

* When we select a textbook, not only are we supporting the ideologies contained within the book, but we are also perpetuating the system and the network (in all of its socio-political facets) that created and consequently ensure the hegemony of the textbook as the primary source of instruction. In short, the purpose of the textbook ideology is the preservation of the textbook ideology, especially when we consider that much of the information contained within various writing guides and manuals can be found for free in other places (e.g., the internet, libraries, and most importantly, communicative communities).

May 10, 2008

Summer Reading List

Ah the life of academia. How bizarre! I just finished up (save for some grading next week) with the semester, and now I am kind of in a daze thinking...whoa, what now?

So, to stave off boredom, I'm baking bread and thinking of a reading list to try to tackle this summer. So, with no further ado...

Continue reading "Summer Reading List" »

May 9, 2008

No more Dewey After Dark for me....

Last night I dreamt that I was at a conference in colorado and was sitting in a large auditorium... Suddenly, the man next to me turned to me and began to tell me that I was on the right track with Dewey and that a lot of important stuff is yet to come. He told me to keep on doing what I am doing no matter what the cost.

OK, so that was weird enough. But even weirder? The man was Al Gore.

March 4, 2008

The commodification of writing in secondary schools

I noticed this poster hanging on a sign at a local area HS last fall, and it has been bothering me ever since. I suspect there are lots of posters and signs out there, all of which has lead me to a project of looking at the visual rhetoric of commodification and learning in K-12 education.

I think the image speaks for itself.

writcommodity.jpg

Of course, what is most interesting is that the reason to learn is tied to an ability to get money, therefore the ability to write well becomes a commodity that can later be sold and bought on the open job market.

It's little wonder why incoming university students believe with conviction that the sole reason schools exist is to prepare them to get a job that pays well. They simply cannot fathom any other reason for school.

January 20, 2008

Random thoughts and notes for a new semester

I'm still working on a few things...but to keep this blog fresh...some random thoughts running around in my mind.

1). Style is what happens when rules are broken. If everyone used Strunk and White as their bible, then we'd all write like E.B. White. Boring. Diversity of language and composition is what makes it all interesting.

2). In elementary, junior high, and high school, we had to pass these "tests" for gym (physical education). One test in particular that I could never pass was the mile run. Most times I had trouble even completing it. However, looking back, I realized that this test consisted of going outside and running. Never ever did we spend weeks/months slowly working up to running a mile. Rather, the idea was either you could do it or you couldn't. In other words, we were never given the chance to succeed, and consequently were set up to fail. I felt hopeless to change the state of my fitness until I realized that maybe I should read up on it and educate myself. I started running 30 seconds and walking 4 minutes. Then I was running 1 minute and walking 3. After a summer, I ran my first 5k race in a time of under 24 minutes.

I felt hopeless about it because I was never given the sort of training that focused on what was possible. Instead, the only education I got was education that focused on what already was.

I find myself thinking about this when I hear young students speak of their apathy for politics and the community they live in. I think of this when I hear them say "what's the point?" and "my vote wouldn't matter anyway."

3). As of right now, I refuse to talk to anyone about our "situations" in Afghanistan and Iraq until they have read Steinbeck's The Moon is Down. Then we can have a good discussion.

4). The cost of a frozen pizza (a staple of poor grad students all over) has reached 5 dollars at many local grocery stores. Grad students in CLA haven't had a substantial raise since 2004 (and perhaps longer). Makes one wonder how much longer it'll be until they threaten to organize again. Starving your employees doesn't increase their sense of duty to their employers.

5). Liberty, equality, justice, and freedom are not privileges granted to those born out of dumb luck on American soil. They are an attitude about living; they are a duty towards one's community. Lou Dobbs, if he wasn't an idiot, might realize this.

6). Why are there shortages of teachers? Why are there even more shortages of male teachers? I don't know. I hope to get a greater perspective on this through the class I'm teaching this spring.

7). Dear Spring, I miss you.

January 2, 2008

Random thoughts and notes for 2008

I'm working on a longer entry concerning the state of technology and education, but have a few other random notes/ideas that I want to get down.


1). While I generally find the concept of agonistic pluralism in various forms of "radical democracy" (as especially theorized by Mouffe and Laclau in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy) to be especially interesting and promising, the difficult jump from theory to practice is one that I find most fascinating in that it exposes a strange anti-Americanism rift in academia. If in an agonistic pluralist culture we are to embrace difference as our main mode of civic interaction, then we have to concede that the only way we can do this is to rely on an a priori set of "ground rules" or standards by which we can express our differences in ways that make our differences visible, understandable, and meaningful.

Why this exposes an anti-American rift in academia is that this is a really confusing way of re-inventing what the framers of the United States constitution set out to do by setting up a federal republic. Fearing a direct democracy in which minority rights could be trampled by majority decisions, the framers sought to ensure that all citizens were equal and subject to the laws of the country. Therefore, certain rights were deemed to be unalienable, or above discussion. It is these rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that consequently served as the tools of commensurability in which competing or divergent needs, desires, and wants of different groups in society could be understood, evaluated, and discussed.

Yet, to get there, we don't look to Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc etc. We instead attempt to re-invent the wheel by going through Marx and a whole slew of other, non-American theorists to arrive at what our country, in many regards, was originally founded on. (And don't even get me started on Marx. John Adams was warning people about merchants and businessmen as early as 1776...some 42 years before Marx was even born).

This leads me to my second winter break thought:

2). Post 1960s/1970s, we've replaced Abe Lincoln with Foucault, John Quincy Adams with Derrida, and Henry Clay with Adorno. What this leads to is a situation in which young students feel no reason to participate in the politics and democracy of their own country. Why should they when every day the message they get is one of relentless criticism of America, even though many of the issues our founders sought to confront and solve are not so different than the ones critical theorists from other countries have commented on. The real danger of this sort of bias in education is that students honestly believe there is no way for them to achieve liberty and equality through the democratic participation in politics, and consequently don't bother. This allows a small minority of those who already are within power to further strengthen their grip on the political mechanisms that drive our country.

July 25, 2007

Theoretical thoughts at 4am...

....that still need a lot of development.

But, at 4am here in St. Paul, what do you expect.

Anyway....

I have a growing sense that somehow, in some way, the culture of education is inextricably tied to modernism in some way. Yet, in a very strange twist, it is a distinctly anti-modernistic stance that, in an even stranger twist, seems to be more Aristotelian than anything.

To boil it down very briefly...

One framework of thinking about politics and democracy is to chart the primacy of the good and of rights. Do "rights" come before the common good of a society, or do we sacrifice "rights" in the name of the "common good?"

Enlightenment theorists and some contemporary political theorists (Mouffe, Laclau, et al) assert the primacy of individual rights. Others, such as Habermas and Novick, look more towards notions of civic republicanism as they seek to assert the primacy of the common good over individual rights.

But what does any of this have anything to do with what I do?

Education in our culture seems to be obsessed with the common good over individual rights. Our grading systems, our curricula, even our pedagogy stresses "good, democratic citizenry" as a result of "good" education. Yet...it is assumed that what a "good, democratic citizen" is...is universal. Hello Aristotle!

Writing, interestingly, is one of the few areas where this all starts to fall apart. Even in the most strict assignments, students are still creating things with language. And the language they use to craft things carries with it so many things that it cannot be said to be the same thing for everyone. In short, writing asserts (or at least suggests) the primacy of individual rights (that is, the individual self as opposed to a collective conscious).


Anyway, it's now 4:40 AM. It made so much more sense to me when I was running yesterday. More thoughts...later.