My major problem with the readings from last week stemmed from the binding theme of the book: interactions with the public. When interacting with the public, some of the writers acted like an astranged wanderer who happened upon unattended egg and was trying to decide if it should hatch it or eat it. In reading some of their pieces, you could hear the author replaying the moment they told their fathers that they are going to spend 4-7 years getting a PhD in Rhetoric. Like voting for Adlai Stevenson wasn't enough to piss off their parents (that was maybe an unfair shot at age, I realize that most of those writers, if they were ever alive at time, were probably not old enough to vote).
What I like about Mathieu is her understanding that we need tactics when interweaving academic work with public discourse, but we also do need to act we discovered fire either. She seems to make that apparent of the first page:
"Writing instruction conceived this way goes beyond notions of academic competence to encompass discursive projects in many areas of community life. This public turn in composition studies more generally asks teachers to connect the writing that students and they themselves do with 'real world' texts, events, or exigencies." (1)
Now, in my time teaching writing I learned two things:
1. I hate teaching writing, and I will hopefully never do it again.
2. Writing instruction is one of the most important commodities in a society.
My contempt for writing instructions begins with people who we read for last week. They always come across as overly Romantic. Like their professors made them read too much Emerson. So when they start talking about the pragmatic side of writing instruction in relationship to public discourse, they act like they are inventing the wheel. In fact, you can make the argument that Emerson, while very romantic in his syntax, had a vivid understanding of the political climate in which his texts were operating. Even he was engaging the public without tripping over his feet.
I never wanted say this because I never wanted to sound like my Father, but this shit is common sense. Of course student are going to apply the communication skills we give them beyond the academy (a very short part of their professional lives). Most of these students are going to be living and working in the public when they leave. Why does the acadamy have to be considered a bubble they step into for 4 years.
I think that is why I am leaving the academy.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment