Can I Do Both?
I found while reading this source as well as during conversations from our last class meeting that I would grade from a rhetorical standpoint. I have continuously interchanged the word “good” (when describing writing) with the word “successful” or “effective”. Clearly, this denotes the rhetorical philosophy [axiology]. Though, I find that I hold myself to expressive standards. When I write, I express myself in ways that are true to me. My first thoughts are not necessarily concerning if my message is clear enough. Thus, my question for Fulkerson (but more immediately to my classmates) is can I have both? Can I hold myself to a different standard while teaching another?
This may be because I understand I have more experience than the student when it comes to writing. I do not have to question if what I am writing makes sense because I have trust in myself that it does. Thus, my emphasis is on the expressive aspect. I experiment with the words on the page, play with my language, and ensure there is the “me” aspect. I believe my expressive nature truly came to fruition about two years ago. This means that up until my senior year of college, I was checking to make sure my compositions were successful by means of effectiveness. So, I think I’ve had enough practice writing under the rhetorical microscope. Have my students? Does it even matter?
Do It!
Writing, as described by James Williams, is a way of “getting something done”. I agree with this. When I write, I know that I have something to say that I want others to know. Thus, to get this done, I write what I am thinking. This is rooted in the rhetorical viewpoint, but can filter into the expressive part of me, too. If I write about something that I care about, then that makes it expressive. The addition of readership is what makes it rhetorical. I suppose I enjoy having other people know what I am thinking. This makes writing for me a social act; I open the door for readers to agree or disagree with me. Thus, like Fulkerson states, it is not a case of by committing to one, you commit to the whole package. This is an oversimplification of the theories of composition and its elements.
Leading with the idea of readership, I would like to talk more about discourse communities. As I discussed in class, we are all a part of a Discourse community. James Paul Gee defines a Discourse as a way of being in the world… or, a form of life that integrates words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities, as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes. Obviously, this definition accounts for a lot more than just writing. Though, when we add readership to the equation, and write to fit into a discourse community, these aspects come into play. What we write down to get it done affects how we are interpreted within the discourse community in which we belong (or are trying to get into).
Writ* is the Content
(“Writ*” meaning writing and/or writer)
This subheading may seem like something we should all react “duh” to, but that may not be the case. Fulkerson discusses the different axiologies that appeared in the twenty-first century writing courses. but some of them do not allow for writing to be at the very core. For example, critical/cultural studies (CCS) does not leave room to teach writing because it requires the student to understand political values through the lens of different perspectives. I believe this to be an interesting take, and one that I agree with. It dances around doing the thing that no one wants to take responsibility for. A college composition course should give the student time to figure out how to write. From there, they will be able to put complex thoughts into words, political or otherwise.
Despite my understanding of the move from rhetorical intensity to the expressivist takeover, I must question the idea Chris Burnham asserts. Expressivist writing puts the writer in the center; this, I have no qualm with. Though, I do wonder how this applies, or does not apply, to the rhetorical axiology. Yes, there is a heightened sense of importance for the reader. Though I do not believe the writer is not at the center. All writing stems from a writer. The words come from one place. Despite having a certain audience in mind, the writing process is still being carried out by a writer. This goes for all of the axiologies. Though, why are we forgetting that a student is behind the words we are assessing?
Observational note for Dr. Friend: Upon reading page nineteen, I now understand why the argumentative essay requirement is still in tact… we are treating writing as argument!
Composition as Happening
This idea, allowing students to act illogically within a logical environment, is one that reminds me of concepts I previously learned in a World Englishes class. Specifically, Berlin describes this method to, “resist interpretations of experience embodied in the language of others [so as] to order their own experience” (485). Relating this to World Englishes, and specifically the idea of translation, James Baldwin reflected on his usage of English, and how he had to find his way to say what he wanted on his terms. As an African American writer, he felt that the English language did not support him with its Anglo-Saxon, hegemonic legacy. Thus, he stopped imitating the language, and set forth on using English to communicate his experiences… ones that English was not built to be able to communicate. Thus, writers need to learn how to find their way in a world where sameness is expected.
Elbow speaks against the idea of sameness, and asserts that audience can hold us back. Even if the audience we are writing to disapproves of the message, the writer should continue to sail on and write what is true to them. I argue that this can still be rhetorical because we are still taking into account the audience, but instead of ensuring the composition is effective in terms of agreement, we are accepting that it goes against what they may be expecting. Either way, we must be practicing writing in order to move closer to where we want to be, with or without an audience looking.
Leave a Reply