To be clear, I understand that Bartholomae gives agency to the teacher and the academic process and Elbow bestows agency on the student, but, the resolution must lie, as Badovinac asserts, in “[discovering] a more meaningful pedagogy and academic discourse” somewhere between the two sides. Certainly, both theorists must hold as their objective the successful teaching of composition skills to their students. The question for me, however, might more accurately be asked – who do they see as their student?
Badovinac defines “The Argument:”
1. “Humans are socially constructed.”
2. Students are “intellectually capable of critically examining their culture and themselves”
3. The “tools used to find the culture must be academically sound materials.”
I cannot argue that we not are social constructs, and, for the most part, I agree that students are “intellectually capable” of seeing their culture and themselves – but can they see it (themselves) accurately and objectively. Objectivity is not necessarily correlated with intellect. And, can we say it is all one culture – who decides what that culture looks like (besides the obvious – Bartholomae and/or Elbow)? How can we be certain which “tools” are “academically sound” unless we can fully define our student population and their culture?
In the same way we accommodate teaching writing as a process and teaching grammar as a necessity, there must also be a place in the academic community (and curriculum) for both an academic approach and for allowing students to reflect, be self-expressive, and freewrite as an entry to their essays (it apparently works for Elbow – and I’ve have not heard that Bartholomae believes Elbow to be an incompetent writer).
But, in a time in which the idea of a college education is not as easily defined as it once was – so many non-traditional students are returning to community colleges and online “virtual” colleges (i.e. The University of Phoenix) as well as returning to universities where they sit side-by-side with younger, traditional students – which of these students’ souls are Bartholomae and Elbow tugging between them?
I feel relatively safe in assuming they are thinking of the same demographic of student they may have encountered early in their separate careers – that is, possibly white and probably upper to middle-class; in which case, their definition of “student” may be too narrow a space for me to fall comfortably on either side.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, and when I say "wrongness" I do mean B's perspective, not necessarily mine.
ReplyDeleteAs you mention, it isn't Elbow's writing that Bartholomae attacks (Bartholomae never attacks Elbow there), it's his ideas about teaching writing. And Bartholomae seems to think that Elbow is a very competent man, despite his wrongness. Bartholomae also, at some point in the argument, attacks the fact that so much of what Elbow never meant is taken out of context and used by other academics in the name of Elbow.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you in your last statement, of the students that B & E are arguing over. The dominant culture in America caters to the white and the middle class. However, Bartholomae does say, identify with your culture, grasshopper, find how you fit into it, find how it works and doesn't work for you and then choose your direction, which I think is positive. The problem with identifying with your particular culture, if you are not part of the white middle class, is that it might not do you much good in the academic world or with academic arguments.
Then again, it might bring a whole new perspective to the table.