Engaging with Graff and Lee

Reading works of theorist such as Graff, Bizzell, and Yancey – who find purpose in their field beyond the creation of robotic academic writers – I, finally, find myself engaged, even energized. And, I’m going to thank Scott Lee for this; his connection to his audience as well as to his subject during his presentation helped me connect to the class experience overall.
That said, knowing the three theorists mentioned above all have an eye toward “social purpose” (Lee) in the field of composition and rhetoric has given me hope that there’s life stirring among the dusty volumes of rhetorical literature after all.


I’ve never been a fan of reading theory because, most of the time, the on-going debates seem to be other, for lack of a better term. In the case of Bartholomae and Elbow, for instance, the “argument,” while interesting, is purely semantic. I doubt seriously Peter Elbow wants to take teachers out of classrooms, and he obviously entertains and takes part in academic writing, reading, and discourse. For Bartholomae’s part, unless he feels that Elbow’s actual product (that is, his actual writing) is somehow substandard, it cannot possibly matter to him whether Elbow came to it through freewriting or through use of a formal outline. Like the theories of evolution and “Intelligent Design,” I do not find the philosophies of these two men mutually exclusive, so I can't feel engaged by the "debate."


I understand (and agree with) Graff’s point, that the argument itself is the thing – argumentation can, and does stimulate and spark new thought, but it can also become repetitive, pedantic, and self-serving. Bartholomae and Elbow seem – to me – to have a very narrow view of what they are trying to accomplish (though maybe it didn't start out that way so many years ago) and of who the student’s are their theories are built around – I find no connection with their argument which often feels as though it has become an end in itself.


Bizzell, on the other hand bridges the gap between Bartholomae and Elbow with her holistic view which considers who students are in the real world and where they come from and how they can best be engaged. Yancey focuses on moving the field forward, constantly looking for new ways to integrate invention, arrangement, and delivery, hoping to light a fire under her students. Finally, Graff believes students should be included in on-going debates – and not just sent to their rooms to wait for the “adults” to finish their grown-up discussions. For Graff, “the debate becomes the curriculum” (Lee), includes the student, and is no longer other.