"Consiousness does not precede, and give birth to, language; rather, it is language that makes consciousness possible." - Hmmm.
Since we're talking deconstruction, we will have to deconstruct the word "consciousness."
I have always wondered about the role language acquisition plays in memory. Can we construct memory without language? And, isn't consciousness just an awareness of ourselves that would of necessity include the process of remembering who and where we've been?
For as long as I can remember, I've had a set of moving pictures in my head for which, until relatively recently, I had no frame of reference:
A very, very small white house, out on a lonely prarie, unpainted wooden steps up to an unpainted wooden porch with whitewashed railings. Inside, the house is very dark and close - though it doesn't feel cramped; I see only a living room (filled with knick-knacks), a kitchen, and a tiny bedroom. A woman lives alone in the house, a woman with hair so long it reaches down to the backs of her knees. I like the woman a lot when I see her, but I'm not sure who she is - I don't even have a name.
I'd held those pictures inside, because I didn't know what they meant; they were simply a part of my knowing of myself. Finally though, I shared this with my mother whose response was:
"Oh, my goodness, that was Aunt Eunice's house in Texas. How on earth could you remember that; you couldn't have been more than a year and a half old when she died."
"But, did I visit her in her home while she was alive?" I asked.
"Yes, many times. You really seemed to love being with her."
My mother always said I learned to speak at an early age - so it is possible these memories could be linked to some rudimentary language development, but I don't think so, simply because there were never (and still aren't) any words or speech of any kind associated with them - just the pictures.
So, which came first: consiousness or language?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Ruszkiewicz: More Debate on Politics... and a Pretty Darn Good Idea
According to Thomas Mattarocci's handout - John Ruszkiewicz "calls into question the right of the teacher to make their own political views those that the student is subjected to in order to learn how to write."
For Min-Zhan Lu and others who argue for a more politicized classroom, this statement assumes that any teacher could walk into a classroom completely free of political agenda in the first place, and that, by not openly confronting subjective leanings, the student is more likely to assume that whatever the instructor says is absolute truth - indicating on a more subtle, therefore incidious way that the student's beliefs are wrong. On the other hand, if the teacher is openly political and encourages the same throughout the class, students may feel more confident in their own agency.
On a lighter note - I really like the concept of following our own writing process as Ruszkiewicz describes in his "Back to the Source" essay - this is another good argument for portfolios in the classroom, especially digital portfolios (even for the teachers).
For Min-Zhan Lu and others who argue for a more politicized classroom, this statement assumes that any teacher could walk into a classroom completely free of political agenda in the first place, and that, by not openly confronting subjective leanings, the student is more likely to assume that whatever the instructor says is absolute truth - indicating on a more subtle, therefore incidious way that the student's beliefs are wrong. On the other hand, if the teacher is openly political and encourages the same throughout the class, students may feel more confident in their own agency.
On a lighter note - I really like the concept of following our own writing process as Ruszkiewicz describes in his "Back to the Source" essay - this is another good argument for portfolios in the classroom, especially digital portfolios (even for the teachers).
Flower's Quest and the Holy Grail of Writing Process
It all sounds so simple - when you hit that wall of writer's block, look at Linda Flower's model, figure out where you're stuck, and the answer will be there waiting for you - to the best of my knowledge, they never found the Holy Grail either.
Sarcasm aside, I do see how it should work, when I am on a writing quest with a specific rhetorical agenda in mind, my hands seem to run over the keyboard as though my mind has pre-loaded the entire paper into my fingertips; whereas, when I'm feeling forced to create an argument out of thin air, pulling sentences out of my head is often painful.
For me, however, this does not lead to a flowchart, so much as the curricular question: How do I create asignments that will stimulate my students toward specific rhetorical agendas?
Sarcasm aside, I do see how it should work, when I am on a writing quest with a specific rhetorical agenda in mind, my hands seem to run over the keyboard as though my mind has pre-loaded the entire paper into my fingertips; whereas, when I'm feeling forced to create an argument out of thin air, pulling sentences out of my head is often painful.
For me, however, this does not lead to a flowchart, so much as the curricular question: How do I create asignments that will stimulate my students toward specific rhetorical agendas?
Mike Rose: Creating Thinkers, Not Students
I have not raised any children - I have raised content, competant adults. I do not intend, in the classroom, to create students - I intend to create thinking human beings.
I completely agree with Rose's assumption that students will give to us what we expect from them - I have always found that to be true of anyone.
I do not know what side of the argument I fall on in terms of whether we teach academic texts, literature, or even Berlin's pop-culture. What I do believe in is Anne Ruggles Gere's assertion that it is motivation that creates good writers, and our job as teachers is to help them find that motivation.
I also agree with Rose that to treat "underprepared" students (of any age, but even more so for older students) as though they are incapable of higher thought is insulting and - I think - counter-productive.
I completely agree with Rose's assumption that students will give to us what we expect from them - I have always found that to be true of anyone.
I do not know what side of the argument I fall on in terms of whether we teach academic texts, literature, or even Berlin's pop-culture. What I do believe in is Anne Ruggles Gere's assertion that it is motivation that creates good writers, and our job as teachers is to help them find that motivation.
I also agree with Rose that to treat "underprepared" students (of any age, but even more so for older students) as though they are incapable of higher thought is insulting and - I think - counter-productive.
Someone Has to Write the Textbooks - John Ramage
By now, anyone who has read any of my blogs, knows I believe in context and creating (constructing) arguments, and I am becoming more and more sure of the necessity of argument (conflict?) in the classroom.
It also has become clear to me that the field of composition has been arguing the same points for many years, to no great effect - there is definitely a need for new blood, here. But, will change ever come via text books, or does change only trickle down slowly into textbooks?
It also has become clear to me that the field of composition has been arguing the same points for many years, to no great effect - there is definitely a need for new blood, here. But, will change ever come via text books, or does change only trickle down slowly into textbooks?
Villanueva and Min-Zhan Lu: The Power of "Red"
In "From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle," Min-Zhan Lu talks about her inner conflict with the word "red." Lu grew up in Maoist China, the daughter of academics who chose English as their "family" language. Lu went to the socialist schools, however, to learn math and science and - inadvertantly learned a whole new language - and a whole new context for language, which, in her article, she embodies in the word "red."
Instead of seeing this as the color of a beautiful rose, at home it became the color of "the commies," at school the color of "revolution." She felt pushed and pulled between meanings, unable, until she was much older, to resolve the two contexts until she was able to accept all parts of her cultural heritage - all parts of herself.
Even in the most seeminly inane comments, teachers can convey to students a difference between the language they enter the classroom with and that which they are expected to use within the classroom - it's another one of those very fine lines we must learn to walk if we are to give every student room to resolve their own inner language struggle and become effective communicators.
Instead of seeing this as the color of a beautiful rose, at home it became the color of "the commies," at school the color of "revolution." She felt pushed and pulled between meanings, unable, until she was much older, to resolve the two contexts until she was able to accept all parts of her cultural heritage - all parts of herself.
Even in the most seeminly inane comments, teachers can convey to students a difference between the language they enter the classroom with and that which they are expected to use within the classroom - it's another one of those very fine lines we must learn to walk if we are to give every student room to resolve their own inner language struggle and become effective communicators.
Construct, Context, and Lester Failgy's Self
Deconstruction has always amused me - the first time I read Derrida, I laughed (once I figured out what the heck he was saying) because I had been deconstructing my world from the time I was a little girl. For instance, my grandmother used to sing Christian children's hymns to me:
Jesus loves the little children,
all the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
they are precious in His sight...
It was not long, however, until I understood that song in her Southern-Jim-Crow context (as opposed to the way I had grown to understand it, which, eventually, became a point of contention between the two of us): of course - absolutely - Jesus loves all the little children - he just loves the little white kids more. From that time, I began analyzing everyone in terms of context (probably over-analyzing would be more accurate).
Lester Faigley seems to be a man after my own heart: we can't fully trust language once we become aware that language does not "[exist] outside of history and [can never be] innocent of politics." The problem is that history and politics also are constructions - at the very bottom of everything, every context is a construct; this is the same wall I hit with Derrida.
Understanding social construct, and having the wherewithal to deconstruct both language and context, is incredibly important when we want to look seriously at what we think we believe about ourselves and our world - but, at some point, we have to work within the construct - within the everyday social contexts, using our fallible language for purposes of practical communication - hoping, as we go, that our knowledge may help us change the context - and the language - ever-so-slightly for social good - which would, by definition, be our own construct.
Jesus loves the little children,
all the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
they are precious in His sight...
It was not long, however, until I understood that song in her Southern-Jim-Crow context (as opposed to the way I had grown to understand it, which, eventually, became a point of contention between the two of us): of course - absolutely - Jesus loves all the little children - he just loves the little white kids more. From that time, I began analyzing everyone in terms of context (probably over-analyzing would be more accurate).
Lester Faigley seems to be a man after my own heart: we can't fully trust language once we become aware that language does not "[exist] outside of history and [can never be] innocent of politics." The problem is that history and politics also are constructions - at the very bottom of everything, every context is a construct; this is the same wall I hit with Derrida.
Understanding social construct, and having the wherewithal to deconstruct both language and context, is incredibly important when we want to look seriously at what we think we believe about ourselves and our world - but, at some point, we have to work within the construct - within the everyday social contexts, using our fallible language for purposes of practical communication - hoping, as we go, that our knowledge may help us change the context - and the language - ever-so-slightly for social good - which would, by definition, be our own construct.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Nancy Sommers: Understanding Where Writing Comes From
I found Nancy Sommer's ideas on student awareness of their own potential and the possibilities inherent in writing interesting and right where my head has been since beginning this semester as a teacher.
The only point I find I'm not completely in agreement with is the dismissal of the connection between speech and writing. While I agree that writing has as its goal something deeper than everyday speech normally does, making the student look at the connection can still be beneficial. Many Basic Writers come into a composition classroom scared that what we will expect from them will be some painful, alien process. Reminding them that they are already confident language users in the form of speech - as well as the obvious written communication forms (texting, e-mailing, etc) is a way of establishing their agency from the start.
Anne Ruggles Gere, in "Writing Well is the Best Revenge," was saying even in 1978 that for students writing "is a means of demonstrating competence in subject matter rather than as an end in itself. They lack moti-vation to write well" (256). It is, I believe precisely because students don't understand the writing process and what is possible that they seldom see writing as having a "greater purpose" (Beard).
Gere suggests the answer is motivating the students by showing them how to use this process to "shout back" at a society that has left them feeling disenfranchised (257).
The only point I find I'm not completely in agreement with is the dismissal of the connection between speech and writing. While I agree that writing has as its goal something deeper than everyday speech normally does, making the student look at the connection can still be beneficial. Many Basic Writers come into a composition classroom scared that what we will expect from them will be some painful, alien process. Reminding them that they are already confident language users in the form of speech - as well as the obvious written communication forms (texting, e-mailing, etc) is a way of establishing their agency from the start.
Anne Ruggles Gere, in "Writing Well is the Best Revenge," was saying even in 1978 that for students writing "is a means of demonstrating competence in subject matter rather than as an end in itself. They lack moti-vation to write well" (256). It is, I believe precisely because students don't understand the writing process and what is possible that they seldom see writing as having a "greater purpose" (Beard).
Gere suggests the answer is motivating the students by showing them how to use this process to "shout back" at a society that has left them feeling disenfranchised (257).
"Pop, Pop, Pop Muzik:" Berlin and Pop-Culture in the Writing Classroom
In my Basic Writing class at the community college, I began teaching with Youtube and Stephen King; then, after a couple of weeks - and much discussion about structure and word choice - I snuck in some Maya Angelou, Langston Hughes, and even a little Walt Whitman. I was blown away by the student response to these poets. They not only got it, but were inspired toward one of the best class discussions we'd had to that point.
In his presentation on James A. Berlin, Klayton quoted Berlin: "Our consciousness is in large part a product of our material consciousness. But our material conditions are also in part the products of our consciousness"
As a teacher of Basic Writing, this means we must start where our students are - at the place where their "material consciousness" has brought them to. It is always easier to give someone directions when we know the departure point, and so many of our students are starting in the world of pop-culture: MTV, Youtube, MySpace, Facebook, blogs, I-Phones: all creators of consciousness.
As believers in communication and the twin fields of rhetoric and composition - instead of fighting it we should embrace these things that seem to have the whole world writing.
In his presentation on James A. Berlin, Klayton quoted Berlin: "Our consciousness is in large part a product of our material consciousness. But our material conditions are also in part the products of our consciousness"
As a teacher of Basic Writing, this means we must start where our students are - at the place where their "material consciousness" has brought them to. It is always easier to give someone directions when we know the departure point, and so many of our students are starting in the world of pop-culture: MTV, Youtube, MySpace, Facebook, blogs, I-Phones: all creators of consciousness.
As believers in communication and the twin fields of rhetoric and composition - instead of fighting it we should embrace these things that seem to have the whole world writing.
Composition and Creative Writing w/Wendy Bishop
"All writing is creative" - those might be the truest words I've read since beginning this class on theory. For me, it sums up all arguments and discourse surrounding the fields of rhetoric and composition - those I agree with and those I don't.
At our core, as teachers of writing, that is the "product" we work to bring out in our students; whether we prescribe for them the structure we want to see, allow them to express themselves freely, or try to impress upon them the importance of grammatical rules, there is no getting around the fact that each writer (Basic or experienced), must pull the final words out from somewhere inside of them - this is at the heart of the canon of invention.
With Bishop, as with Yancey, I find myself drawn to the pedagogy of portfolios, especially when it relies on writer reflection; as all writing is creative, in order to be truly creative, it must also be reflective. It will, in fact be reflective, though the mirror may belong to the student or equally (and maybe unfortunately) to the teacher, the thoughts began somewhere.
Wasil writes: "[Bishop] works to find theoretical and practical ways to help students share their personal stories in their academic writing."
No matter the topic, everything is personal - just as everything is political - and all writing is creative.
At our core, as teachers of writing, that is the "product" we work to bring out in our students; whether we prescribe for them the structure we want to see, allow them to express themselves freely, or try to impress upon them the importance of grammatical rules, there is no getting around the fact that each writer (Basic or experienced), must pull the final words out from somewhere inside of them - this is at the heart of the canon of invention.
With Bishop, as with Yancey, I find myself drawn to the pedagogy of portfolios, especially when it relies on writer reflection; as all writing is creative, in order to be truly creative, it must also be reflective. It will, in fact be reflective, though the mirror may belong to the student or equally (and maybe unfortunately) to the teacher, the thoughts began somewhere.
Wasil writes: "[Bishop] works to find theoretical and practical ways to help students share their personal stories in their academic writing."
No matter the topic, everything is personal - just as everything is political - and all writing is creative.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
"And in the end"... At Least for Now: Reflecting on Pedagogy
My mind is so full of newly acquired information, that - like my desk - everything is stuffed and stacked and piled with no organizaiton, no coherence - waiting for the semester's end so I can sort through it all. Everytime I read something new, I find a thread leading me somewhere newer. I feel relieved to be taking the summer off from classes so I can actually follow up on some of it.
What I know right here and now, however, is I love what I'm doing and what I'm learning, and I love teaching. This semester, my first as a teacher, has been a joy. I loved creating lesson plans and suprising my students who have never failed to surprise me in turn - one of them asked if we were going to have a lesson on listening, so we spent part of a class period playing "Simon Says."
What I know I've learned is that I have to pay attention to my own mind as well as to theirs - I often find myself walking a thin line between a teacher-centered classroom - with me as entertainment and resident "class clown" - and a student-centered classroom - which is where I want to be; though, I'm still trying to discern the difference between student-centered and student-driven.
I kind of like the idea of a student-driven class, because I've come to believe, both from my own experiences and from reading people like Yancey, Lu, and Lindemann, that it is incredibly important for students to take responsibility for their own education - and it becomes my responsibility to guide, to suggest, and to respond.
I've been planning to do a Master's in Education as well as in English, in order to teach K-12, but I find myself, instead, leaning toward staying in the community college, helping students find stepping stones - and not just dead ends.
I've also come to believe that language is important in every aspect of what we teach - in the words we speak as well as in those we don't (either consciously or subconsciously), and it is possible that we must face conflict, struggle, and argument in the classroom to find out why we say -or don't say - what we choose. This is a subject I hope to study extensively as I move toward working on my thesis - a prospect (like walking into the classroom everyday) that both excites me and scares me to death.
What I know right here and now, however, is I love what I'm doing and what I'm learning, and I love teaching. This semester, my first as a teacher, has been a joy. I loved creating lesson plans and suprising my students who have never failed to surprise me in turn - one of them asked if we were going to have a lesson on listening, so we spent part of a class period playing "Simon Says."
What I know I've learned is that I have to pay attention to my own mind as well as to theirs - I often find myself walking a thin line between a teacher-centered classroom - with me as entertainment and resident "class clown" - and a student-centered classroom - which is where I want to be; though, I'm still trying to discern the difference between student-centered and student-driven.
I kind of like the idea of a student-driven class, because I've come to believe, both from my own experiences and from reading people like Yancey, Lu, and Lindemann, that it is incredibly important for students to take responsibility for their own education - and it becomes my responsibility to guide, to suggest, and to respond.
I've been planning to do a Master's in Education as well as in English, in order to teach K-12, but I find myself, instead, leaning toward staying in the community college, helping students find stepping stones - and not just dead ends.
I've also come to believe that language is important in every aspect of what we teach - in the words we speak as well as in those we don't (either consciously or subconsciously), and it is possible that we must face conflict, struggle, and argument in the classroom to find out why we say -or don't say - what we choose. This is a subject I hope to study extensively as I move toward working on my thesis - a prospect (like walking into the classroom everyday) that both excites me and scares me to death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
