After talking about our topics in class Wednesday night, I realize I will probably need to narrow my topic down to just the three novels from the 19th century (The Betrothed, Frankenstein, and Wuthering Heights) for the midterm paper. I think I want to look at the narrative frame structure in romantic literature transitioning from the Romantic era to the Victorian era and how the influence of the industrial revolution affected the literature, specifically the three novels mentioned.
Manzoni's book is labeled as a historical novel written in 1827, Shelly's novel is a Gothic novel written in 1831, and Bronte's is a historical Gothic romance written in 1847. Plot structures, characters, and settings are all very similar. My research will include a comparison of Italian literature to British lit. (thanks Tony), although I am not quite sure how yet. I think by looking at the events of the era in each country, I will be able to make a thorough comparison and prove that the context (events) definitely did influence the authors writing.
I think most authors write using their life experiences, and the historical novel is no different. Hopefully I will be able to make accurate comparisons among the novels, authors, and countries. After writing all of this, I suppose my main argument will be the world had a major influence on the authors of the 19th century; however, by using the frame narrative technique, the authors could share the responsibilities of actions with a wider audience. Still a work in progress...
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Monday, November 30, 2009
THE END
Finally, a reading worth reading! This text was by far the best text this semester; it was interesting, reader-friendly, and entertaining. Terry Eagleton's sarcasm and frankness made the content that much more enjoyable to read; finally! This book does a really nice job of tying everything we read in class together. I understand that there is method to the madness, and believe me it was madness; but if it were not for all of the other 'stuff' we read, Eagleton wouldn't make much sense to me. Or better yet, he would only be offering his biased interpretation and I probably would really like it because I had nothing to compare it to. I really feel a sense of accomplishment. But, I digress...
I think I like cultural theory. Chapters five and six were by far the most interesting in the book. These two chapters go back to the ancients and what is 'good' and 'bad' and who determines each. The way Eagleton explains the human animal and why or how we are the way we are I find fascinating. He is like Derrida (stupid Derrida) in the sense that he talks in circles throughout chapter five, but I found his circles to be easier to understand than Derrida's; maybe that is because I have been exposed to Derrida and can never forget. However, language is the key component that defines our humanity. Because we can use logic, define words, determine actions, we are separated from the stouts and giraffes. The logic, words and actions we use are based on and influenced by our culture, and of course it would be. Eagleton argues that if it weren't for our cultures, our world might not be in the condition it is today. I also really like how Eagleton looks at capitalism, naturalism, and socialism. We, as humans, are creatures that thrive on the sociality of our lives; we need culture in order to survive. Therefore, Eagleton says that our -isms "exploit" us causing the conflict in our sociality.
I also found what he said about equality very correct. In chapter six, page 147, Eagleton states, "Treating people in an equal manner does not mean treating them as if they were all the same; it means attending even-handedly to each individual's unique situation. Equality means giving as much weight to one individual's particularity as to anothers." In order to understand what equality really is, you need to know yourself first and then you can understand your neighbor. This also applies to happiness and friendship. Reaching your full potential can possibly give you happiness, then you are at peace with yourself and your friendships will flourish. Don't we all want that?
This book tied a lot of the information from this class together for me. I think I have some understanding of the theory, rhetoric, and discourse involved in literature. Power gives control, control can cause change, change creates a new theory - and the cycle continues. Our words have a lot to say about us, our beliefs, lifestyle and ultimately our culture. We can define ourselves and influence our audience through our words, written or spoken. If we know our audience we can then become a part of the culture to create the change we want to see eventually becoming a part of history. I feel like I am now talking in circles (stupid Derrida). Thank heaven for Eagleton and his helpful last reading!
I think I like cultural theory. Chapters five and six were by far the most interesting in the book. These two chapters go back to the ancients and what is 'good' and 'bad' and who determines each. The way Eagleton explains the human animal and why or how we are the way we are I find fascinating. He is like Derrida (stupid Derrida) in the sense that he talks in circles throughout chapter five, but I found his circles to be easier to understand than Derrida's; maybe that is because I have been exposed to Derrida and can never forget. However, language is the key component that defines our humanity. Because we can use logic, define words, determine actions, we are separated from the stouts and giraffes. The logic, words and actions we use are based on and influenced by our culture, and of course it would be. Eagleton argues that if it weren't for our cultures, our world might not be in the condition it is today. I also really like how Eagleton looks at capitalism, naturalism, and socialism. We, as humans, are creatures that thrive on the sociality of our lives; we need culture in order to survive. Therefore, Eagleton says that our -isms "exploit" us causing the conflict in our sociality.
I also found what he said about equality very correct. In chapter six, page 147, Eagleton states, "Treating people in an equal manner does not mean treating them as if they were all the same; it means attending even-handedly to each individual's unique situation. Equality means giving as much weight to one individual's particularity as to anothers." In order to understand what equality really is, you need to know yourself first and then you can understand your neighbor. This also applies to happiness and friendship. Reaching your full potential can possibly give you happiness, then you are at peace with yourself and your friendships will flourish. Don't we all want that?
This book tied a lot of the information from this class together for me. I think I have some understanding of the theory, rhetoric, and discourse involved in literature. Power gives control, control can cause change, change creates a new theory - and the cycle continues. Our words have a lot to say about us, our beliefs, lifestyle and ultimately our culture. We can define ourselves and influence our audience through our words, written or spoken. If we know our audience we can then become a part of the culture to create the change we want to see eventually becoming a part of history. I feel like I am now talking in circles (stupid Derrida). Thank heaven for Eagleton and his helpful last reading!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Do We Write History or Our Being into It?
The Gates piece caused me to think the most this week. One phrase that caught my attention and I just can't seem to forget is "The slave narratives, taken together, represent the attempt of blacks to write themselves into being (1897)." I never thought about anyone writing themselves into being. I have heard argument after argument about "race" and "superiority"; but this really is fascinating to me. This made me think about literature in a whole new light.
Doesn't any author try to 'write themselves into being'? That is the purpose of writing, I think. However, for slaves during the 17th and 18th centuries, they seemed to have a lot more on the line. To have to prove their humanity, their intelligence, their 'being' is crazy. But, the irony lies in the next few lines: Accused of having no collective history by Hegel, blacks effectively responded by publishing hundreds of individual histories which functioned as the part standing for the whole (1897). How powerful that is - to make your history known when no one wanted to know it. This ties to Bhabha's essay on page 297, "Foucault stresses that the relations of knowledge and power within the apparatus are always a strategic response to an urgent need at a given historical moment...that the force of colonial discourse a theoretical and political intervention, was the need, in our contemporary moment, to contest singularities of difference and to articulate modes of differentiation."
All of this consistently reinforces what I think: those who have knowledge have power; and once a person has power, he or she has control and can cause positive or negative change. Persuasion is no longer really an art form, but a strategy for survival. Knowledge, especially in this class, is the spoken or written word. If an individual can successfully communicate and convey a message in a particular discourse community, then that individual can move mountains. The perfect audience is only perfect when the speaker knows what he or she is up against. I may not like Derrida, but I do like what Gates included on page 1901, "We must master...'how to speak the other's language without renouncing (our) own.'" Knowledge and power - power and control.
Doesn't any author try to 'write themselves into being'? That is the purpose of writing, I think. However, for slaves during the 17th and 18th centuries, they seemed to have a lot more on the line. To have to prove their humanity, their intelligence, their 'being' is crazy. But, the irony lies in the next few lines: Accused of having no collective history by Hegel, blacks effectively responded by publishing hundreds of individual histories which functioned as the part standing for the whole (1897). How powerful that is - to make your history known when no one wanted to know it. This ties to Bhabha's essay on page 297, "Foucault stresses that the relations of knowledge and power within the apparatus are always a strategic response to an urgent need at a given historical moment...that the force of colonial discourse a theoretical and political intervention, was the need, in our contemporary moment, to contest singularities of difference and to articulate modes of differentiation."
All of this consistently reinforces what I think: those who have knowledge have power; and once a person has power, he or she has control and can cause positive or negative change. Persuasion is no longer really an art form, but a strategy for survival. Knowledge, especially in this class, is the spoken or written word. If an individual can successfully communicate and convey a message in a particular discourse community, then that individual can move mountains. The perfect audience is only perfect when the speaker knows what he or she is up against. I may not like Derrida, but I do like what Gates included on page 1901, "We must master...'how to speak the other's language without renouncing (our) own.'" Knowledge and power - power and control.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
A Linguist, Sociologist, and an Economist...sounds like a REALLY BAD joke!
Thank God for editor's introductions! There is a lot in this book to cover, and I don't even know where to begin. But I guess the one occurring theme was how language and linguists do not see class or sociology as a contributing factor to communication. I found Bourdieu very interesting in the sense that he used economic terms to discuss language and communication and how all of it correlates to success. But I guess I already knew that subconsciously, being a teacher and all.
Bourdieu seems to stress that education gives some students an advantage over others no matter the social class; however, students are being taught how to 'play the game' without realizing or understanding what 'the game' is. This still sounds like manipulation. Words have power, and the person who knows how to use the words has the power; and when he/she has the power, he/she has the control to influence, persuade, change, assimilate, dissimilate, encourage, discredit, etc. (these are all words with some similar meanings) people. The dominate language allows for power; and those who master the dominate language will dominate the public, or the market.
Language is not only words, it is actions, intonations, and sometimes silence. I immediately thought of the argument of nature vs. nurture with the introduction of the bodily hexis. Are we predisposed to behave and communicate in certain ways based on our gender (nature)? Or do we communicate based on our placement in or origin from a social class (nurture)? I found this argument fascinating. Look at any child in school. Their body and spoken language speaks volumes (no pun intended) about who they are and where they come from. If the child has not been exposed to a variety of social settings, they will not be able to compete at the same level with the students who have been exposed; hence, oooh that awful term, tracking in the education system (honors courses, leveled courses, technical track, college track, you get the picture).
So what would the linguist say about our educational system today? What would the sociologist say? And finally, what would the economist say? Bourdieu seems to combine all three into one and say the power of language is determined by the status and education of the speaker and the level of the audience. Because a lot of words could be used without very much meaning, and the speaker would sound very smart because the audience wouldn't have a clue. A bunch of nothing in a whole lot of something. Stupid Derrida and his center!
Bourdieu seems to stress that education gives some students an advantage over others no matter the social class; however, students are being taught how to 'play the game' without realizing or understanding what 'the game' is. This still sounds like manipulation. Words have power, and the person who knows how to use the words has the power; and when he/she has the power, he/she has the control to influence, persuade, change, assimilate, dissimilate, encourage, discredit, etc. (these are all words with some similar meanings) people. The dominate language allows for power; and those who master the dominate language will dominate the public, or the market.
Language is not only words, it is actions, intonations, and sometimes silence. I immediately thought of the argument of nature vs. nurture with the introduction of the bodily hexis. Are we predisposed to behave and communicate in certain ways based on our gender (nature)? Or do we communicate based on our placement in or origin from a social class (nurture)? I found this argument fascinating. Look at any child in school. Their body and spoken language speaks volumes (no pun intended) about who they are and where they come from. If the child has not been exposed to a variety of social settings, they will not be able to compete at the same level with the students who have been exposed; hence, oooh that awful term, tracking in the education system (honors courses, leveled courses, technical track, college track, you get the picture).
So what would the linguist say about our educational system today? What would the sociologist say? And finally, what would the economist say? Bourdieu seems to combine all three into one and say the power of language is determined by the status and education of the speaker and the level of the audience. Because a lot of words could be used without very much meaning, and the speaker would sound very smart because the audience wouldn't have a clue. A bunch of nothing in a whole lot of something. Stupid Derrida and his center!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
History, Reality, and Point of View
All I could think about as I read this week was what is going on in my senior composition course. We are reading The Jungle and talking about socialism vs. capitalism and of course Marxism. They had to know the context in order for to understand the content; once that was untangled, they really started to look at the book with a new set of eyes; a new 'mode of human sense perception' so-to-say. Reading Eagleton caused me to think about history and what is real and "pseudo-real". Sinclair made the real seem pseudo-real and, in doing so, caused history to change. My seniors have so far concluded that in theory, Marxism is great, but it is humanity that destroys it; therefore, society will never be classless. This then tied into Benjamin's "Mechanical Reproduction". Artists, be they authors, sculptors, or painter, reproduce 'things' from their perspectives and viewpoints. What they see is what they create; hence, The Jungle, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Kite Runner, Schindler's List, Malcom X, and W.
Literature is art as is film, photography, etc. However, things tend to get all jumbled up and the public is left to try and determine things on their own. Actors are not the people they portray on screen as authors are not the characters or narrator they create; they are a personality, but not necessarily their personality. Photographs are taken from one point of view or perspective and then published from that point of view so the public can see the same point of view as the photographer, as is literature of any form. It all seems to be a lot of manipulation. We are constantly told by the critics and/or experts what is good and what is bad. We do, though, determine what is aesthetically appealing or grotesque and then become the critic. So to whom do we listen? The authors, journalists, photographers, painters, film writers, directors, or actors?
History has a part in our literature, paintings, pictures, and film; but it is from the creator's point of view from which we see. Sinclair caused a nation to change from sharing his point of view; granted it wasn't the change he wanted to see, but it was a change nonetheless. Benjamin says it himself, "During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity's entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well" (1235). Art offers us one point of view, the creator's; interpretation gives us many points of view and a lot of it is based on the current events and realities.
Literature is art as is film, photography, etc. However, things tend to get all jumbled up and the public is left to try and determine things on their own. Actors are not the people they portray on screen as authors are not the characters or narrator they create; they are a personality, but not necessarily their personality. Photographs are taken from one point of view or perspective and then published from that point of view so the public can see the same point of view as the photographer, as is literature of any form. It all seems to be a lot of manipulation. We are constantly told by the critics and/or experts what is good and what is bad. We do, though, determine what is aesthetically appealing or grotesque and then become the critic. So to whom do we listen? The authors, journalists, photographers, painters, film writers, directors, or actors?
History has a part in our literature, paintings, pictures, and film; but it is from the creator's point of view from which we see. Sinclair caused a nation to change from sharing his point of view; granted it wasn't the change he wanted to see, but it was a change nonetheless. Benjamin says it himself, "During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity's entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well" (1235). Art offers us one point of view, the creator's; interpretation gives us many points of view and a lot of it is based on the current events and realities.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Too Many -isms
"Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression" (Hooks, 1). Isn't that what racism, classism, ageism, etc. also try to do? Just put -ism at the end of any word and there you have a new movement! I understand the need for equality, but a double standard is always involved. Feminism is a good example, I think, of context vs. content. We need to know the history, the background, of the era in order to understand the meaning behind the driving forces of the movement. This topic definitely has a center. I became frustrated at points with the Hooks reading and wanted to move to the content like Barry did. Analyzing the words, the language, the form was more interesting to me than interpreting meaning for this particular unit. Therefore, I think I want to focus on the idea Barry presents with language and how there is masculine and feminine language.
Having recently read the Bronte canon, I find that what Barry discusses holds some truth to it. When Charlotte wrote The Professor, she was trying to write from a male's point of view - the book was horrible. Most authors write what they know. I admire Ms. Bronte for publishing an average book under a male pseudonym (Acton Bell), but her best work was written from her female perspective. I agree that we learn our gender through our culture and our society; and the patriarch of our world causes a cultural oppression expected by all individuals. Literature only seems to reiterate that. One of the things I liked about Hook was she was not 'anti-male' or male-bashing, but she wanted to end sexism for both parties involved. Literature could be the mechanism that offers the solution; but couldn't literature do that for any of the -isms?
From the beginning of time, women have had to work hard to be recognized because of a male dominated society. Our literature is a reflection of the struggles humanity has faced, and feminism in only one of the many different struggles we have encountered in our short existence on Earth. Remember, our literature is a record of our human experiences and we rely on it to show us the world as it was, is, and might be. This particular movement and these particular readings are a good example of how important context is in literature. Through the context we learn the content. When we understand the content, we can understand the language be it masculine or feminine.
Having recently read the Bronte canon, I find that what Barry discusses holds some truth to it. When Charlotte wrote The Professor, she was trying to write from a male's point of view - the book was horrible. Most authors write what they know. I admire Ms. Bronte for publishing an average book under a male pseudonym (Acton Bell), but her best work was written from her female perspective. I agree that we learn our gender through our culture and our society; and the patriarch of our world causes a cultural oppression expected by all individuals. Literature only seems to reiterate that. One of the things I liked about Hook was she was not 'anti-male' or male-bashing, but she wanted to end sexism for both parties involved. Literature could be the mechanism that offers the solution; but couldn't literature do that for any of the -isms?
From the beginning of time, women have had to work hard to be recognized because of a male dominated society. Our literature is a reflection of the struggles humanity has faced, and feminism in only one of the many different struggles we have encountered in our short existence on Earth. Remember, our literature is a record of our human experiences and we rely on it to show us the world as it was, is, and might be. This particular movement and these particular readings are a good example of how important context is in literature. Through the context we learn the content. When we understand the content, we can understand the language be it masculine or feminine.
Monday, October 12, 2009
So Be It!
I fear I am the last one to post this week; it has been one of those weekends, so be it...
I had a difficult time trying to read everything and wrap my brain around all of it; so I am going to try to comment on one section I might have some semblance of a grasp on - hegemony. From what I understand, hegemony is control. Well, if we are speaking of control and hegemony as rhetoric, since this is a class concerning rhetoric, I think I can agree with the simple definition of control. Now, as to who has control is a debatable question. Is control found in the political powers that be, the societal powers that be, or is it found within the self? I was reminded of the ancients, the way they addressed crowds and the way they won the admiration of the audience. Hegemony seems to define what the ancients were doing - breaking classes down by domination and subordination. Being the dominate individual or class definitely gives you the upper hand in society because you create thought and have power which makes others subordinate allowing you to have control.
Isn't that what we, as teachers, do in the classroom on a daily basis? We try to dominate a room of 30+ unruly teenagers, who will eventually submit to our demands, ultimately giving us the control needed for social progress in a culture of learning, right? Control, that is the key; but how it is established and practiced is based on how the dominate individual sees and understands him/herself. Thus enters hegemony.
So what really governs and controls us? The reading says, based on my meek interpretation, that our culture determines our social process which in turn offers us our ideology. However, there are many different cultures I belong to; therefore, I follow a variety of social processes and eventually end up with several ideologies; but where are those ideologies found? In society or in me? The readings left me with nothing more than an almost infinite list of questions. So what does that say about my social process and culture? All of this only hurts my always-already confused head. Amen- So Be It!
I had a difficult time trying to read everything and wrap my brain around all of it; so I am going to try to comment on one section I might have some semblance of a grasp on - hegemony. From what I understand, hegemony is control. Well, if we are speaking of control and hegemony as rhetoric, since this is a class concerning rhetoric, I think I can agree with the simple definition of control. Now, as to who has control is a debatable question. Is control found in the political powers that be, the societal powers that be, or is it found within the self? I was reminded of the ancients, the way they addressed crowds and the way they won the admiration of the audience. Hegemony seems to define what the ancients were doing - breaking classes down by domination and subordination. Being the dominate individual or class definitely gives you the upper hand in society because you create thought and have power which makes others subordinate allowing you to have control.
Isn't that what we, as teachers, do in the classroom on a daily basis? We try to dominate a room of 30+ unruly teenagers, who will eventually submit to our demands, ultimately giving us the control needed for social progress in a culture of learning, right? Control, that is the key; but how it is established and practiced is based on how the dominate individual sees and understands him/herself. Thus enters hegemony.
So what really governs and controls us? The reading says, based on my meek interpretation, that our culture determines our social process which in turn offers us our ideology. However, there are many different cultures I belong to; therefore, I follow a variety of social processes and eventually end up with several ideologies; but where are those ideologies found? In society or in me? The readings left me with nothing more than an almost infinite list of questions. So what does that say about my social process and culture? All of this only hurts my always-already confused head. Amen- So Be It!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Words Are Just Words, Right?
This week's reading theme seems to address power and its roots. Words are words, end of story; however, what gives words their power is based on the context in which the words are spoken/written. Connotation is what gives words their power, their meaning.
Foucault talks about subjugated knowledges and types of these knowledges: historical knowleges and social knowledges (130). From what I gather, the historical knowldeges are hidden, changed, and denied while the social knowledges are those that have mutated the historical so that common discourses can understand what is happening. We determine what is popular, right, and just based on who says it is popular, right, and just. Power itself is only a word, and as Foucault says power is "...neither given, nor exchanged, nor recovered, but rather exercised, and that it only exists in action" (133). So if we tie power to words, then when the words are exercised at the right time in the right context, the speaker has all the power in the world? Possibly...
Jameson talks about the social and historical resonance of texts; but again, words are words until they are given power in the appropriate setting by the appropriate person. One can totalize thought if the audience is captive, allowing power to be exercised.
Interpretations, illusions, criticisms can probably share similar definitions; however, each is very different when we interpret, illustrate or criticise what each means to us. If my definition is better than yours, does that mean I have the power? Can I captivate and totalize thought in the audience? Could I run the world? I think only if I decide to exercise the power of the language. I was reminded of Carlos Mencia after reading Foucault and Jameson. He believes how we interpret words ourselves is what gives the words the power. A word is just a bunch of letters put together to make a sound - the meaning is given when we decide to interpret the sound. Mencia is right on; we become offended by language and words because we empower the speaker to offend us. Words are only words.
Foucault talks about subjugated knowledges and types of these knowledges: historical knowleges and social knowledges (130). From what I gather, the historical knowldeges are hidden, changed, and denied while the social knowledges are those that have mutated the historical so that common discourses can understand what is happening. We determine what is popular, right, and just based on who says it is popular, right, and just. Power itself is only a word, and as Foucault says power is "...neither given, nor exchanged, nor recovered, but rather exercised, and that it only exists in action" (133). So if we tie power to words, then when the words are exercised at the right time in the right context, the speaker has all the power in the world? Possibly...
Jameson talks about the social and historical resonance of texts; but again, words are words until they are given power in the appropriate setting by the appropriate person. One can totalize thought if the audience is captive, allowing power to be exercised.
Interpretations, illusions, criticisms can probably share similar definitions; however, each is very different when we interpret, illustrate or criticise what each means to us. If my definition is better than yours, does that mean I have the power? Can I captivate and totalize thought in the audience? Could I run the world? I think only if I decide to exercise the power of the language. I was reminded of Carlos Mencia after reading Foucault and Jameson. He believes how we interpret words ourselves is what gives the words the power. A word is just a bunch of letters put together to make a sound - the meaning is given when we decide to interpret the sound. Mencia is right on; we become offended by language and words because we empower the speaker to offend us. Words are only words.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Post Whatisms? C'mon kids, get it together.
Peter Barry describes post-structuralism, deconstruction, and postmodernism the way younger generations would describe older generations or visa verse. I couldn't help but think of the arguments between generations of people. Page 60 to 61 really gave me this image because Barry was comparing structuralists to post-structuralists. Do we not learn from our predecessors and then take what they teach us and make it better or unique or whatever else to show how we can make a difference? It is basically organization vs. chaos and that is how my 83 year old grandmother views my generation - very chaotic. It's not like it used to be in the 'old days', but neither is anything else; and that is what makes the difference between the two. What is being said does not seem to matter as much as how it is being said which brings us back to what rhetoric really is - how the message is delivered. The post-structuralists and postmodernists break away from what was accepted as real and true and developed their own realities and truths - that is a big step to take. Longing for the past does not accomplish anything for the future. But what we have read throughout the semester thus far is a scaffold of what the ancients developed long ago.
I have read Barthe's "Death of the Author" and I really like the last line of the essay "...the birth of the reader must be requited by the death of the Author." The death of the author does allow the reader a certain amount of freedom as Barry points out (65), but don't we need some structure in order to understand what the product is supposed to be; or can chaos and freedom give us the final product as well? Individual interpretation is going to happen and rhetoric is rhetoric no matter how you look at it; it is the theory that determines how we will interpret or analyze a specific piece of work, from music to art to literature.
Post whatisms? I am finally starting to see and understand what my teachers' theories were when I was a student and I find it fascinating. I am also starting to see and understand what my colleagues' theories might be. What is even more exciting for me is that I am starting to match my pedagogy to certain theories based on what I have learned; I have always known my pedagogy, and it changes from class to class, year to year; but it has been fun matching it to the theories, people, authors, philosophers, etc. in the literature we have read.
I have read Barthe's "Death of the Author" and I really like the last line of the essay "...the birth of the reader must be requited by the death of the Author." The death of the author does allow the reader a certain amount of freedom as Barry points out (65), but don't we need some structure in order to understand what the product is supposed to be; or can chaos and freedom give us the final product as well? Individual interpretation is going to happen and rhetoric is rhetoric no matter how you look at it; it is the theory that determines how we will interpret or analyze a specific piece of work, from music to art to literature.
Post whatisms? I am finally starting to see and understand what my teachers' theories were when I was a student and I find it fascinating. I am also starting to see and understand what my colleagues' theories might be. What is even more exciting for me is that I am starting to match my pedagogy to certain theories based on what I have learned; I have always known my pedagogy, and it changes from class to class, year to year; but it has been fun matching it to the theories, people, authors, philosophers, etc. in the literature we have read.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Finding Meaning
Okay, here is what I got out of this week's reading:
The audience, no matter the level of education, can interpret a text based on his or her ability to relate to the text; but the reader should not pay much attention to the context or author of the text.
Do we interpret a text based on our personal background knowledge? Or, do we interpret the the text based on the author's time, place, knowledge, and identity? OR, do we interpret a text based solely on the words in the text? I seem to struggle with these questions. Does the interpretation change once the reader knows and understands who wrote the text and in what context? I started thinking about form, content, and context (again) and their relationship. Basically this is what I came up with:
Language determines the meaning, which in turn helps the interpretation in the readers' minds. Based on what the readers know of the language, interpretations vary. If the readers knows anything about the author, interpretations may change. If we only look at the words, language, and structure of the literature, we can criticize and analyze the literature without worrying about the meaning, because we are not interpreting the meaning. Then do interpretation and analysis/criticism mean the same thing? I thought about techniques I use to teach literature and determined that both can be accomplished, but interpretation and analysis/criticism are not the same thing. I think interpretation is looking at why something is said or written to find meaning, and analysis/criticism is how it is spoken or written to identify structure, form, and style. I do agree to analyze literature the author must be divorced from the text and the audience must look at the structure, form, and language. Interpretation and analysis can coexist because they are related, but not the same.
I really like what Culler has to say about literature and interpretation: "...one should seek ways of analyzing the work as an objective artifact" (100). If we treat literature as an 'artifact', then we must know from where and when it came. But to be objective, we must not have any preconceived notions about the artifact. This is nearly impossible because, as humans, we always bring what we know about something to the table. If we take the author and meaning away from the work, will the work have the same affect on us? The language should be doing the speaking, not the author; therefore, from where and when the artifact came should not matter. Poetry is a perfect example of this. Content in poetry can and should be immortal; the style, form, and language speaks to us without identification of the time, place, and poet; but once the poet is identified, then interpretation will probably change.
I think about the 'classics' we teach in high school; three examples would be: Fahrenheit 451, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Frankenstein. These three texts live on today because students can relate to them in the 21st century. Can they relate to them based solely on the language, structure, or form - analysis? Sure. Do the readers relate to the stories because of their interpretation of meaning? Absolutely. I see both sides of the argument because I have taught the arguments. To only look at language, form, and structure allows the reader to analyze style; to look at the meaning behind the words based on background knowledge and information gives way to personal interpretation. Connection to literature is vital to interpretation. Analysis does lead to interpretation when reading these texts. Once the author is added to the equation, then the text may become much more clear to the audience and the meaning probably will change.
Back to my original questions: do we interpret a text based on our background knowledge or the language and structure? This is a big shift from what the ancients believed, but it is still based on those beliefs. Eloquent language can move, influence, and educate any class because of its beauty. Literary criticism/analysis should be based on how the text relays information and not the meaning of what is being said - I agree with the readings in that regard; however, interpretation is a different category. It's similar to rhetoric - is it an art or is it a skill?
The audience, no matter the level of education, can interpret a text based on his or her ability to relate to the text; but the reader should not pay much attention to the context or author of the text.
Do we interpret a text based on our personal background knowledge? Or, do we interpret the the text based on the author's time, place, knowledge, and identity? OR, do we interpret a text based solely on the words in the text? I seem to struggle with these questions. Does the interpretation change once the reader knows and understands who wrote the text and in what context? I started thinking about form, content, and context (again) and their relationship. Basically this is what I came up with:
Language determines the meaning, which in turn helps the interpretation in the readers' minds. Based on what the readers know of the language, interpretations vary. If the readers knows anything about the author, interpretations may change. If we only look at the words, language, and structure of the literature, we can criticize and analyze the literature without worrying about the meaning, because we are not interpreting the meaning. Then do interpretation and analysis/criticism mean the same thing? I thought about techniques I use to teach literature and determined that both can be accomplished, but interpretation and analysis/criticism are not the same thing. I think interpretation is looking at why something is said or written to find meaning, and analysis/criticism is how it is spoken or written to identify structure, form, and style. I do agree to analyze literature the author must be divorced from the text and the audience must look at the structure, form, and language. Interpretation and analysis can coexist because they are related, but not the same.
I really like what Culler has to say about literature and interpretation: "...one should seek ways of analyzing the work as an objective artifact" (100). If we treat literature as an 'artifact', then we must know from where and when it came. But to be objective, we must not have any preconceived notions about the artifact. This is nearly impossible because, as humans, we always bring what we know about something to the table. If we take the author and meaning away from the work, will the work have the same affect on us? The language should be doing the speaking, not the author; therefore, from where and when the artifact came should not matter. Poetry is a perfect example of this. Content in poetry can and should be immortal; the style, form, and language speaks to us without identification of the time, place, and poet; but once the poet is identified, then interpretation will probably change.
I think about the 'classics' we teach in high school; three examples would be: Fahrenheit 451, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Frankenstein. These three texts live on today because students can relate to them in the 21st century. Can they relate to them based solely on the language, structure, or form - analysis? Sure. Do the readers relate to the stories because of their interpretation of meaning? Absolutely. I see both sides of the argument because I have taught the arguments. To only look at language, form, and structure allows the reader to analyze style; to look at the meaning behind the words based on background knowledge and information gives way to personal interpretation. Connection to literature is vital to interpretation. Analysis does lead to interpretation when reading these texts. Once the author is added to the equation, then the text may become much more clear to the audience and the meaning probably will change.
Back to my original questions: do we interpret a text based on our background knowledge or the language and structure? This is a big shift from what the ancients believed, but it is still based on those beliefs. Eloquent language can move, influence, and educate any class because of its beauty. Literary criticism/analysis should be based on how the text relays information and not the meaning of what is being said - I agree with the readings in that regard; however, interpretation is a different category. It's similar to rhetoric - is it an art or is it a skill?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Science, Theology, and Rhetoric
What I find most interesting about this week's reading is how rhetoric has broken into different branches and starts to evolve to include theology and science; the precursor to separation of church and state? Prior to the Renaissance period, rhetoric focused primarily on speech and how the spoken language influenced people. But during this time, philosophers and rhetors have dissected this "art" into a science to include more than just the educated and privileged aristocrats. At the beginning of chapter five Conley states "...the conviction that knowledge ought to serve practical ends. Human learning ought to have some utility for life; education should instruct not only the intellect but also the will; and the only effective means of conveying truth is by persuasion and eloquent discussion, not by logical demonstration." (110). This seems to be the theme throughout the Renaissance. Logical demonstration was not the goal of rhetoric, but offering purpose to existence was.
During this time in history, there was a lot of conflict. In times of conflict, people look to leaders - who should be educated and well-versed - for guidance and support. Therefore, leaders looked to the old wise folks for guidance to influence and ease the public. It seems Quintilian and Cicero had the greatest influence for the rhetors of the Renaissance. The idea that the leaders looked to the ancients is found on pg. 113, "Most of those Florentines, who could by virtue of their education and standing call themselves 'humanists' were not just scholars but politically active men. Many of them were professional orators who were esteemed because they advocated a code of civic duty, gave education a genuine relevance to political life, and were themselves accomplished speakers, as close as could be imagined to Quintilian's vir bonus dicendi peritus."
But what I really see happening here is that the general public is being allowed an education. Elitism still exists, but it is not as prominent when it comes to education. "...a liberal education, the possession of technical skills that made the active life feasible, and good character" are things all men and women could attain (114). One did not have to be eloquent in order to be wise. As was discussed in class weeks past, what does it mean to be morally good and is a good orator steeped in morality? The impression I get is that Conley believes one cannot be morally good and be a politician at the same time. Evidence of this can be found on page 115, "...devoid of the requirement that the orator be a good man, in the moral sense. Rhetoric was, rather a pragmatic political art indifferent to morality."
As to what I said at the beginning of this blog, what interests me most is the inclusion of theology and science. Breaking something down into its simplest forms is what makes it so easy to understand. Looking at the parts of the whole (metonymy and synecdoche) and the relationships between parts (metaphor and irony) are what help the hearer/audience interpret the message. I think a good orator and morally right orator is one who can do this and have the audience understand what the message is. To be virtuous and true is to be able to talk to the audience. It shouldn't' t matter the discourse, the message should stay the same. That is where the oxymoron of a morally good politician is difficult to understand. When something is put in its simplest form, it is easy to understand, therefore, easy to argue. Eloquence does not get in the way of wisdom.
Augustine states in Matsen on pg. 372, "...although our teacher is necessarily the spokesman of great subjects, he need not necessarily always speak in grand style, but in a subdued manner when something is being explained, moderately when a thing is being criticised or commended; but when something ought to be done, and we are speaking to those who ought to do it, although they do not wish to, then the matter which is an important one, should be stated in the grand style, and in a manner adapted to move their hearts." To move the heart is the ultimate goal of rhetoric. How one goes about doing that is based on the discourse. Tone, inflection, vocabulary, etc. all play a role in moving the heart. But what I see as being true and virtuous is keeping the message the same no matter the audience.
So to sum up, rhetoric has transformed from the ancients, but the ancients have not been forgotten. They sometimes are not recognized or credited by the new philosophers and rhetors, but they have influenced the Renaissance period. Rhetoric transformed to include theology and science, but isn't the goal virtually the same?
During this time in history, there was a lot of conflict. In times of conflict, people look to leaders - who should be educated and well-versed - for guidance and support. Therefore, leaders looked to the old wise folks for guidance to influence and ease the public. It seems Quintilian and Cicero had the greatest influence for the rhetors of the Renaissance. The idea that the leaders looked to the ancients is found on pg. 113, "Most of those Florentines, who could by virtue of their education and standing call themselves 'humanists' were not just scholars but politically active men. Many of them were professional orators who were esteemed because they advocated a code of civic duty, gave education a genuine relevance to political life, and were themselves accomplished speakers, as close as could be imagined to Quintilian's vir bonus dicendi peritus."
But what I really see happening here is that the general public is being allowed an education. Elitism still exists, but it is not as prominent when it comes to education. "...a liberal education, the possession of technical skills that made the active life feasible, and good character" are things all men and women could attain (114). One did not have to be eloquent in order to be wise. As was discussed in class weeks past, what does it mean to be morally good and is a good orator steeped in morality? The impression I get is that Conley believes one cannot be morally good and be a politician at the same time. Evidence of this can be found on page 115, "...devoid of the requirement that the orator be a good man, in the moral sense. Rhetoric was, rather a pragmatic political art indifferent to morality."
As to what I said at the beginning of this blog, what interests me most is the inclusion of theology and science. Breaking something down into its simplest forms is what makes it so easy to understand. Looking at the parts of the whole (metonymy and synecdoche) and the relationships between parts (metaphor and irony) are what help the hearer/audience interpret the message. I think a good orator and morally right orator is one who can do this and have the audience understand what the message is. To be virtuous and true is to be able to talk to the audience. It shouldn't' t matter the discourse, the message should stay the same. That is where the oxymoron of a morally good politician is difficult to understand. When something is put in its simplest form, it is easy to understand, therefore, easy to argue. Eloquence does not get in the way of wisdom.
Augustine states in Matsen on pg. 372, "...although our teacher is necessarily the spokesman of great subjects, he need not necessarily always speak in grand style, but in a subdued manner when something is being explained, moderately when a thing is being criticised or commended; but when something ought to be done, and we are speaking to those who ought to do it, although they do not wish to, then the matter which is an important one, should be stated in the grand style, and in a manner adapted to move their hearts." To move the heart is the ultimate goal of rhetoric. How one goes about doing that is based on the discourse. Tone, inflection, vocabulary, etc. all play a role in moving the heart. But what I see as being true and virtuous is keeping the message the same no matter the audience.
So to sum up, rhetoric has transformed from the ancients, but the ancients have not been forgotten. They sometimes are not recognized or credited by the new philosophers and rhetors, but they have influenced the Renaissance period. Rhetoric transformed to include theology and science, but isn't the goal virtually the same?
Monday, September 7, 2009
The Art of Elegance
Reading about the 'rounded education' was very familiar to me - grammar, arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy, logic, and rhetoric. I never, however, connected any of this with the study of style. I've always known style to be present in writing, but I really have never put two and two together - so to say -until after reading the chapters assigned for this week. Composition, for me, has never really been an art form, but looking at the five component parts of rhetoric centered on an analysis of this art gave me a little bit of an 'ah-ha' moment. "Invention, the modes of discovering arguments; arrangement; expression, which included the study of style in argumentation; memory; and delivery, including both pronunciation and gesture" (30) are the five components Conley describes. I suppose this explanation lends itself to style and an art form. As a teacher, I have been going through the motions of teaching these five components not really thinking about how powerful they can be.
What I got from the readings is that rhetoric is an art form that can allow individuals to draw conclusions of their own based on the delivery of the message given. The means of delivery portray how righteous and true the speaker is. We were introduced to Cicero and the ideal orator. I see a lot of the Ciceronian theory alive today. The better the speaker, the better the person. After I read all of the readings this week, I immediately thought of George W. Bush and President Obama. Eloquence is essential to delivery and style. I think back to the addresses of the former president and how ignorant he sometimes sounded. His message was lost because he was not an elegant speaker, even though he had sometimes very good and sometimes very questionable messages, as do all politicians. Then I compared him to our current president, who is a phenomenal speaker. He is very poised and sounds very educated. His style creates that impression for many Americans. So how does this relate to the reading? Well, looking at what Pliny said about Trajan and how it was said, it is apparent that style matters. Pliny was able to mix the facts with ideals and create expectations that are acceptable for everyone.
Elegance is impressive. Dancers, women, clothing, jewelery, etc. that is considered elegant is often admired. When something is admired it is sometimes coveted. And when something is coveted, it can often be stolen or imitated. People say imitation is the greatest compliment; so it seems to me that when Cicero, Quintilian, Pliny, Philodemus, and Dionysius took from their predecessors and teachers, they were admiring, coveting, and imitating ideals and theories to create elegance in their rhetoric. This relates to my favorite quote on pg 43 of Conley: "Rhetoric did not wither under the emperors, it just changed tactics." This statement is true throughout history and that is how style creates the message and the response, the elegance.
The argument that rhetoric is an art form remains to be seen; however, the ability to speak to many and change the impression of thought is definitely a talent. I don't know if talent and art are interchangeable. Speaking publicly takes practice, writing well takes practice, communicating thoughts clearly takes practice, so if this is to be considered art, then art is in the eye of the beholder.
What I got from the readings is that rhetoric is an art form that can allow individuals to draw conclusions of their own based on the delivery of the message given. The means of delivery portray how righteous and true the speaker is. We were introduced to Cicero and the ideal orator. I see a lot of the Ciceronian theory alive today. The better the speaker, the better the person. After I read all of the readings this week, I immediately thought of George W. Bush and President Obama. Eloquence is essential to delivery and style. I think back to the addresses of the former president and how ignorant he sometimes sounded. His message was lost because he was not an elegant speaker, even though he had sometimes very good and sometimes very questionable messages, as do all politicians. Then I compared him to our current president, who is a phenomenal speaker. He is very poised and sounds very educated. His style creates that impression for many Americans. So how does this relate to the reading? Well, looking at what Pliny said about Trajan and how it was said, it is apparent that style matters. Pliny was able to mix the facts with ideals and create expectations that are acceptable for everyone.
Elegance is impressive. Dancers, women, clothing, jewelery, etc. that is considered elegant is often admired. When something is admired it is sometimes coveted. And when something is coveted, it can often be stolen or imitated. People say imitation is the greatest compliment; so it seems to me that when Cicero, Quintilian, Pliny, Philodemus, and Dionysius took from their predecessors and teachers, they were admiring, coveting, and imitating ideals and theories to create elegance in their rhetoric. This relates to my favorite quote on pg 43 of Conley: "Rhetoric did not wither under the emperors, it just changed tactics." This statement is true throughout history and that is how style creates the message and the response, the elegance.
The argument that rhetoric is an art form remains to be seen; however, the ability to speak to many and change the impression of thought is definitely a talent. I don't know if talent and art are interchangeable. Speaking publicly takes practice, writing well takes practice, communicating thoughts clearly takes practice, so if this is to be considered art, then art is in the eye of the beholder.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Classical Greek Rhetorics
The first chapter of Conley's book offers a really brief explanation of rhetoric. I think my favorite line from the chapter is on pg. 2 toward the bottom: "...having might is equated with being right." This statement offers us an insight to how the ancients viewed rhetoric and its purpose. The words art and manipulation appeared and were implied throughout the chapter making me wonder how much of rhetoric is based on these two words. Therefore, this led me to believe that rhetoric of this time was not about finding the truth, but entertaining an audience with opinion causing the audience to believe that the opinion was truth. What a mouthful of manipulation ("the art of persuasion").
I feel this chapter really allowed me to better understand the chapters about the ancients in Matsen's book. The different approaches to rhetoric by the ancients in this book gave me a visual of each situation. To actually see the rhetoric, the speech, and the audience portrayed side by side as they were was insightful. I was able to determine who I thought was 'good' and who I thought was 'bad' for lack of better terms. As I read, I found myself relating these gentlemen to my students and what I tell them about "the art of persuasion". We focus on the appeals (ethos, logos, and pathos) in all of our writing not necessarily looking for the right answer or the true answer, but how to persuade, argue, and communicate with one another. I believe Aristotle had the right theory. Plato is a bit strong for an average classroom; but really, how many times in reality does embarrassing or degrading someone cause that person to want to change? It may not be the most effective way of persuasion, but it does sometimes work.
As I read the two books, I kept thinking about Brutus and Cassius in Julius Caesar. Two totally different speeches about the same event, but which one was more effective and why? Words can give us power; and what we decide to do with that power is up to us. If we can reach the masses, then we have the control; if we have control, then we have power.
I feel this chapter really allowed me to better understand the chapters about the ancients in Matsen's book. The different approaches to rhetoric by the ancients in this book gave me a visual of each situation. To actually see the rhetoric, the speech, and the audience portrayed side by side as they were was insightful. I was able to determine who I thought was 'good' and who I thought was 'bad' for lack of better terms. As I read, I found myself relating these gentlemen to my students and what I tell them about "the art of persuasion". We focus on the appeals (ethos, logos, and pathos) in all of our writing not necessarily looking for the right answer or the true answer, but how to persuade, argue, and communicate with one another. I believe Aristotle had the right theory. Plato is a bit strong for an average classroom; but really, how many times in reality does embarrassing or degrading someone cause that person to want to change? It may not be the most effective way of persuasion, but it does sometimes work.
As I read the two books, I kept thinking about Brutus and Cassius in Julius Caesar. Two totally different speeches about the same event, but which one was more effective and why? Words can give us power; and what we decide to do with that power is up to us. If we can reach the masses, then we have the control; if we have control, then we have power.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
As I See It...
I must say, I have definitely changed my outlook on teaching composition in the high school language arts classroom. I have kept what I believe works well for me in the composition classroom (the old school methods), but have also embraced the other philosophies about writing in the classroom. This has been quite a journey for me, but I believe that I have become a better teacher through this experience in 501.
My teaching practices have changed over the course of this semester. I am more open to new teaching strategies concerning composition. We teach how we were taught, that is usually what happens to most teachers. Whether we learn from our own teachers in school or our peers in our department we tend to mimic those people. Stagnation becomes an issue for teachers who do not look to advance their teaching methods. Becoming stagnant causes out-dated teachers. I was beginning to feel that way. But now, I am looking outside the box and experimenting with the philosophies I have learned about composition. It is okay to use first person pronouns in a formal piece of writing, it is acceptable to not focus so much on grammatical mistakes and errors in an essay (that was a difficult one to accept), and technology is not the devil. I wouldn't say I have compromised my pedagogical beliefs in the classroom, only modified them. I think giving students more control over their writing allows them to produce a well-written document. Teaching them the processes of thinking, writing, articulating, listening, etc. empowers them to find success in any task they attempt to complete.
I feel I no longer need to focus on the modes of writing; I still need to teach the modes of writing as methods to communicate, but when to use those modes is more important than actually spending the time teaching them. Student need the freedom to find thier own voice in thier writing; once they do that, they will find success in a trusted learning environment only because the teacher allows for that to happen. I want my kids to be able to communicate what they think in a very clear, precise manner while having the ability to address many different types of audiences. The process by which it takes to get to the final convincing product is what matters most. They will be able to communicate, articulate, and influence many different people by thinking about what they have to say.
My teaching practices have changed over the course of this semester. I am more open to new teaching strategies concerning composition. We teach how we were taught, that is usually what happens to most teachers. Whether we learn from our own teachers in school or our peers in our department we tend to mimic those people. Stagnation becomes an issue for teachers who do not look to advance their teaching methods. Becoming stagnant causes out-dated teachers. I was beginning to feel that way. But now, I am looking outside the box and experimenting with the philosophies I have learned about composition. It is okay to use first person pronouns in a formal piece of writing, it is acceptable to not focus so much on grammatical mistakes and errors in an essay (that was a difficult one to accept), and technology is not the devil. I wouldn't say I have compromised my pedagogical beliefs in the classroom, only modified them. I think giving students more control over their writing allows them to produce a well-written document. Teaching them the processes of thinking, writing, articulating, listening, etc. empowers them to find success in any task they attempt to complete.
I feel I no longer need to focus on the modes of writing; I still need to teach the modes of writing as methods to communicate, but when to use those modes is more important than actually spending the time teaching them. Student need the freedom to find thier own voice in thier writing; once they do that, they will find success in a trusted learning environment only because the teacher allows for that to happen. I want my kids to be able to communicate what they think in a very clear, precise manner while having the ability to address many different types of audiences. The process by which it takes to get to the final convincing product is what matters most. They will be able to communicate, articulate, and influence many different people by thinking about what they have to say.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
My Teaching Philosophy
I believe all students can learn and they all have the same opportunity to be successful. There it is in a nutshell. I know it sounds generic, so I will explain.
As a teacher, I give all of my students the same opportunity to be successful in my classroom. What they decide to do with that opportunity is up to them. They choose to come to class, to do the work, to participate and learn. I cannot force that upon anyone. In order for that to happen, my students must feel safe in the environment I create as the teacher. I give my students a lot of freedom in the classroom. It is all about choices and consequences; and if they do not like the consequences, then they need to make the appropriate choices. I remind them that there are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened; then I ask them which category do they or will they belong.
Respect is key in this process of teaching. I respect my students; therefore they respect me. There may be some students who do not like me and visa verse, but we still have respect for one another. Because I respect them and they me, discipline is not an issue and they accept the consequences of their choices without complaint. It all comes down to do they want to be successful and graduate? I am there to provide assistance, guidance, and knowledge to help them be productive in an environment very foreign to them after graduation. I would hope they take from me what they need to prosper in society.
My teaching philosophy is not about English, composition, or Language Arts, it can't be. My teaching philosophy is about the students and their needs. Content will always be present, and I will teach them to be literate in all areas I can; but these kids are my future and my daughter's future, how do I prepare them to observe, participate, and lead so we all benefit?
As a teacher, I give all of my students the same opportunity to be successful in my classroom. What they decide to do with that opportunity is up to them. They choose to come to class, to do the work, to participate and learn. I cannot force that upon anyone. In order for that to happen, my students must feel safe in the environment I create as the teacher. I give my students a lot of freedom in the classroom. It is all about choices and consequences; and if they do not like the consequences, then they need to make the appropriate choices. I remind them that there are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened; then I ask them which category do they or will they belong.
Respect is key in this process of teaching. I respect my students; therefore they respect me. There may be some students who do not like me and visa verse, but we still have respect for one another. Because I respect them and they me, discipline is not an issue and they accept the consequences of their choices without complaint. It all comes down to do they want to be successful and graduate? I am there to provide assistance, guidance, and knowledge to help them be productive in an environment very foreign to them after graduation. I would hope they take from me what they need to prosper in society.
My teaching philosophy is not about English, composition, or Language Arts, it can't be. My teaching philosophy is about the students and their needs. Content will always be present, and I will teach them to be literate in all areas I can; but these kids are my future and my daughter's future, how do I prepare them to observe, participate, and lead so we all benefit?
Lindemann doesn't know Literature!
Okay, my biggest problem with Erika Lindemann is her idea of losing literature in a composition classroom. I understand her take on the composition classroom and that it is strictly to teach composition; but seriously, studnets need content in order to write. Literature offers a great springboard for composition; and if the teacher knows how to incorporate the literature into the curriculum without turning the classroom into a literature course, then why not use all forms of literature in a composition classroom?
Lindemann seems to go against what the other theorists believe. She wants a comp. class to be only a comp. class. Nevermind the social learning that Bruffe discusses, or the arguing Graff urges, the collaboration encouraged by Lunsford, and the cultural, personal, and academic discourses Bizzell wants in a classroom; no, no, no, only composition. That is what I got from Lindemann. Writing is difficult, and good writing is almost impossible according to her. I think she has it backwards. If a teacher uses fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, etc. in a composition classroom then teaches the students how to synthesize and analyze (how to think) then writing is meaningful. Outside of an English class students are going to need to know how to synthesize and analyze in any profession. It is the thinking and the skill that is required to write well.
I can teach Hamlet or Skinner's Walden Two to my composition students and teach them how to write in various genres using the literature. Look to the literature as a means for teaching social interaction, historical significance so our students are not culturally illiterate, and analysis of situation. I cannot embrace Ms. Lindemann and her theory about axing literature in a composition classroom. If that is the case, then let us go back to focusing solely on grammar, vocabulary, conventions and forget about how literature can assist in these areas in a composition classroom. I am sorry, but reading and speaking improve writing; and it is the teacher's responsibility to understand how to use literature to teach composition responsibly. Later Lindemann!
Lindemann seems to go against what the other theorists believe. She wants a comp. class to be only a comp. class. Nevermind the social learning that Bruffe discusses, or the arguing Graff urges, the collaboration encouraged by Lunsford, and the cultural, personal, and academic discourses Bizzell wants in a classroom; no, no, no, only composition. That is what I got from Lindemann. Writing is difficult, and good writing is almost impossible according to her. I think she has it backwards. If a teacher uses fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, etc. in a composition classroom then teaches the students how to synthesize and analyze (how to think) then writing is meaningful. Outside of an English class students are going to need to know how to synthesize and analyze in any profession. It is the thinking and the skill that is required to write well.
I can teach Hamlet or Skinner's Walden Two to my composition students and teach them how to write in various genres using the literature. Look to the literature as a means for teaching social interaction, historical significance so our students are not culturally illiterate, and analysis of situation. I cannot embrace Ms. Lindemann and her theory about axing literature in a composition classroom. If that is the case, then let us go back to focusing solely on grammar, vocabulary, conventions and forget about how literature can assist in these areas in a composition classroom. I am sorry, but reading and speaking improve writing; and it is the teacher's responsibility to understand how to use literature to teach composition responsibly. Later Lindemann!
Technology and Selfe
Cynthia Selfe obviously loves technology. She wants teachers and students alike to use it in the classroom. And I think she is absolutely right. We as educators must become literate in technology; and when we begin to refuse the technology, then it is time to retire or find a new job. Not only are we trying to prepare our students for a global society, as Yancey hopes, we are preparing ourselves for a paradigm shift in education. If we do not keep up with the current trends in our students' world, then we will not advance and will continue harming students' and their education. This is not your grandma's or mom's education any longer.
However, Selfe does not want teachers to teach students to be 'technology indulgers'. There has to be a happy medium; everything in moderation, right? Students need to know how to use academic and professional technology in order to be successful. They know how to play their xbox and Wii gaming systems (so do I, love it!), bypass filters on school computers (as do I ), and use their cell phones to the maximum capacity (the kids had to teach me that one). But what if they used all of their computer knowledge for good as well? I was surprised that I knew what twitter and tweet meant before they did. I also am utilizing my classroom web page for blogging, message boarding, on-line quizzes, homework drops, etc. so my students will have a heads-up in college over their peers. At least that is what I hope.
I understand that not all students have a personal computer, but I do not see that as something that can hinder a student's technological advancement in the classroom and world of academia. A lot of my students do not have computers at home, but we have seven libraries with several computer labs they have access to. I do not accept "I don't have a computer at home" or "my printer isn't working" as excuses any more; email me the work, hotmail will set up a free account for anyone, and I will help you with any problems you may encounter. This is where I disagree with Selfe. As an English teacher who uses technology quite regularly in my classroom, I do not see the technology as a means of oppression; it is definitely a means of liberation for anyone at any age. Technology does not discriminate; get with the times or fall behind.
However, Selfe does not want teachers to teach students to be 'technology indulgers'. There has to be a happy medium; everything in moderation, right? Students need to know how to use academic and professional technology in order to be successful. They know how to play their xbox and Wii gaming systems (so do I, love it!), bypass filters on school computers (as do I ), and use their cell phones to the maximum capacity (the kids had to teach me that one). But what if they used all of their computer knowledge for good as well? I was surprised that I knew what twitter and tweet meant before they did. I also am utilizing my classroom web page for blogging, message boarding, on-line quizzes, homework drops, etc. so my students will have a heads-up in college over their peers. At least that is what I hope.
I understand that not all students have a personal computer, but I do not see that as something that can hinder a student's technological advancement in the classroom and world of academia. A lot of my students do not have computers at home, but we have seven libraries with several computer labs they have access to. I do not accept "I don't have a computer at home" or "my printer isn't working" as excuses any more; email me the work, hotmail will set up a free account for anyone, and I will help you with any problems you may encounter. This is where I disagree with Selfe. As an English teacher who uses technology quite regularly in my classroom, I do not see the technology as a means of oppression; it is definitely a means of liberation for anyone at any age. Technology does not discriminate; get with the times or fall behind.
Cool, Yancey and Turner talked to each other!
I think it is fantastic that Rhonda had the opportunity to actually speak with the theorist she was presenting. What a great opportunity to combine what has been published and compare it to what is actually said by the person researched. KUDOS to you, Rhonda!
It seems to me that the more modern theorists are realizing that teaching and learning are changing and so must the classroom environment. Yancey says she is student-centered and knows that teachers have a 'lasing effect on our students" (Turner). Of course we do, depending on what level we teach, we see, talk, and spend more time with the kids in our classroom than they do with their parents (that's scary). We, as a teaching community, have a responsibility to nurture our students into productive and prosperous citizens once they leave our care. It takes a village to raise a child, right? No longer can teachers teach in the "vacuum" we so constantly refer to. Reading and writing are very important skills because the foster communication; but teachers can no longer be 'all about me and my knowledge', they need to be open to the knowledge and individuality of their students. That is what Yancey proposes.
From what I gather about Yancey, she wants teachers to hold themselves more accountable in the classroom. Her major questions seem to center around the student and their future productivity in society. The word literacy creeps up again and again. Literacy is no longer knowing how to read and write, but how to communicate. Rhonda said that Yancey believes that "creating writing publics creates the development of citizens...civic literacy is global." How are our students going to compete globally if we do not prepare them for a global society? Yancey obviously wants to give students the tools necessary for global competition and global success.
It seems to me that the more modern theorists are realizing that teaching and learning are changing and so must the classroom environment. Yancey says she is student-centered and knows that teachers have a 'lasing effect on our students" (Turner). Of course we do, depending on what level we teach, we see, talk, and spend more time with the kids in our classroom than they do with their parents (that's scary). We, as a teaching community, have a responsibility to nurture our students into productive and prosperous citizens once they leave our care. It takes a village to raise a child, right? No longer can teachers teach in the "vacuum" we so constantly refer to. Reading and writing are very important skills because the foster communication; but teachers can no longer be 'all about me and my knowledge', they need to be open to the knowledge and individuality of their students. That is what Yancey proposes.
From what I gather about Yancey, she wants teachers to hold themselves more accountable in the classroom. Her major questions seem to center around the student and their future productivity in society. The word literacy creeps up again and again. Literacy is no longer knowing how to read and write, but how to communicate. Rhonda said that Yancey believes that "creating writing publics creates the development of citizens...civic literacy is global." How are our students going to compete globally if we do not prepare them for a global society? Yancey obviously wants to give students the tools necessary for global competition and global success.
Bruffee and Collaborative Learning
Thomas' presentation on Kenneth Bruffee was interesting and insightful, as have been the other presentations on the previous theorists we have studied and read. As far as I can see, these theorists are only reinventing the wheel. They are influenced by previous theorists, or those they have studied with or under. That seems to be the common theme found through Bruffee; learning is a social activity, not an individual or personal process. Everyone learns something from someone else; that's it, end of story.
A lot of what Bruffee says makes sense, especially for a classroom setting. Peer tutoring enables students to join a social conversation and learn how to socialize in a particular discourse community. In groups, students (people for that matter) learn through a collaborative effort to create and maintain knowledge. As human beings this is what we do on a daily, hourly, and minute by minute basis. However, peer tutoring is what I have a problem with. I believe the teacher/instructor/facilitator must set very specific norms for the groups. I hate peer tutoring and total collaboration (Ms. Lunsford). But I am willing to accept that it can be beneficial for students to communicate with their peers in order to grasp a concept in any discipline taught. Which leads to Bruffee's theory that writing is the center of any curriculum.
This sounds a lot like Burns in the sense that all teachers are Language Arts teachers - we all teach reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills. What teacher in what content does not do that? Bruffee also believes that the teacher's role is to engage students in various conversations and model several social communities or discourses in the classroom while the student learns to think. Can we say Bizzell? Seriously, none of this is new, only reused or revamped. I know that I will eventually come up with my own theory and it will be based on what I have learned in this class, in my school/classroom, from my students, my colleagues, and peers. I will not totally agree with or totally disagree with any one theorist, professor, colleague, or peer I may encounter throughout this endeavor; but I will take from each what I believe is useful and necessary to create the proper composition classroom for students to learn what they need in order to be successful at any level.
A lot of what Bruffee says makes sense, especially for a classroom setting. Peer tutoring enables students to join a social conversation and learn how to socialize in a particular discourse community. In groups, students (people for that matter) learn through a collaborative effort to create and maintain knowledge. As human beings this is what we do on a daily, hourly, and minute by minute basis. However, peer tutoring is what I have a problem with. I believe the teacher/instructor/facilitator must set very specific norms for the groups. I hate peer tutoring and total collaboration (Ms. Lunsford). But I am willing to accept that it can be beneficial for students to communicate with their peers in order to grasp a concept in any discipline taught. Which leads to Bruffee's theory that writing is the center of any curriculum.
This sounds a lot like Burns in the sense that all teachers are Language Arts teachers - we all teach reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills. What teacher in what content does not do that? Bruffee also believes that the teacher's role is to engage students in various conversations and model several social communities or discourses in the classroom while the student learns to think. Can we say Bizzell? Seriously, none of this is new, only reused or revamped. I know that I will eventually come up with my own theory and it will be based on what I have learned in this class, in my school/classroom, from my students, my colleagues, and peers. I will not totally agree with or totally disagree with any one theorist, professor, colleague, or peer I may encounter throughout this endeavor; but I will take from each what I believe is useful and necessary to create the proper composition classroom for students to learn what they need in order to be successful at any level.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
I Will Be Brief, Clear, and Sincere...
Nic did an excellent job presenting Richard Lanham. I must say that as an educator I like what Lanham had to say about writing. He seems to say that students need to write in a way that is clear for the readers to understand the meaning and message. We as educators need to accept the false assumption Lanham addresses and move teaching composition into the right direction - be brief, clear, and sincere.
Having been an expert witness and literary consultant, Lanham would know a lot about being brief and clear. In a courtroom, one must get to the point. This leads to his paramedic method of revision. If a writer follows the steps he offers, then the writing will become brief and clearer when completed. Get past the froo-froo and get to the meat. I really like that. I know how my students write; and when they use the electronic thesarus, I am well aware of that fact. They are writing a lot of words but really saying nothing.
I agree with Lanham when he says schools need to take a more democratic approach to learning. He seems to coincide with Bartholomae in this sense. Bartholomae wants students to know what the academic writing is and then move against the culutural commonplaces that determine how students write. What Lanham says about technology and the media format being the more democratic approach to learning is key. Students now are very sef-centered and want everything instantaneously; they are the 'economy of attention', as Lanham states, fighting for attention to the me. Technology urges this attitude, especially the world-wide web. If this attitude could be harnessed in a way that is beneficial for all students, then most students would be well seen, heard and read - this is what they need in order to be digitally literate.
I don't think, however, that style is more important than substance. Style should come later. Here Graff peeks his head into the discussion. Students must know the conflict or the topic in order to write cohesively. Style and voice come later.
Richard Lanham is definitely one theorist whom has very valid points and ideas. Mixed with the other ideas and theories, his could work very well.
Having been an expert witness and literary consultant, Lanham would know a lot about being brief and clear. In a courtroom, one must get to the point. This leads to his paramedic method of revision. If a writer follows the steps he offers, then the writing will become brief and clearer when completed. Get past the froo-froo and get to the meat. I really like that. I know how my students write; and when they use the electronic thesarus, I am well aware of that fact. They are writing a lot of words but really saying nothing.
I agree with Lanham when he says schools need to take a more democratic approach to learning. He seems to coincide with Bartholomae in this sense. Bartholomae wants students to know what the academic writing is and then move against the culutural commonplaces that determine how students write. What Lanham says about technology and the media format being the more democratic approach to learning is key. Students now are very sef-centered and want everything instantaneously; they are the 'economy of attention', as Lanham states, fighting for attention to the me. Technology urges this attitude, especially the world-wide web. If this attitude could be harnessed in a way that is beneficial for all students, then most students would be well seen, heard and read - this is what they need in order to be digitally literate.
I don't think, however, that style is more important than substance. Style should come later. Here Graff peeks his head into the discussion. Students must know the conflict or the topic in order to write cohesively. Style and voice come later.
Richard Lanham is definitely one theorist whom has very valid points and ideas. Mixed with the other ideas and theories, his could work very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
