Classrooms as Contact Zones

Contact Zones

        Bizzell talks extensively about the idea of creating and navigating "contact zones" in the world, and in the classroom environment in general. This idea is super interesting to me so I feel like I want to spend some time with it to kind of work it out. A contact zone is a place where cultures clash and grapple usually in asymmetrical power situations. Is a classroom an asymmetrical power situation? I would say yes. Here, in English or any other discipline, we have a large amount of diverse people. Especially in a freshman composition course, this diversification is much larger because it is required by all the disciplines at this point in time. I believe that this creates contact zones and gives us, as instructors and graders, a chance to grapple with all of these different cultures and viewpoints. In a freshman composition course you'll always have those engineers who do not see the need for such writing. It's here where a contact zone is made. This engineer has been enculturated in to a space where he/she thinks that writing is not important. This is where the instructor for freshman composition has a chance to take advantage of the obvious contact zone that is made between them and their student. It's a place where we can learn how they work and help them understand our culture and vice versa. This idea of a contact zone is a huge deal to me. I think that it is most certainly the way to look at teaching any course and improve the pedagogy, and the interest, of the freshman composition course.

Theories of Process

Process Theory

        When looking over the writings of Berlin, Faigley, and Fulkerson I came across the process theory. Mainly in Faigley's article, but the principles he brings to the front apply across the board. In essence, the competing theories approach the teaching of composition from different angles and how they are classified is decided on which parts of the process they focus on. For Faigley, he tries to work out the writing process using these parts as an "organic" whole. I would have to agree with Faigley in the sense that the writing process is organic. It comes from within the writer and the process itself is unique to the individual. The process theories that try to classify the theory in to some "standard" process are wholly unusable. The teachers who stress the format and the process tend to push away the student more than invite them in to the process itself. It becomes an action of tapping in to one's own self and composing rather than following some strict process to produce "good writing" every single time. 

        The other thing Faigley notes is that when people look at the process they tend to look at it as historically "static". Faigley, and myself, believe that the process of writing is "dynamic". There are too many social, economic, and historical factors that change the process of writing radically from one generation to the next. Can on process be prevalent in one generation and gone in the next? Possibly. However, it may still live on through others who've adopted it because it works for them and they've put their own spin on it. Composing good writing does not come from some strict writing template. There is no "right" or "wrong" process to composing a document or essay. It is finding that inner writer, that "organicness", that makes a piece of "good writing".

The Silence of Women in Academia

Silencing Feminine Voices

        This blog post is a bit late, but I've been pondering on the subject of feminization for a while now. Now that we're moving off of that subject this post may not be very interesting, but I thought I'd give it a go anyways. After reading what we read last week, my view on females in the academic world has changed radically. I had no idea the extent that men will go to secure their "place" in the academic world and to "protect" it from being feminized. After reading Bloom, it just struck me that I've never encountered such a force against me in my entire life. It's always been something different like money, time, or logistics. Never have I had a group of women who had it out for their field, and for me in the process, try to stop my progression.

       This type of thing I hope will stop or become less prevalent in the new generation and wave of graduate students coming out today. However, the question still bangs around in my mind. Will the stereotypes and split between genders ever be resolvable? Will either side come together to try to stop these seemingly obvious injustices? I'm not 100% converted to feminism, however, I think that the opportunity should be equal to all who try and succeed at putting themselves in the academic world.

In My Defense of Feminization

Feminization in the discipline

        First off, I'd like to address the apparent conflict I may have had with my view on feminism. I made the stance that I do support equality across the spectrum, but I did not like the militant feminist regime. I was met with the response, "I think there are more people who say that then there are actually militant feminists" or something to that effect. I got to thinking about our discussion about essentialism and how we attribute or ascribe certain values to things in our culture. I am guilty of that in my stance against militant feminism. I think that I took a small sample of feminists and applied it to the movement as a whole, which was not my intention.

       With that being said, I'd like to defend the "feminization" of the field as a whole. If Composition was being compared to say, Engineering, which would be considered more "masculine"? This idea of essentialism, what makes something exclusively masculine or feminine, permeates every field in education in general. In my previous example most would be inclined to say that the Composition course is more "feminine". Why? Is it because Composition is supposed to invoke more "creativity" which is considered a more feminine trait? I think my point here is that even though it permeates our disciplines it also helps to enrich it. This idea that something is strictly feminine or masculine is outdated and ridiculous. We have here a binary, which in actuality is not a binary at all. The apparent femininity or masculinity of a field is not essentialist because there is not an "essential" man or an "essential" woman. In today's society we have stay at home dads and women in the workplace providing for families. These sorts of essentialist views just do not work in today's society. In fact, the view of the field of Composition being "feminized" actually gives the field more of a place to stand out and combat other fields that are seen as more "masculine". As a field seen through this "feminized" lens we can use it to our advantage to break down other fields in to what they'd consider their "essentialist" parts and expose the possibility that every discipline is "feminized" or "masculine" in different ways. Engineers would hate this, hell, any Science or Math based discipline would hate this. What I say though is that we seize this view and use it to our advantage to advance the discipline and walk in stride next to others using this as a pillar in our arguments. 

Regarding Freshman Composition

What is Freshman Composition?

        We were given an idea in class this week that I've been pondering for a few days now and finally have the time and proper thought to post. What is Freshman Composition? Now, everyone has a different view of how it should be classified and how it should be taught. Based on the readings that we've had in the past month and my own personal thoughts on the process I'll try to publish my thoughts here as organized ramblings.

        First, I think that lumping in Composition with Literature and the broader spectrum of English is a necessary evil. Composition is more about teaching and learning to write, yes, but at the same time a good solid base in reading literature or any kind of writing is necessary to spark the Composition fire inside of a student who is willing to learn. There have been many discussions on the practice/theory split, which in my opinion is not a split at all, and how it affects the field as it is today. I think there should be a healthy balance between the practice and the theory of Composition in the classroom because one cannot really exist without the other. You cannot have a practice without some sort of grounding in theory and theory cannot operate on its own independent of practice. Can a teacher favor one over the other? Sure. However, no teacher goes in to a classroom with no knowledge, however small it may be, of theory. 

        Second, I do not believe that Composition is a "service" course. It should not be regarded as the grunt work of English or any discipline. The reason that it is instituted and required by every major is because it is a core component to any human to be able to express themselves freely. In order to be a functioning voice in a society the ability to write and communicate efficiently and clearly is an absolute must. All of the engineers who think that they will never need these writing skills, even basic ones, are flailing in the professional market because they cannot write a simple email to their boss without sounding juvenile or flat. In a world that is increasingly turning to words and media to help communication these skills are more important than ever. Technology does not stop because people cannot use it effectively. The ones who embrace the new forms of communication, which are increasingly textual, become successful and the others wonder what is hampering their trajectory. The Composition course is a vital part of becoming a well rounded person and contributing to society as a whole.

        Overall, these two major points stick out in my mind as a reason for the Composition course to stay around and to stay attached to English as a whole. I think that it is becoming apparent that the field is needed more than ever within our society with blossoming technology and I think that if Composition were to disappear we may end up like the vision of the world in Mike Judge's Idiocracy.

English Binaries and Composition

Binaries and Composition

        It seems that the reading for Tuesday incorporates something that is present in all fields of English, binaries. I'm going to pull from some of my other reading in my Foundations for Technical Communication, but the idea remains the same across the board to Composition. Binaries and the power/knowledge system that surrounds most disciplines is at the heart of Composition's own identity. It seems that we have many of them: Theory/Practice, science/humanism, etc. These binaries present a tension in the fields and disciplines that we are reading about and it seems to me that you have to fall on either one side or the other.

        For me, I fall on the side of practice more than I do on the side of theory. While theory seems give rise to ideas, practice is taking those ideas and putting them in to action. Composition, in essence, seems to be a "service" course because of its inherent formulaic nature. However, Composition is merely the application of the theory and pedagogy surrounding writing. The reason that Composition, and TCR to some extent, have been able to garner so much more research funding is because of their applicability to the work force and the contribution to the general "fund" of knowledge that exists in the world. Do I agree that pedagogical implications should be applied to every theory or idea written? No. However, I do believe that in order to become more "fundable" or applicable a pedagogical tie does help. I'm not discounting theory completely as not contributing to the "fund" of knowledge, I'm simply separating it from the practical uses of Composition. It seems that many graduate students have strong feelings towards theses binaries. I just chose one here to express my interest in and I don't think that they can ever be resolved. The fact that we keep these binaries alive helps the perpetuation of our fields and helped Composition become a discipline that is recognized on a national level. Without the binaries, we don't have any way to navigate the power struggles and competition between the disciplines either in science/math, or withing English itself.

Philosophy of Composition: Help or Hurt?

Who teaches Composition?

        In Zorn's article that was sent to the class he brings up a very interesting idea that coincides with what we talked about in class this past week. I've been pondering the whole idea that Composition is taught by lowly TA and Graduate students and we can all see why that is probably not a good idea. However, Zorn says that English Composition courses are suffering and failing because we, as a university, appoint English professors who have lost touch with what Composition is to direct the courses. He says that English professors are too over philosophical and bring too much in to the course that has nothing to do with Composition.

        This idea brings to mind the solution to the problem. I firmly believe that in order for Freshman Comp. to be a valuable field and not be discounted as "service" work we need to bring in people who are passionate about Composition and Writing in a more practical sense. Not just on the academic level, but all levels in which writing is used to prepare students to read, think and write critically. Restricting this fields academic pool to those with PhDs and Graduate students who are otherwise occupied, we need to broaden our fields view. Bringing in instructors and BA holders would greatly increase our fields presence while improving its view from the outside. Obviously, there would need to be criterion added to the hiring process to determine if they are passionate or strong enough of a writer to apply that to the classroom. However, those are the finer details. Until we can broaden our view and hiring pool I think that Freshman Comp. will just continue going in the opposite direction that most English students wished it would go.

Visions of English Dept.

A Vision of the English Department

        An odd thought struck me as someone pointed out that the reason English Departments had been split in to so many different disciplines was because of the nature of English to "gobble up" everything around it. After reading Parker and Berlin, I think I would side more with the Berlin approach to why and how English Departments exist. I don't necessarily disagree with the theory that English has the potential to "gobble up" its surrounding disciplines. However, I do think that English and rhetoric itself governs most, if not all, of the disciplines. Without rhetoric or English there would be a huge pile of knowledge at our fingertips, but no way to organize or to express that knowledge in a way that would contribute to the betterment of humanity. Now, I've obviously pigeonholed English into the English language and rhetoric when, as pointed out in class, it exists in other countries and cultures where it doesn't encompass Literature and Composition, but the actual language itself as a foreign or secondary language. 

        In my vision of what the English department is or what it does, I want to confine it within the realm of English as a liberal arts or rhetoric, not as ESL. That is very narrow, but I believe that the function of many English departments as of today are centered and focused on the teaching of writing and composing to a general mass of students who will ultimately need these skills in the job market. Berlin specifically points to socio-economic tensions affecting the way in which English departments are perceived and developed at any given point in time. English is dynamic in its teachings and fits to the time in which is immediate around it. In 2013, students who are not English majors are required to take Composition course to at least come in to contact with the writing and composing skills to better their job hunt after the university. This type of commercialization of higher education has been around for a while, although not forever. If, at this point in the history of time, we are using university to perpetuate a job market then I do think that the university ideal as a whole is off its rocker. However, if we can connect English Departments across disciplines we may be able to not only produce a potential work force, but well rounded humans in general. This is critical to the survivability and versatility of society and thought. Although I am idealistic in thinking that this type of system would work, I know that its application may be difficult if not impossible.