For Your Consideration E501

In E501 we are discussing whether there really is such a thing as the solitary author, alone with discrete knowledge, with reasoning manufactured from within without outside influence? Or is the idea of all work and knowledge as collaborative and defined by social negotiations, as Kenneth Bruffee proclaims, true? Is the writing we do just recycled knowledge debated and accepted within our discourse communities? Is knowledge only a product of collaboration?

About the same time as I read Bruffee in E501, I read something corresponding in a reading assignment for E637. I got a nice refresher in American history. And, as often happens in my grad program, information I read in one class is relevant for another. Enter John Locke and his theories on how humans acquire knowledge.

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote in, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, how we acquire the materials of knowledge-epistemologically speaking-basically finding out how we know what we know. In Locke’s theory the mind is a tabula rasa or blank sheet, waiting for us to inscribe knowledge through experience and reflection.  (Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy)  Sound familiar? Bruffee gets close to this notion of the lack of individual knowledge by saying we eventually experience learning through collaboration…

Of course, this theory of the mind as a tabula rasa, or clean slate, remains a controversial topic as other social groups have picked up the theory as a way to explain the absence of intrinsic knowledge. Often the theory’s tenets are twisted and it just comes across as discrimination as can be read in “The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination: Racisim in America” by Jean Lau Chin.

In American history, the founding fathers applied Locke’s theory as a persuasive ideal to build knowledge on an erased Nationalistic slate, a clean start, after British repression. They implemented the ideal of a “do over” for the populous as a positive.  Along with this social clemency, they taught a moral philosophy of civic virtues, then adopted and dispersed it to the colonies as a means to unify a nation under one identity.

In E501 we read Kenneth Bruffee’s Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’ where he makes the claim that we only have knowledge once we collaborate in groups. Do we each have stand alone knowledge or do we have to wait until we find a few people to talk amongst (Here’s a topic!) and figure out where we stand? Of course not, we all have unique knowledge but we might learn more, or add to our knowledge, by moving around in social groups, collaborating, pooling knowledge and experiences. Maybe one person’s experience will add a dimension to our own, thus shedding light on new avenues of thought. Sounds mystical, but in many ways the mind and how we learn is unfathomable. We just don’t know. But theories, like Bruffee’s, give pause and allow us to be open and ponder another viewpoint. I look forward to more discussions on collaboration this week.

…for my research

Here are some writers I am considering next.

~ Kelly Cherry, poet laureate of Virginia, 2010-2011.

http://www.blackbird.vcu.edu/v10n1/fiction/cherry_k/index.shtml

~Rachel Carson

http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/cars-rac.htm

~Marjory Stoneman Douglas

http://everglades.fiu.edu/reclaim/bios/douglas.htm

Maxine Hairston~ Goin’ Down Swingin’

In Against the Grain, I read Maxine Hairston’s final professional address, titled “A Last Hurrah”, she gave in 1993 at the College Composition and Communication Conference, as a farewell to the profession, and to University of Texas, Austin. She wrote of her life as a young mother, working the farm, and then told of her return to academics, starting her doctorate in her forties. I relate to this “late” start as I too started my academic career in my forties with my bachelors pursuit. Hairston’s reflections on her timing resonated with me: “I think I did better work than I would have at twenty-three, trusted my intuition more and graduate advisors less, and had more confidence in my tastes and my judgment.” I particular adore her for saying: “Women who come back to school after…ten years or more return with energy, excitement, and a good deal of common sense.They know what they want and are not shy about asking for it.”

She made it her goal to be a teacher of composition in a field dominated by men. She was discouraged and looked down on by her male colleagues, she was even given a letter by her department head that her chances of ever getting tenure were “very poor!”  Funny, she didn’t find that letter until years later…yep, after she was tenured.

As a full-tenured English professor, she fought to break “composition’s bond to the literature power structure” at University of Texas. This revolutionary call did not make her a darling of the administration. But her and her colleagues pushed on and eventually the split occurred. Their goal for the department division was to open the way for teaching instruction focused on a student-centered classroom, where they worked to “make students stronger, more confident writers who can think for themselves.”  I see the legacy of this smart move in my Rhetoric and Composition graduate program here at CSU.

Hairston believed the writing classroom was no place for university politics. The classroom was no place for teachers to showcase “ideology at the forefront of their teaching” or push their own “ social agenda before the students’ rights to develop their own voices and abilities.” These were arguments which labeled her a “heretic, a dissenter” against the bright, shiny, new theories of the day.

In her farewell, she told of her new fight as a social reformer, advocating for women’s rights, and ending the “cycle of poverty and despair.” I smile to think of her in the social boxing ring, landing an uppercut square on the chin of the political powers behind social injustice-Maxine Hairston style!

Bold, sassy, a pioneer for women, and an accomplished rhetorician, she is worthy of our praise and emulation!

Welcome ~

Rhetorica Heroica welcomes any and all who wish to read about influential women writers from across the disciplines. Women, who in unique ways, changed the world. Small worlds and large, secret worlds, and worlds we all live in.These heroines sacrificed their energy, their time, and often fought fierce battles to publish their work. I hope, in my small way, to illuminate the contributions of these powerful people and share the importance of their work. Some names will be readily recognized…others not so much. It is my goal to introduce each writer in an unforgettable way!

It is my pleasure to welcome you back as each woman is highlighted. Your comments are important to me. It is my goal to honor these women, so please, your help in that endeavor is appreciated.

Thank you!

Maxine Hairston~Learn to write or write to learn?

What should be the purpose of the college writing class today? Let’s talk…

My desire, my passion, is to teach writing in a way to open minds and stretch the imagination. Am I a silly dreamer? Do people even view writing as a vital skill today? Why do we teach writing? Can writing even be taught in this world of wiki and tweet? I want to teach writing, composition, in such a way that others can feel the amazing discovery I felt when I conquered my avoidance of writing. This unearthing of self forms cracks in one’s personal writing foundation. But, how to get others to take the invitation to delve deeper into the world of writing?

One way to make writing more enticing is to apply issues that come up in current events to new writing theory and ongoing research, employ new technologies in communication, and thereby we as teachers STAY RELEVANT to the student’s life.

Also there is no shame in addressing a student’s goals, both academic and professional, and tying those in with the need for writing skills. It’s time the world woke up to the effectiveness of a carefully honed message written for all variety of purposes. The power of the pen must be reestablished! Even a scientist must write effectively within their community if her/his findings are to be communicated and recognized. The connection is there-challenge yourself as a teacher to make that connection. Challenge your students to develop ways of communicating their dreams and goals in writing. And then with little prompting, it is my firm belief, the fledging writer will discover how fun and enjoyable writing can be.

Who will lead us? My feminist side always leads me to research of strong women who write about the tough issues, those who throw the figurative “wrench” in the works of rigid, robotic, assembly line thinking. No matter what their particular area of expertise might be, the women I will present on this blog all have rattled the cage of their academic field and published written materials which changed the world. Not only do they advance new ways of thinking, they use the power of the pen to shout out their ideas. Well done. They are heroines of rhetoric. (I am okay with the feminine form of hero).

I present my first Rhetorica Heroica , Maxine Hairston Ph.D., a writer and teacher of writing who advanced the scholarship in her field by strong, nonconformist arguments.

In my Theories of Writing class, and in private research, I was delighted to discover Maxine Hairston, (1922-2005) professor emerita of English, University of Texas at Austin. Hairston devoted her public life to the study of writing and how to teach composition to students in more effective ways. Hairston’s theories of composition and the mind connection with the writer mirror my own.

In 1982, Hairston wrote as essay titled, The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing in which she portends a paradigm shift from writing pedagogies of her time. It was a shift Hairston eagerly awaited for it meant a richer and more meaningful composition experience for both teacher and student. She lists one of the shifting “winds of change” as teachers who will engage with their students DURING the writing process, not just waiting at the grading period red pen poised to strike (86)! Her wish list also included “writing as recursive rather than a linear process; pre-writing, writing, and revision… activities that overlap and intertwine” (86).   This plea vividly brought to mind my own clutch and grasp process of writing, my own writing heaven/hell, pain/agony style…always with a satisfactory outcome though, amazingly. I remember instructors who ignored my need for help with my writing process and I understand their hesitancy now, they were loyally following the pedagogy of their department.

Hairston shook the English department with her criticisms of how unprofessional it was for university administrators to believe that taking service courses was all that was required to further the scholarship of composition and rhetoric (79). Hairston says this the “apathy…and patronizing view of the essential nature of composition” that will continue to “promote a static and unexamined approach to writing” (79). So she started with administrators, often the third rail of education reform, with her manifesto to improve the relationship between writing, the student, and the teacher. Make it enjoyable-engaging.

This may not seem so earth-shattering to others, but for me, this research is gratifying, and enlightening. I lived through this shift.

I look forward to my next reading of Maxine Hairston’s work: Against the Grain: A Volume in Honor of Maxine Hairston, a collection of Hairston’s essays and articles put together by her former students and colleagues, published in 2002, in honor of her life’s work and influences in the field of composition and rhetoric.

More from our heroine, Maxine Hairston, soon!