Subject: Re: comfort ye, my peepul
From: Jim Rovira (jrovira@drew.edu)
Date: Sat May 11 2002 - 07:12:58 GMT
I don't think there's really much debate between those who feel that
rules should be followed at all costs -- that the purpose of writing is
to follow rules, and that good writing consists of following rules (who
thinks like that except for grade school grammar teachers?) -- and those
who "break" rules whenever it seems to suit them, who are somehow to be
considered wonderfully creative and innovative as a result.
I don't think there's a debate between these people because I don't
think these people exist. I think these are stereotypes of certain
types of thinking or emphases, but not reflective at all of the way
people really think.
It is only the people who understand rules the best who can break them
the most effectively. Joyce wrote pretty straightforward short stories
and pretty standard poetry for a long time before he wrote _Finnegan's
Wake_. Dali painted pretty realist works for a long time before he
started painting melting clocks. These artists "broke all the rules"
only after learning the standard rules because. . .can we hear a drum
roll. . .
they didn't really care about breaking rules.
They cared about establishing their own rules.
They knew they needed to master and understand one set of rules before
they could create their own.
Your idea here: "Blindly following all rules, even in something as
routine as grammar and punctuation, feeds existing power structures that
I don't routinely support," is a bit off the point (speaking only for
myself) because I never advocated "blindly following all rules."
I think that most people who talk the about power structures don't
understand how they work because they're excluded from the power
structures they examine, and ignore the power structures they
participate in. They're afraid of power so they wield it blindly, then
roundly condemn those who try to wield it consciously and responsibly.
This is the bane of the American academe'.
Yes, I have read Foucault. Even without him it's obvious to me that
language use is a marker of social class, and that training people to
speak a certain way is to train them to identify with a specific
subgroup.
But by teaching people to write in Standard Written English you're not
identifying them with **any** social class (except the class of people
who have been educated in SWE, which literally cuts across all classes),
because **no one** really talks that way (unless they're on television,
and half the time not even then).
We Americans, at least (I know the Brits are like this too -- I've seen
maps of the regional dialects of England) don't speak ENGLISH, we speak
one or two of many, many different Englishes. The people who hold power
speak regional dialects as well, not SWE.
So please, Will, don't try to convince me that you're overturning power
structures by not teaching your kids the rules. Ultimately, in this
country, at least, even a person who talks hick can be President (W. is
the second in a row now). I teach my students that I'm teaching them
how to write academic papers, to speak academic English. I tell them
it's not the only type of writing, or even the most important kind of
writing, but it's the way to write for this one particular audience.
I teach them that I'm teaching them a different dialect. That's all.
Once they've mastered this one, they'll have the tools to try another.
And not until then.
Jim
Will Hochman wrote:
> Scottie and Jim, The privilege I have as a writing teacher is working
> with living language and writers who are growing. For me, language is
> dynamic and so is literature. All you have to do is think about how
> "netspeak" (David Crystal's term--see Language and the Internet) has
> changed our use of language and ideas about literature. Sure, we
> select who we read and deem them the best writers, but the idea of a
> literary cannon is too loose a concept these days to mean all that
> much. Ideas about talented or elite writers are still very important
> in print publishing, but I see changes that make it possible for more
> voices to communicate in print and on screen. It's typical of older
> generations to put down changes in literacy and resist them by
> applying existing power structures. As a matter of coincidence and
> fact, I'm teaching the ideas of Paulo Freire in class today. Freire
> criticizes the "empty vessel" approach to education (students are
> empty until filled with teacher's knowledge) and helps teachers and
> students see ways in which learning is collaborative. Freire calls his
> approach to education "Problem-solving" because he thinks teachers and
> students who learn to perceive knowledge actively and critically may
> become conscious of ways to act against the oppression of knowledge.
> That's why I think breaking rules is necessary when writing. Rules are
> sometimes helpful, though sometimes they are used oppressively. It
> depends on the context. Blindly following all rules, even in something
> as routine as grammar and punctuation, feeds existing power structures
> that I don't routinely support. Further, liberating thinkers with
> critical and creative thinking activity, and attempting to remove or
> at least question traditional hierarchies is more than privilege, it's
> where the fun is, will--
> Will Hochman
>
> Assistant Professor of English
> Southern Connecticut State University
> 501 Crescent St, New Haven, CT 06515
> 203 392 5024
>
> http://www.southernct.edu/~hochman/willz.html
>
>
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Mar 20 2002 - 09:44:24 GMT