I like Bartholomae’s idea of involving all composition students in the discourse community. That would contrast neatly with involving all students in the “real world,” which requires a discourse community to function—or perhaps just for progress. DB claims that writing has been billed as a tool to be used by the educated mind instead of a tool for learning. I really like his description of learning to play music through chords and patterns of composition. If I wrote a description like that, it would turn into a term paper.
Haefner’s discussion of the essay as a genre is pretty provocative. Does the progenitor of a genre epitomize it, or does it develop into a better, more complex, evolved form?
Regarding Haefner, I want to ask what portion of knowledge is based on the individual human experience (rather than collective experience.) I would refer this not to the individual knowledge but collective knowledge (cf. Carl Jung).
What genre is not democratic, not open to everyone, or anyone? It is not my experience that the essay is individualistic, democratic, or egalitarian. Yes, it’s a genre like any other, but it’s easier for the writer to access. Haefner makes the case that it’s just easier for the reader to get involved with.
I had to go over this several times:
Jameson: Genre and form function as ideograms encoding versions of ideology.
Adorno, Jameson: the essay juggernaut as the embodiment of mimesis.
Bourgeois capitalism is embodied by the essay genre.
This is a ridiculous case about Montaigne and the essay as an antiquated form that causes the “originary fallacy.” The extant version of the genre doesn’t describe the origin of the genre. Alice Walker and Fredric Jameson were not writing to each other. I do not find that the personal essay is alien to my students. Why must we define what democratic means? I find it fairly clear in this context and other contexts. Personal essays are too interesting, so Haefner banishes them. I’m impressed with the honesty of these essays he offers (and the pieces for this week).
Eve & Lunsford say that the death of the author helps us to create new forms and new concepts for authors, too. Why does it have to be clearly defined in limited roles for the speaker? I don’t like recapitulating the demands of all these advent groups he mentions—new historicists, feminists, you make up one, et al. Wouldn’t most self-respecting advocates of such groups consider this pandering?
Haefner suggests that we present the context of a cultural essay to students through first-person contemporaneous sources. Why don’t we all do that with Montaigne then? (Not to be bitter: I’m sure that would actually make a great (history) course.)
I am edified to note that I already am teaching my students how we situate ourselves in reference to a text rather than teaching the text itself (or rather its sentiments). I wouldn’t be too sorry if I was teaching the essay itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment