The problem with departments of literature being the ‘place’ for our dissent and debate is that while no one will tell you WHAT to believe, the dept. of lit. tell us HOW to use language in ‘acceptable’ ways. What we think is constrained by specific rules of discourse.
This idea came from Leah's post on Eagleton's article, and I think it is an interesting topic for discussion. I actually agree and disagree with these statements at the same time. It is true that there are certain ways of grammar and argument that you learn in school. For the most part (at least until MLA decides they need more money) grammar stays the same, and you will learn the same rules throughout middle school, high school, and college. But the idea of learning how to use words and argument in a successful way differs with each teacher. (Side note: From personal experience I know that Jesuit and Dominican in New Orleans teach different methods of writing. I went to Dominican and proofread many a Jesuit paper. I usually had problems with the organization of the arguments and techniques used, but in the end that method got the Jesuit boy and A, while my totally different method also got me an A.) In college I was taught by a professor to argue a point by repeating key words over and over in order not to confuse the reader with synonyms and vague words. I grew attached to this technique, but when I applied it in another class I got a big fat C on my paper. So to get to my point, I think each professor or teacher has a different idea of what he or she considers a good argument with good rhetorical techniques and the smart student will find those echniques and use them to get the grade. But outside of class, I don't think people care how you write even when they critique or choose works to be considered in the canon. Conrad's Heart of Darkness hardly follows the use of any established technique as he resorts to the difficult to follow stream-of-consciousness. Emily Dickenson's poetry is widely loved but is also greatly awkward in its fragmentation. Also, many words have turned into parts of speech that are not acknowledged by Oxford (mostly slang like sketchy, facebooked, etc.). So I guess my final point for everyone to think about is "Do you feel constrained by rules of discourse?" I don't.. but maybe I've been brainwashed not to realize it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thanks for reading my post!!!! :) I've thought about this as well. I think Covino adresses this point as well in his article "Rhetoric is Back." He doesn't seem to think that the actual "words" we use or "organization" is what confines our thoughts or makes us ill-equip to critique texts. Covino looks at the "normalized lexicon of old ideas" as inhibiting any "rhetoric of innovation"(314). I think that Eagleton could be read this way too. I've not had a teacher that told me NOT to use "sketchy" to describe a situation, but I have had teachers that ONLY taught one way of criticism. Take for example a teacher who only teaches feminist criticism. Students may read Charlotte Gilman's "Yellow Wallpaper" and explore only from a feminist critique. But what about psychology? Sociology? Aesthetics? To me, this is what it means for classrooms to tell us how to use language. We may say 'yes, this text is feminist' or 'no, it is not.' But what control do we have over our language if we are only allowed or capable of critiquing texts from the critical stance taught to us?
Post a Comment