From Selber/Johnson-Eilola article

MAIN ARGUMENT: We want teachers to start seeing assemblages as a valid and valued form of student writing—and of writing in general. (380)

Argument #1: "a view of writing which shifts the emphasis from performance to action or effect in action" (375)

Argument #2: "this highlighted separation [between invented and borrowed work] is frequently constructed as a hierarchy in terms of the writing process: The best work of writers is understood to be their original text with citations and borrowed materials situated as useful, but less valuable support. As we will maintain, however, this distinction is not only problematic but also counterproductive, especially as teachers attempt to prepare students to be writers in their professional and personal lives . (375)

Still, as a field, we tend to remain fundamentally committed to that final artifact: the text that students produce. And that final text—here is the real crux of the problem—by default remains much as it ever was: a unique, creative text, the “original” words produced by the student. The ghost of the authorial, creative genius remains standing between the lines, propping up what is an increasingly unrealistic artifact in our postmodern age. (378-379)

We want to change the goal of writing from performance to action or effect in context. That is, we want to lend some weight to a movement that shifts the terrain of the assignment by shifting our approach to writing instruction and assessment: What if the “final” product a student produces—a text—is not concerned with original words or images on a page or screen but concerned primarily with assemblages of parts? (380)

"assemblages are interested in what works, what has social effects." (380)

assemblage as a writing practice in academic courses is only beginning to appear on our collective radar screen despite the fact that remixed artifacts are everywhere, all around us, and not just in popular culture. (380)

In most cases, the recognition of assemblages (often going under related terms such as “remix,” “collage,” or “boilerplate”) is not represented as a replacement of other methods of writing or designing but as one valid practice among many. Our intent here is not to replace the acts of writing prose by individuals but to augment practices by enriching repertoires with one more equally valued approach. (382)

It occurs to me that Tony does sometimes produce longer prose writing (a memo) for example, but prefers assemblage. There is that one wonderful passage where he laments the need to produce "another report." Well, if there is a problem with a particular individual in the workplace and you must document it in the form of a report, that is going to require the production of original prose. You cannot borrow or re-adapt such a composition. Thus, he groans under its weight. Assemblage is his preferred means of composing. Why? It requires the creation of only a minimal amount of new or original text. Assemblage values other things--the ability to creatively borrow, organize, present. Assemblage, for him, functions as an effective means of coping with his perceived difficulties with composing longer texts. J & S argue for assemblage not "as a replacement of other methods of writing...but as one valid practice among many." Schools value the original text over the assembled. Tony feels he is good at assembling, it is a way to minimize his perceived difficulties. I have all these passages where he shares his concerns about writing and how difficult it is. I need to bring this into the second half of this essay--I am beginning to show the logic of his creation of "The 1960s"--because here was an opportunity to write in a way that he feels he is good at. It is an assignment which allows him to shine (again, he gave this to me first). Assemblage is, though, a kind of crutch. Right? It's worth pointing out that the other option, in terms of assignments Tony could have chosen to do, was a 4-6 page "survey paper" (see assignment sheet). 

My two important insights here:

1. Tony choose to do an assignment which allowed him to create the kind of "assemblage" he feels he is good at.

2. Assemblage (as opposed to, say, producing an original report) is a kind of writing which allows him to minimize his deficiencies.

Are there, then, two main points to make in regard to "The 1960s":

1. It reflects a method of workplace composing in which Tony engages on the job all the time.

2. It simultaneously reflects his discomfort with one composing strategy (generating original content) and comfort with another (assembling and borrowing content to create something new). As J & S point out, one is rewarded in one context (work) and punished in the other (school). There is a point to be made here about the way in which Tony has learned to lean on assemblage as a crutch. While I'm willing to grant assemblage legitimacy, as a composing strategy, what would be best, I think, is to broaden his repertoire of skills to the point where he can choose assemblage, when necessary, but also create longer "original" prose, when necessary (to write papers in school, to write reports at work). This might be an opportunity to point out that he managed to avoid the mandatory writing class until the end of his college career. The very thing that might have helped him break out of this singular mode of composing (assemblage), The Writing Process, is what he avoided or put off. This also speaks to the depths of his discomfort with writing--the lengths to which he was willing to go to avoid having to confront something at which he feels he does not excel. So, why does he use assemblage? Because A) it's what he knows and B) it prevents him from facing his fears and history of frustration and failure. 

In key ways, the availability and widespread use of templates in activities such as web design signals a hierarchically subordinate value placed on visual elements of a text (the template) compared to primary textual elements (the textual content of the web site). This distinction allows “writers” to freely borrow templates in most contexts without being accused of plagiarism. (Selber, 386)

An important premise of our argument is that an assemblage can only be assessed in context. Comparing an “original” text to its “remixed” counterpart is less important than understanding how the remixed artifact was redesigned for the new context or how the redesigned artifact is performing in that context. (387)

These two passages articulate the process of assemblage:

So if personal narrative and photography are creative acts, they tend to rely less on traditional notions of authorial genius and more on the very skills called on by remixing: decisions about how to frame, re-frame, modify, and hide various aspects of pre-existing scenes. (391)

In the end, as we see it, this all comes down to a reconfigured notion of “creativity,” one more in line with postmodern work. Creativity is no longer, as we said, re-inventing the wheel, which does not remove creativity but shifts it to the assemblage: Take what already exists and make something else, something that works to solve problems in new, local contexts. Creativity, in this rearticulation, involves extensive research, filtering, recombining, remixing, the making of assemblages that solve problems. Citation is no longer a way of marking subordinate elements in a text to downplay their value in student work but a way to reward students for their new skills, to situate texts not only in pre-existing but new contexts. (400)

---

...creating assemblages requires the same rhetorical sophistication as any text: One must do much more as a designer than download templates and replace their placeholder items with real content. (391)

An interesting point: Dias et al. claim that in the workplace, writing functions to get things done; in school to aid in evaluation and to help students learn. Thus, when students plagiarize, they are...breaking this contract. If they hand in someone else's work, we can't assign a grade to it because it's not their's. If writing is used to evaluate people, the writing must be their own. Additionally, if they plagiarize, say, use a borrowed paper or buy a paper, they break the second rule, which is that through writing they are supposed to learn something. Handing in someone else's work implies that YOU didn't learn anything. 

In arguing for the validity of assemblage, S & J write, 

So while a writing pedagogy might focus on the production of original text in some instances, it might also focus just as productively on assemblage, remix, or collage in the same way. (400)

What do I want to do with this quote--I do not want to echo their call for assemblage. To point out the difficulty of moving from assemblage back to the production of original text. To point out that for some adult students, like Tony, this will be a difficult transition because they were never very good at producing original text in the first place. And for other adult students, this will be a difficult transition because they may be out of practice--assemblage may make up such a significant portion of their workplace composing that they have grown unaccustomed to creating extended original text in the form of, say, an essay. This seems like a really important point!

Furthermore, S & J write, 

The shift we are suggesting is a pretty simple if powerful one: Stop encouraging students to produce “original” texts all the time. Tell them, at least occasionally, to work on texts that are complete assemblages. (400)

Just as traditional-age students steeped in the production of extended original essays might have difficulty crafting rhetorically effective assemblages, at first, so adult students whose dominant means of workplace composing is assemblage are likely to struggle, initially, in the production of extended original prose. 

Key Phrases:

• a remix culture. (380)
  
• invented and borrowed work (375)
• the “original” versus “borrowed” hierarchy (399)