Objections To My Tribe (a crisis of confidence)

1. “What if I don’t discover anything?”
2. “How are we supposed to use this in our other classes?”
3. Berlin’s critique and the way it resonated for me during a politically loaded moment (Bush Administration/Iraq War/War on Terror, etc.)
4. A question about transfer—Murray seems to assume that there are certain fundamentals that transfer across genres and I had come to believe this not to be the case anymore. What Murray advocates may be right for a certain kind of journalistic non-fiction writing, but probably doesn’t go much further than that.
5. The movement from theory to practice—Murray would frequently write an article where he reflects on his own writing practice or some aspect of it and then suggest implications. This increasingly made me uncomfortable.
6. A fundamental disagreement about the nature/purpose of an FYW course: the UNH model sees is as a “writing” course where the text of the class is the student’s writing, regardless of the topic. I came to feel as though—this course is positioned at the head of the curriculum for a reason, as an introduction to a particular kind of writing: academic writing. I have learned a good deal about that kind of writing and so why not share what I’ve learned? Via WAW, I am able to treat my FYW course as a course where the content is not JUST the students’ writing and given that the course is supposed to prepare studenst for academic writing, that feels like the responsible thing to do, as most of the classes they take at the university will not put their writing front and center.
7. A re-orientation of self—I think Murray and the UNH model is rooted, in many ways, an anti-academic writing epistemology. Academic writing is often even perceived as the enemy of good writing. But it is possible, as I’ve seen and done myself, to write in an academic or professional way and to have that kind of writing be accessible and interesting. In sum, I no longer believed that academic writing is/was the enemy (perhaps because I’m come to produce it myself, to see the value in it, and to feel compelled to engage in it, as a scholar).
8. An introduction to WAC and WAC scholarship which helped me to begin to appreciate how different different types of disciplinary writing are and to see that just focusing on process was not going to be enough (faculty in other disciplines will likely not focus on process and without that focus, students will revert to old processes, particularly if assignments are painful or feel meaningless). But also, the feeling that there was/is declarative knowledge that I can teach, from writing studies, in addition to the procedural knowledge that process privileges.

In sum, I have become more like an academic and less like a writer. Yes, that’s true. Or, perhaps more fairly, I’ve tried to become more like someone who both values, produces, and sees the need for both academic and writerly writing and feels the need to reject neither.

Finally, I like the idea of looking at this quote from Lad Tobin:

In the end, however, the underlying philosophical assumptions still seem less significant to me than the way in which a writing teacher answers this question: should a writing course be organized around production or consumption? It is around this very basic question that (at least) two paths diverge, and how a teacher chooses usually makes all the difference. (Lad Tobin, "Process Pedagogy", p 15 in A Guide to Composition Pedagogy)

A creed that I have come to reject…a forced binary that I no longer choose to believe in… In academic writing, it's both--consumption and production. They are inseparable. If one defines the purpose of a writing class (which class Lad? FYW?) as an introduction to academic writing, as I have come to do, then this quote presents a false choice. In order to learn to produce academic writing effectively, one must engage in BOTH production and consumption...

I answered this question—production, and thought I was on the right team. And was. But I think that it’s a false choice and, also, that it’s the wrong question. The question I came to ask myself, and which really made all the difference, was : should a first-year writing course be organized around student’s writing, broadly conceived or around the intersection between students and the academy? I have come to choose the latter.

Also, take a look at this link.

Also, think about how my story is sort of one of moving from Elbow to Bartholomea or maybe trying to be both -- go back and reread their essays being a writer and being an academic and think about how they might give me a way to frame my own changes, later in life.

Murray shows so clearly that there is no difference between “creative writing” and other writing. All writing is an act of creation. Work in one genre aids other genres. The implication for writing across the curriculum, treating all writing as process and creation, are important. (Graves, “Revision: In the Writer’s Workshop and in the Classroom” p. 54)

Graves thinks that his research findings, though developed with small children, have obvious implications for the teaching of writing at all levels… (481 “Renters and Owners: Donald Graves on Writing,” The English Magazine, NIE Report Package)