Response to the Bartholomae/Elbow debate

I think yesterday’s class discussion was interesting. And sorry if I got a little “heated” into it. As I said in class, my experience in the educational field in Argentina made me suspicious of any stance that claims that teachers should be democratic in the classroom. Why is this? Well, because I truly believe that we can ameliorate but not to eliminate the power structures and main discourses that are embedded in the formal education institutions. And it is here were first-year composition courses are situated! That’s why I would choose to teach “students to be able to work closely with the ways their writing constructs a relationship with tradition, power and authority”, as Bartholomae proposes. Let me explain myself. I am not rejecting each one of Elbow’s claims. I am rejecting them when related to a first-year composition course. I think that Elbow’s ideas are great for a creative writing workshop, or to take into account once in a while in the first-year composition course. But I would never teach a first-year composition course following exclusively his approach. If I would do this, I would feel that I am consciously committing the sin of not give my students the opportunity to learn what is necessary for their academic life. In addition, I agree with Elbow when he proposes that his struggle is aimed “to make the academic world less pompous and more able to exploit the cognitive power of the believing game and the intelligence of feelings.” But he proposes this once he had his tenure, once he is a renowned author. He is in the field so he can play the game. I agree with this stance, and I think that feminist theories about science building and communication are useful in this regard. And let me say more about this in the next post with Bridwell-Bowles.