Response to Bridwell-Bowles &Carroll

I loved both texts. I guess that in them I found the balance or the middle ground that I was so eager to find in the previous reading. When finishing both texts I got the goose bumps (is this how you spell it?). Why? Well, first, I felt identified. Who, as a teacher, has never felt as Carroll explains in her last paragraph: “I sometimes lose the delicate wonder why I am standing in the front of the classroom” (p. 932)? Second, I think these two readings can be situated in the middle of the previous text. And this middle ground is showed in the content and in the form of both readings. I would characterize both texts as academic texts, and at the same time both authors act out their claims. Carroll, does it by giving different endings and through this she re-appropriates the postmodern discourse that “resists closure” (p. 930) and in this way she tries to build her authenticity and authority not as something finished. On the other hand, Bridwell-Bowles’ ending was appealed to me because I think the self-reflection she offers about her practice shows her consciousness about her own limits. I really enjoyed reading the phrase “I can afford the luxury of experimentation because I am a tenured and reasonably secure member of the profession” (p. 366). I think this was the phrase that I was lacking when reading Elbow’s claims. I think this is a key phrase. Consciousness of our own limitations. Consciousness about how diverse the students who are in our classrooms are and how diverse our own pedagogies can be as the time passes by (issue that Bridwell-Bowles also mentions). When finishing reading this texts I started to think how would I take this texts in my own practice. I said in previous blogs that if I were teaching a first year comp course I would be somewhat eclectic. I would go half for academic writing (yeah, old and hated research paper ladies and gentlemen) and half for a more personal writing. But with personal writing I do not refer to the personal essay. I would try to create an space in my classroom where students compose how and what they want. And this is in a broad sense: through whatever medium, media, students would have to make a point, present an argument. And this would go beyond the linear essay. Because if my intention is to let them explore ways of manipulating different voices on a topic and present their own, therefore, I should let them choose the modality they want to use. I don’t know. i guess in this regard I am somehow postmodern. I do not agree with Elbow and (this is my interpretation, of course) his idea of “uncovering the authors that students can be” or helping students “to find a voice”. As Flower and Hayes stated, this is a myth. A myth that implies that those things are out there, waiting to be unveiled. Being able to compose, to “have a voice” are things that need to be constructed, the composing process is not a hide-and-seek game between a self and the reality, but a complex process where each individual constructs his/her unique way of expressing (in writing or through any other symbolic mediation) his/her own relationship with the world. The composing process is not simple and it is not a one-way one (me describing the world and discovering my voice). The composing process is complex, it is between ourselves, our perception (can it be singular “perception”?) of the world, others’ perception of the world, the history of our perception of the world, the history of the others’ perception of the world, the actual world (does it exist?), and the way each one of these elements interacts with itself and with the other elements. Yeah, I guess that the complexity of the composing process is all that you must be able to see in my messy text. Well… it’s so hard to describe in a linear way something that I conceptualize as multilayered and in constant change. Maybe writing was not the best tool to compose this. J