Although MU mandates that its students enroll in and pass English 1000, the students have a small degree of latitude. They can choose between a variety of English 1000 classes that focus on a diverse number of themes such as art and society, new media, second language literacy, popular culture, and science and society. Most of these kids are neither going to take other literature classes, or be major in English, so offering a variety of “broad areas of inquiry” seems pragmatic. One result of this is that many students will pass through the academy without ever having to crack open the cover of a classic. We haven't accidentally ended up at this point either; we've been steered here by what Nan Miller calls post-modern pedagogical theorists, on whom she heaps responsibility for the unsatisfactory levels of writing proficiency in American universities.
Even though most students will never take another English class, does this really mean that they don't need to bother with literature? Miller gives several reasons why they may want to. She blames (on the theoreticians) the purging of literature from required composition classes for (what she at least claims is) a marked decline of collegiate writing (“No tent in the theorists' prescriptions for composition courses is so radical or perverse than this”). Many, such as Elbow (whom she cites) point to a connection between what students read and how they write. While canonical texts often get ripped on because they purvey oppressive Western values, Miller argues that we need to realize that these are very good models for writing. Furthermore, theorists, when they advise that students read other kinds of texts so that they may learn to write in other styles, implicitly reference this connection between reading and writing; however, these are not models worth emulating.
Obviously, her argument is a little problematic. It's not the reactionariness that I quibble with (I find it quite plausible that modern pedagogical techniques deserve at least more than partial blame for the poor state of collegiate writing), it's just that she doesn't really substantiate claims. That's ok though I guess, I don't think she's trying to be subtly persuasive in this essay; it feels more like a rhetorician's call to arms.
Miller, Nan. “Postmodern Moonshine in English 101.” Academic Questions 19.3 (2006): 6-36. SpringerLink. Web. 26 Aug 2011.
I think it's kind of funny, that she would admit that canonical texts support this slanted view of history that depicts the march of white men onward to victory, and then she says that they are nonetheless examples of good writing. But doesn't that goodness depend on exactly the sort of intellectual environment fostered by these old white dudes?
ReplyDelete