Resonance and Dissonance

    In “Writing as a Mode of Learning,” Emig argues that writing corresponds to certain learning strategies. For example, she points out that the ability to generate conceptual groupings and synthesize ideas is required in both learning and writing. I agree that both writing and learning involve the process of analysis and synthesis but one has to be careful when he or she tries to generate conceptual groupings or synthesize. Sometimes a writer tends not only to generate and synthesize ideas but also to “generalize” those ideas. This tendency to categorize and generalize differences is mentioned in Kastely’s “From Formalism to Inquiry.” In this article, he reminds us that an argument sometimes is made at the expense of differences. In order to produce a tenable argument, a student may learn to disregard conflicts and dissonance. This article reminds me of the time when I wrote my master’s thesis. I learned for the first time that writing is not imposing harmony on ambiguity and dissonance but simply presenting them.

    When I wrote my master’s thesis, I tried to explore a protagonist’s ambiguous attitude towards the night life in Paris. It turned out that I was only able to present the positive side of her attitude because I found it impossible to describe both sides without jeopardizing the integrity of my arguments. So, how to present ambiguity in an unambiguous way becomes an important issue for me. My harmonizing strategy was later challenged by the questions posed by my advisor. She pointed to the scenes in the novel where my arguments failed to explain. Through asking questions, my advisor exposed several blind spots in my seemingly incontestable arguments. The questions she asked were aimed to open up various possibilities that coexisted but at the same time contradicted each other. It was from the contents and forms of her questions that I learned how to present ambiguity without privileging either side of the arguments. I think the key resides in the power of resonance and disagreement brought up by my advisor. When she regarded my argument as “problematic,” as Kastely puts, I was forced to explore the other possibility that contained incoherence and ambiguity.