When it was finally disclosed, the argument between Peter Elbow and David Bartholomae was less explosive than I had hoped for. As someone who had never heard of the debate, I was hoping for an epic clash of ideas that forced asunder the very foundations of composition; what we learned from Emily was that Bartholomae simply doesn’t believe that one can divest themselves of their cultural baggage, writing for the academy should sound like it, and that language should be scrutinized with a cynical eye rather being immediately embraced.
The first example over cultural influences mirrors Shaynee’s scholar, Patricia Bizzell. Essentially both of these theorists believe that all people are inherently comprised of their experiences. There knowledge is limited their discourse communities of birth, school, and neighborhood. What Bartholomae goes on to point out is that writers must intimately understand the forces that make up their ideas about everything in order to pick and choose which beliefs to maintain and which to drop. However, no one can simply write without the influences of their mother culture.
Bartholomae comes across at his most arrogant with the idea that writing should sound academic, but practically speaking, there should be rules. Elbow was cited by Emily as stating that writing should take the form that the writer desires without the “academicese” that is expected by most scholarly authorities. I think that Emily explained the ideas well when she said, “You’re in school, write like it.” Academia is its own discourse community, and therefore, should have its own jargon. I see no reason why the expectation to write using theses terms shouldn’t be upheld (as long as the writer understands them as Graff desires). One would not enter a barrio without a good understanding of the local slang, so why should one expect to write for the academic institution without as fair a grasp of the language?
Bartholomae’s cynicism of language makes perfect sense as long as one believe that words can concepts should not be used unless the uses knows exactly what he or she means. Conversely, one should be cynical of another’s words until he or she is sure of the author’s meaning and accuracy of language. Once again, these ideas do not sound all that extremist; in fact, they sound pretty practical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tony, have you read any of the debate? I did not read the entire of it but it seemed serious animated criticism of each other - although - no blood shed. I agree that when in Rome..... one should adapt to that environment, but How can we ever be sure what another author's meaning is
ReplyDelete(for sure) when she is speaking academicese?
Nancy is right. And what you may not believe is that some of the cattier comments come from Elbow. He's a little defensive. Or perhaps Bartholomae is just more smooth when it comes to the insults. I did not, I'll admit, read the original debate, back in late 80's, early 90's, but I did read three of the arguments, and I would say that they weren't entirely amicable. Bartholomae, in my opinion, was a little more gracious and Bartholomae did seem to have a lot of respect for Elbow, despite their disagreement.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Nancy, "academicese" is not necessarily pompous prose. It can be anything, as long as it is, first, well-informed. It does have a tendency to go overboard in trying to sound too intelligent, and this is where I think Graff has it right. You don't have to dumb down the concepts, just simplify the language.
Elbow has made a career prostituting his own inferiority complex, so it doesn't surprise me that he reacts like a cornered rat even when there's no cat in sight. Emily, try to dig up some of his barbs and post them. They're probably really funny, especially when taken out of context.
ReplyDelete