Mary Astell's devotion to her gender is extraordinary; it is what starts revolutions. It's too bad the people of her time weren't ready for all she had to offer.
"This work (later known as A Serious Proposal, Part I), is in fact a plea to women to take seriously the life of the mind, and to make it possible for girls to be taught to use their intellectual talents" (147). She knew that women were capable of being more than just the silent companions of men. She was educated and had the crazy notion that all women should be educated as well. She is the epitome of what we would call an independent woman. Not married, supporting herself the best way she could, today this is the norm, back then that was not the role of a women. She "reproaches women for wasting their talents in lives of trivial self-indulgence" (148).
The problem, I think, is with her approach. She was mad at her sex. I think we can relate: Women are still looking for a man, if not to support them, then to complete them. The idea that a women needs a man in her life has not died out by any means. But, not only is she scolding women to step up and take control of their lives, but she is rejecting the way society worked, seemingly alone. The reading argues that she focused on her audience, and placed themselves in her shoes. "Astell puts herself in the place of her audience of women and takes into account not only the many deficiencies of their education but also its single strength: whatever the failures and omissions in women's education, it always included a thorough grounding in Christian morals" (153). In this respect, she succeeds. Including religion in her argument allows her to connect with her audience in a way they will understand. But, to a point she is insulting them. For example: "Mary Astell was incensed: 'Why won't you begin to think, and no longer dream away your lives in a wretched incogitancy? Can you be in love with servitude and folly? Can you dote on a mean, ignorant and ignoble life?'" (149) Instead of yelling at women to do something with their lives, she should have worked with them and society to promote change.
I admire her passion and dedication to the betterment of her gender, but think her approach could have been better in that she shouldn't degrade women for following their role in society, but encourage them to do better. After all, you can only lead someone to water...
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Hugh Burns... where were you before midterms!?
After reading Dr. Burns's article Four dimensions of significance: Tradition, method, theory, originality" I am left wishing I had his insight before writing my midterm! I also wish we had more time in class for him to discuss his achievements, because he clearly accomplished tons throughout his career. In his article he explores the importance of research in four categories: tradition, method, theory, and originality. I have to agree with him on all his points, he makes a lot of sense (if I'm understanding him right... hopefully I am). He is mixing research, technology, and teaching, in a timeless way that is beneficial to all scholars.
He talks a lot about the importance of research, not in looking toward the past, but constant findings of new information to apply to current technology. He states, "The more I worked with computers, the more I realized how much more could be programmed for them to do. The potential seemed endless to me, and it changed the kind of teacher and scholar I was. The research enterprise must never stop, for research can never be finished; the methods of inquiry and of curiosity are constantly at work" (4). Do you know what this means? It means that technology also must never stop. As long as people like him are working toward the next big thing (research) we (teachers) must continue to try to keep up in our classroom so our students do not fall behind. This is not the problem. The problem is how do we keep up with this never ending technology? Well, Burns has some thoughts on this too.
"I wanted to let composition teachers know that help was on the way to support the traditions we valued in teaching writing. I wanted composition teachers to know that the advancements in microprocessing and the achievements in speed, in storage, and in interface design were being conceived and implemented quickly... Our research had to hurry on the one hand and yet be patient on the other" (3). This help will not be in the form of a book, however, because they are easily dated. Instead he states "As Kate Kiefer and Cindy Selfe were dreaming about a journal for the computers and writing community, they invited me to write a note about how artificial intelligence would one day help compositions teachers" (3). An interesting concept. On page four he goes on to say: "the first rule of AI is if it works, if it run, it's not artificial intelligence anymore" (4). So, my question is, how does this work!!??
He talks a lot about the importance of research, not in looking toward the past, but constant findings of new information to apply to current technology. He states, "The more I worked with computers, the more I realized how much more could be programmed for them to do. The potential seemed endless to me, and it changed the kind of teacher and scholar I was. The research enterprise must never stop, for research can never be finished; the methods of inquiry and of curiosity are constantly at work" (4). Do you know what this means? It means that technology also must never stop. As long as people like him are working toward the next big thing (research) we (teachers) must continue to try to keep up in our classroom so our students do not fall behind. This is not the problem. The problem is how do we keep up with this never ending technology? Well, Burns has some thoughts on this too.
"I wanted to let composition teachers know that help was on the way to support the traditions we valued in teaching writing. I wanted composition teachers to know that the advancements in microprocessing and the achievements in speed, in storage, and in interface design were being conceived and implemented quickly... Our research had to hurry on the one hand and yet be patient on the other" (3). This help will not be in the form of a book, however, because they are easily dated. Instead he states "As Kate Kiefer and Cindy Selfe were dreaming about a journal for the computers and writing community, they invited me to write a note about how artificial intelligence would one day help compositions teachers" (3). An interesting concept. On page four he goes on to say: "the first rule of AI is if it works, if it run, it's not artificial intelligence anymore" (4). So, my question is, how does this work!!??
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
I Am Woman Hear Me Roar... Because I'm Mad
It was incredible to see how sexist these "great" men were. OK, yes, they were great, but how could they have such innovative and highly regarded thoughts and ideas, but still not include women as their equals. I know we discussed this issue a little bit and concluded that we have to remember that these people were "men of their time," but I can't. It is still eye-opening that they did not even consider white women worthy of conversation.
For example, we talked about John Locke's famous saying: "All men are created equal," and the fact that at that time white people did not consider slaves or servants as men. But, where do women fit into this equation? They don't. The point was made that as we evolved, so too did the phrase to include everyone. But I disagree. Today, the statement has transformed to actually include all men, but women are still missing. As a woman today (and everyday) I still see it as an old saying that now includes all men, but has yet to include women, because equality has still yet to be reached. Of course, this speaks to sexism and the status of women versus men. Clearly progress has been made sense Locke's time. Still, I am not a man and the word men does not apply to me.
Hume was arguably more blatantly sexist in his discussion of women. The funny thing is he was actually making an attempt to bring women into the men's society by educating them in history. I was with him on the first page of David Norton's "The Cambridge Companion to Hume," when discussing history and the importance of learning it. I even thought it was great that he was willing to educate middle-class female. Then the comment: "Only a woman who was acquainted with the history of her own country, and with those of Greece and Rome, could engage in conversation which 'can afford any entertainment to men of sense and reflection'" (282). Really? On one hand I want to cheer that some one thinks that women even have a chance to be on the same status as men. Still, I had to underline the sentences that made me think "wow, is he serious??"
Dr. Souder mentioned that one day people will probably look back at us and criticize our beliefs in equality; I wonder what they will say. Will it be something like our conversations today? Should we be doing something so completely and obviously different that just hasn't occurred to us yet?
For example, we talked about John Locke's famous saying: "All men are created equal," and the fact that at that time white people did not consider slaves or servants as men. But, where do women fit into this equation? They don't. The point was made that as we evolved, so too did the phrase to include everyone. But I disagree. Today, the statement has transformed to actually include all men, but women are still missing. As a woman today (and everyday) I still see it as an old saying that now includes all men, but has yet to include women, because equality has still yet to be reached. Of course, this speaks to sexism and the status of women versus men. Clearly progress has been made sense Locke's time. Still, I am not a man and the word men does not apply to me.
Hume was arguably more blatantly sexist in his discussion of women. The funny thing is he was actually making an attempt to bring women into the men's society by educating them in history. I was with him on the first page of David Norton's "The Cambridge Companion to Hume," when discussing history and the importance of learning it. I even thought it was great that he was willing to educate middle-class female. Then the comment: "Only a woman who was acquainted with the history of her own country, and with those of Greece and Rome, could engage in conversation which 'can afford any entertainment to men of sense and reflection'" (282). Really? On one hand I want to cheer that some one thinks that women even have a chance to be on the same status as men. Still, I had to underline the sentences that made me think "wow, is he serious??"
Dr. Souder mentioned that one day people will probably look back at us and criticize our beliefs in equality; I wonder what they will say. Will it be something like our conversations today? Should we be doing something so completely and obviously different that just hasn't occurred to us yet?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Interpretation or the Original
For a couple of classes, both in English 600 and 501 (they so go together) we have been discussing the issue of interpretation vs. what the author was thinking when they wrote this. Richard Leo Enos in "Recovering the Lost Art of Researching the History of Rhetoric" states his opinion on this issue: "I am not against criticism; I am not opposed to advancing warranted interpretation; I am not opposed to self-reflection on our methods. I feel that these enterprises are valuable and deserve their place in our field. What I am concerned about is these enterprises operating independently from basic research and existing as ends in themselves. Our first and necessary obligation is to provide new information, new material evidence, new data" (12). Here he is saying that we should not put or emphasis on previous research and interpretation, but come up with our own thoughts and ways of thinking based on the "basic research" or original ideas. He is not devaluing the use of secondary research, but encouraging scholars to dig deeper into the topic to uncover the original. In class we also discussed the use of interpretation versus the primary source of information, and also came up with arguments for both. Of course it is not always easy to come up with a basic source, and almost always have to come up with an interpretation. Also, when doing research it is easier to find second or third party sources that will lead to a more reliable primary source of information. There's also another reason to rely on secondary sources that Jean Dietz Moss explains.
In "Rhetoric and Praxis"Moss talks about interviews in which contemporary fiction authors talk around the question of how they come up with their work, but never really answer the question. He states: "One suspects that novelists are reluctant to give out the secrets of their craft lest other writers appropriate those secrets and become serious rivals. The truth of the matter is more likely to be that most of them have never been introspective enough about the process of their craft to discover how they go about doing what they can do superlatively well" (44). I talked about this in the 600 class. Maybe the authors want people to think that they are smarter than they really are. We analyse every little bit of an author's work, who may or may not be brilliant. Perhaps the reader will get more out of the work if nothing is said about it than if we know exactly what the author was thinking. And why can this not be true for academic authors and scholars as well. For all we know they probably just sat down one drunken night and started ranting about something that has been on their mind, and now we treasure their words as Truth and history.
In "Rhetoric and Praxis"Moss talks about interviews in which contemporary fiction authors talk around the question of how they come up with their work, but never really answer the question. He states: "One suspects that novelists are reluctant to give out the secrets of their craft lest other writers appropriate those secrets and become serious rivals. The truth of the matter is more likely to be that most of them have never been introspective enough about the process of their craft to discover how they go about doing what they can do superlatively well" (44). I talked about this in the 600 class. Maybe the authors want people to think that they are smarter than they really are. We analyse every little bit of an author's work, who may or may not be brilliant. Perhaps the reader will get more out of the work if nothing is said about it than if we know exactly what the author was thinking. And why can this not be true for academic authors and scholars as well. For all we know they probably just sat down one drunken night and started ranting about something that has been on their mind, and now we treasure their words as Truth and history.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Page 216: from Pre-Writing: The Construction and Application of Models for Concept Formation in Writing
"It is just possible that much writing instruction fails because it is conceived within what Bruner calls the 'expository mode,' and the student-writer, as a result, never is given the chance to participate in the essentials of the process which he is being called upon to master" (217).
I understand that there needs to be order and classroom management when dealing with students, who may or may not be interested in learning. But, I believe that students need to take an active role in their learning. Gordon Rohman and Albert Wlecke use Jerome Bruner in his essay "The Art of Discovery" to emphasis this point in the quote above. They continue on to say that the student sacrifices their own creativity and abilities in order to please the teacher. Where in this process are they able to show what they are capable of when they are correcting their work and honing their skills based on what the teacher thinks is important?
When rethinking my pedagogy statement the most important aspect I intend to include is the voice of the student. In my classroom I would like the students to lead (I know what your thinking... clearly, I have never taught before). But what I hope is that we as a class can work toward them leading and discovering knowledge for themselves, with my role being the facilitator and making sure we stay on some sort of task. The image I have is similar to that of a graduate classroom. I know, I know, the struggle is to motivate the students to get to this point, but I have some time to work out strategies.
On a side note, I think the students have to know the basics before they can truly play with their form and freely write what they want to. Grammar is essential for all writers and will definitely be a priority in my classroom.
"It is just possible that much writing instruction fails because it is conceived within what Bruner calls the 'expository mode,' and the student-writer, as a result, never is given the chance to participate in the essentials of the process which he is being called upon to master" (217).
I understand that there needs to be order and classroom management when dealing with students, who may or may not be interested in learning. But, I believe that students need to take an active role in their learning. Gordon Rohman and Albert Wlecke use Jerome Bruner in his essay "The Art of Discovery" to emphasis this point in the quote above. They continue on to say that the student sacrifices their own creativity and abilities in order to please the teacher. Where in this process are they able to show what they are capable of when they are correcting their work and honing their skills based on what the teacher thinks is important?
When rethinking my pedagogy statement the most important aspect I intend to include is the voice of the student. In my classroom I would like the students to lead (I know what your thinking... clearly, I have never taught before). But what I hope is that we as a class can work toward them leading and discovering knowledge for themselves, with my role being the facilitator and making sure we stay on some sort of task. The image I have is similar to that of a graduate classroom. I know, I know, the struggle is to motivate the students to get to this point, but I have some time to work out strategies.
On a side note, I think the students have to know the basics before they can truly play with their form and freely write what they want to. Grammar is essential for all writers and will definitely be a priority in my classroom.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The never-ending question of grading art
Richard Braddock in "Research in Written Composition" presents his essay about the do's and don'ts of researching student compositions in the format of an actual report. He starts the essay by saying, "Reading a report, like driving over a bridge, is an act of faith- faith that the other fellow has done his job well" (193). But, after reading the article it seems that the readers of composition reports are approaching a rickety bridge visibly hanging from its last rusted nail.
There are so many variables and subjective areas in composition that it seems nearly impossible to write a report on any aspect of it. Which brings up another issue of grading, and the endless debate of how to grade art. Braddock lists seven assumptions a person should have when evaluating grades from one professor, and in this list he describes the extent of grading subjectivity. He states: "But a student's course grade may have been lowered for failure to do assignments, for cutting class, for poor work in the reading aspect of the course, for failure to take part in enough class discussion, for being personally obnoxious, for being in the class of a severe grader, etc." (208). Of course, no one expects every professor to grade the same way, but the issue is one teacher grading students differently based on the "obnoxiousness" or brown nosing of a student. And then professors wonder why students try to give them what they want instead of using their own creativity and rules in their writing.
Another variable that is as equally important to the attitude of the investigator is the type of student. How does lack of sensitivity to diverse students not only affect their desire to try, but attitude towards the professor. Maybe the obnoxious student is purposely acting out because they don't relate to anything the teacher is saying, and in turn doesn't think the professor cares about their ideas or culture. We addressed this topic briefly in class, and Braddock also mentions it as part of his assignment variable. He states: "Finally, investigators should be mindful of a possible motivational factor in the topic assigned. How many students will write their best when asked to deal with hackeyed topics like 'My Vacation' or 'My Autobiography'?" (198) He goes on to say it's probably not a good idea to have students write about whatever they want, because their is no restrictions to base the grading on and no way to grade the essays against each other. In class we discussed a composition class for only African-Americans. Then you get into issues like: Who is classified as "African-American" Why do they need a class of their own? Are you suggesting they learn differently or that they need special attention? Didn't we outlaw "separate but equal" a long time ago? Should they be graded on a different scale than other students? All in all, most teachers will agree grading art is a tricky line to cross, yet in the end it has to be done.
There are so many variables and subjective areas in composition that it seems nearly impossible to write a report on any aspect of it. Which brings up another issue of grading, and the endless debate of how to grade art. Braddock lists seven assumptions a person should have when evaluating grades from one professor, and in this list he describes the extent of grading subjectivity. He states: "But a student's course grade may have been lowered for failure to do assignments, for cutting class, for poor work in the reading aspect of the course, for failure to take part in enough class discussion, for being personally obnoxious, for being in the class of a severe grader, etc." (208). Of course, no one expects every professor to grade the same way, but the issue is one teacher grading students differently based on the "obnoxiousness" or brown nosing of a student. And then professors wonder why students try to give them what they want instead of using their own creativity and rules in their writing.
Another variable that is as equally important to the attitude of the investigator is the type of student. How does lack of sensitivity to diverse students not only affect their desire to try, but attitude towards the professor. Maybe the obnoxious student is purposely acting out because they don't relate to anything the teacher is saying, and in turn doesn't think the professor cares about their ideas or culture. We addressed this topic briefly in class, and Braddock also mentions it as part of his assignment variable. He states: "Finally, investigators should be mindful of a possible motivational factor in the topic assigned. How many students will write their best when asked to deal with hackeyed topics like 'My Vacation' or 'My Autobiography'?" (198) He goes on to say it's probably not a good idea to have students write about whatever they want, because their is no restrictions to base the grading on and no way to grade the essays against each other. In class we discussed a composition class for only African-Americans. Then you get into issues like: Who is classified as "African-American" Why do they need a class of their own? Are you suggesting they learn differently or that they need special attention? Didn't we outlaw "separate but equal" a long time ago? Should they be graded on a different scale than other students? All in all, most teachers will agree grading art is a tricky line to cross, yet in the end it has to be done.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
History of the Western World
THIS IS MY FIRST BLOG FOR ENGLISH 501. DON'T READ THE OTHERS... THEY SUCK.
Each time I learn about the "attic" or Greek orators I am intrigued by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Their philosophical ideas are techniques that I plan on using when I finally become a teacher.
To start, Socrates' opinion that people are born knowing and that knowledge can be brought out by a series of questions and answers is something I really want to agree with, but don't know how it is plausible. For instance, a person would have to have a certain degree of education in order to even participate in the question and answer situation. If the students do not understand the questions (because of their culture or vocabulary or whatever) they will have no means of extracting the information that is already inside of them. Then the question becomes: how do I ask the right question? What if our worlds do not cross (having the same language is just not enough) If this happens, am I not able to practice Socrates' theory? I hope not.
Plato, however, has a little too much emphasis in philosophy for me to fully follow him. I find the idea of Truth and the "ideal audience" intriguing. And isn't that a critical point in rhetoric? Who are you speaking to? Am I going to be daddy's little girl who wants to stay out a little later, or am I going to try to explain to my mother I am a responsible young adult, capable of a little leeway? I think this is how rhetoric ties into his philosophy. The idea of capital T in truth is a little more confusing. Is the absolute truth out there somewhere, waiting for us to discover it and interpret it correctly, or is it there, but unattainable? If it is unattainable, then does it really even matter if it's there or not? Aristotle's argument that truth is there but with a lowercase, not so absolute. Couldn't that be the same thing as Truth is there but simply unattainable? I think so. After all Aristotle derived his ideas from Plato, even if he does disagree with him.
I hope, through all of this, I will be able to take something from each philosopher and implement it in my teaching skills, allowing my students the room to disagree and derive their own ideas and beliefs from something I said.
Each time I learn about the "attic" or Greek orators I am intrigued by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Their philosophical ideas are techniques that I plan on using when I finally become a teacher.
To start, Socrates' opinion that people are born knowing and that knowledge can be brought out by a series of questions and answers is something I really want to agree with, but don't know how it is plausible. For instance, a person would have to have a certain degree of education in order to even participate in the question and answer situation. If the students do not understand the questions (because of their culture or vocabulary or whatever) they will have no means of extracting the information that is already inside of them. Then the question becomes: how do I ask the right question? What if our worlds do not cross (having the same language is just not enough) If this happens, am I not able to practice Socrates' theory? I hope not.
Plato, however, has a little too much emphasis in philosophy for me to fully follow him. I find the idea of Truth and the "ideal audience" intriguing. And isn't that a critical point in rhetoric? Who are you speaking to? Am I going to be daddy's little girl who wants to stay out a little later, or am I going to try to explain to my mother I am a responsible young adult, capable of a little leeway? I think this is how rhetoric ties into his philosophy. The idea of capital T in truth is a little more confusing. Is the absolute truth out there somewhere, waiting for us to discover it and interpret it correctly, or is it there, but unattainable? If it is unattainable, then does it really even matter if it's there or not? Aristotle's argument that truth is there but with a lowercase, not so absolute. Couldn't that be the same thing as Truth is there but simply unattainable? I think so. After all Aristotle derived his ideas from Plato, even if he does disagree with him.
I hope, through all of this, I will be able to take something from each philosopher and implement it in my teaching skills, allowing my students the room to disagree and derive their own ideas and beliefs from something I said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)