3
The essays of Patrica Bizzell make much of the struggle between Foundationalism and Anti Foundationalism in compositional studies. Their ultimate goals are very similar. It is their distinct approach to reaching those goals that causes the conflict. The foundationalists, often are represented as the Academy and it orthodox supporters, main concern is that students be taught reproduce standard Academic discourse. Bizzell confirms that by putting it plainly “We know this in composition studies because we are continually being urged, by administrators. Colleagues, parents and students to teach academic discourse (bizzell 203)” Referring specifically to Academic writing Bartholomae, an ardent foundationalist, also states “I want to argue that academic writing is the real work of the academy (Bartholomae 63)” On the other hand the Anit-Foundationalists, Peter Elbow and others, want to empower the student to bring their own voices into academic discourse. While speaking of his goals for his first year students Elbow states that his students should get personal satisfaction from their writing while also being able to state confidently that they feel as if they are an academic. (Elbow BAW 72) In general anit-foundationalist seek to protect the student from indoctrination in to the academy by questioning the educational authority of foundationalism (Bizzell 202) because they believe that, as Bizzell states “an absolute standard for the judgment of truth can never be found (Bizzell 204).” Each side believes that their approach will allow students to effectively participate in Academic discourse. The resolution of the struggle between Foundationalism and Anti Foundationalism is highly important. It may determine the course taken to reach one of the most the most fundamental functions of the Academy.
2
There are difficulties with the Anti-foundational approach. Bartholomae tells us that in “Academic Writing” that it is not possible to write freely with an uninfluenced voice that “Students write in a space that defined by all the writing that has preceded them (Bartholomae 64)”. Bartholomae also says that it should be “our goal to make a writer aware of the forces at play in the production of knowledge (Bartholomae 66)” not protect him or her from those forces. He also states students should master academic writing “ before learning its critique and imaging it undoing (Bartholomae 70).” When the anti-foundationalist do establish their agenda there are still problems because as Bizzell paraphrases Stanley Fish “anti-foundationalism slides back into foundationalism. The tendency, in other words, is to hope that becoming aware of the personal, social, and historical circumstances that constitute our beliefs, we can achieve a critical distance on them and change our beliefs if we choose. In encouraging this hope, anti-foundationalism is setting up its method in place of the absolute standards of judgment it debunks.(Bizzell 205)” So even if the anti-foundational approach is at all possible as Bartholomae doubts it is likely to be flawed as Fish points out. This is not to say that foundationalism is without its flaws.
(***Original idea for above *** Without knowing how to reproduce standard academic discourse a student’s voice will never be heard. Their work will be discarded out of hand to being to personal or not adhering to policy. Even when such a student produces exceptional work defects in their writing not only keep them communicating clearly but they are unlikely to be rewarded for that work. In the long term that will discourage the student. )
Traditionally, as Bartholomae states, foundationalists have been primarily concerned with teaching students to master “the figures and forms, learn to produce an elegant, convincing, even professional quality narrative (Bartholomae 70).” Bizzell states however “This kind of writing instruction treated all differences between students simply as a mater of innate and individual abilities. The students’ thought processes and their various social circumstances were ignored (Bizzell 106).” This of course did not recognize students differing abilities to deal with academic discourse. Which in effect made the Freshman English class a culling tool of the Academy. While historically that has been the seemingly preferred policy of the Academy, an overwhelming influx of students unable to reproduce standard written English made this approach problematic (Bizzell 107). This change in students married with a change in the nature of the profession of the composition faculty lead to a reexamining of composition studies and the definition of “Good Writing”(Bizzell 108) Bizzell further states, in order to be more effective teachers of composition for the new type of students the university was obliged to admit teachers would have to better understand “the students’ writing processes; and the relationship between the academic discourse community and the student’s discourse communities.(Bizzell 108)” So the traditional foundationalist approach to teaching composition can no longer work in the modern university regardless of the wishes of the Academy.
1
(Original idea for the above section ***Without being able to express his or her own voice the student cannot effectively persuade or express his or her readers. He or she will not be able to effectively express the standard point of view or contrary points of view that are so essential to healthy discourse communities. That lack of freedom of expression may also curtail the student from expressing any contrary point of view at all.)
Bizzell nearly has the solution in her essay “Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism” Which is to teach standard discourse and then teach student to rhetorically analyze that discourse. (Bizzell 218) However I would like to submit that these skills must be taught concurrently as to not give one primacy over the other. Bizzell emphasizes the necessity of political activity for the faculty as to maximize opportunities for students who are faced with the prospect of rejecting their own home discourse community or failing in the academic community. (Bizzell 218) I cannot disagree with her point but I believe part of that faculty activism should be to ensure that as an institution the academy constantly reviews and adapts it’s standards, which are the basis of Academic discourse. To do less would be dangerous, as non-current standards could serve as a further restriction of the students’ ability to participate in academic discourse.
Posted by mattl0713 on September 15, 2008
Tags Uncategorized
Comments on specific paragraphs:
Click the
icon to the right of a paragraph
Comments on the page as a whole:
Click the
icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)