Why Josh Could Only Write About Mountain Biking
On Cincinnati Durst writes that the city is, "noted for its conservatism and pro-business environment." And with a self identifying glee, Durst notes that his university, "both defies and reflects the city's conservatism."
Durst continually engages throughout this book in a certain subversive antagonism that he seems to relish and I believe functions as what he sees as the focus of writing in general. Throughout chapter 2, which I believe to be an excellent dissection of a professor's goals (and the struggle within a department, within an administration, within a professional college, within a city) he consistently makes small observations, and unexplained asides that I find problematic.
The first undercurrent of strangeness was his description of the University of Cincinnati, in which he writes, "but the university's greatest strength and most important priority, according to the administration, remains an undergraduate education." I didn't have to break out my sarcasm detecting device in order to interpret a hulking pile of acrimony on Durst's part towards the professionalism present in the administration of the university.
I don't disagree with Durst, I went to undergraduate institution where I fully expected to experience a rounded liberal education that was not purpose/career driven. However, that seems to be what his particular educational institution does. Should we also deride the administration of a culinary institute for not permitting its students to study 19th century French Literature?
This is not an abject utilitarian perspective on composition, but rather a recognition that writing actually gets stuff done. It can get you a loan, get you a job, win you a love and prove your innocence. Durst seems to occupy a place in chapter 2 (which I know from the later chapter's to be more nuanced and compromising) that composition should be about self reflection and social change. And his zealotry in this regard blinds him to the functional necessity of writing in every-day-life.
The second problematic quality to Durst's writing is his insistence on highlighting conservatism, religiosity, dogmatism and capitalist pride whenever possible. Why is it important to his classroom that Cincinnati is a bastion of North-Kentucky traditionalism and southern Ohioan right wingers? Does it not snow in Cincinnati and produce terrible winters that could affect the psyche of the young writer? And what of the city's strategic location on the boarder during the Civil War and the deep wounds that guerrilla warfare by the confederacy played on race relations ? Isn't this a profound influence on a young writer? Why is it that conservatism and an appreciation of business are highlight as if they are inherently antithetical to the composition process? Must writing always be a subversive attempt at the reclamation of identity or voice or cultural capital? It seems that Durst believes this, as made evident by his jabs and aside about his administration and curriculum.
This type of perspective in academia, that we should be tolerant of all perspectives aside from conservatism of thought or religion, pushes bright minds towards banality. Think of poor Josh from page 23. Durst attempts to describe him as kindly as possible, yet the author cannot help but frame Josh as some sort of antebellum conservative fossil. And the rammifications go further than just a teachers perception..."His classmates seemed to like him and respect him and enjoy his writing, rather than finding him pedantic." If this isn't projection than I don't know what is...his fellow students seemed to like him. Seemed. As if the observer could not imagine a situation in which young adults interact with a religious and traditional young man and find him engaging.
It's therefore no wonder Josh kept writing about mountain biking. He read Durst better than Durst was able to read him. He saw the none-too-subtle scorn behind the eyes of his teacher and retreated to a place of apolitical compromise and irreligious empty gestures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that some comp teachers downplay the functional side of writing; indeed, not every paper is an exercise in self-exploration.
ReplyDeleteHowever, having dealt directly with this sort of utilitarian resistance, I can say that the problem isn't just one of varying conceptions of writing. It's one thing not to adopt the instructor's reflective perspective - it's quite another to resist writing altogether as useless and/or irrelevant. Some of the more utilitarian students tend not to value writing (or learning) at all.
I agree with you - writing can be a practical tool for action, a way to get stuff done. In fact, I think it's incumbent on us to sell the very idea of writing to those who may not see any point to it. I'd like to think that we can foster a kind of metacognitive awareness - that is, encourage our students to think about thinking - without overtly pushing them towards any particular ideology. Shouldn't this sort of teaching be apolitical? It's about questioning, thinking critically, avoiding dogma - not replacing one set of unexamined beliefs with another. There's nothing wrong with being purpose/career driven, but reflection need not be antithetical to that.
I, for one, would like to change how students see writing, not to make them adopt my worldview, but to make them better writers.