Problems of Authority, Identity

Two of this week's articles address some very troubling concerns of mine regarding how I structure class sessions. I will refer to the selections from Mirtz and Freeland, as they make me uncomfortable and I wish to tease out why I have such a reaction. I wonder how I might combat this unease or how I might incorporate their suggestions in less-threatening bits and pieces.

In my past teaching experience I found myself questioning the nature of my authority, my comfort with my authority, and my students' recognition of my authority. I served as a "peer facilitator" (see also: underpaid TA) for a 100-level philosophy course. At the time of my appointment, I was 19-going-on-20... hardly a year older than most of the class, and more than 4 years younger than two of the students. I initially justified my authority by telling myself well of course I'm smarter than them but that was a very cowardly way of approaching the class. Some students were much brighter than I in regards to the material the class covered, and I quickly learned that even if I had some wealth of knowledge they didn't about Descartes-- that wasn't the point of the course. And, I realize, that really isn't (or shouldn't be) the point of ANY course...
In this appointment I was not to grade papers. Because of my status as an undergraduate, and because of the nature of my position, it was against policy for me to actually be the person assigning any sort of final grade to the students. This relieved my anxieties quite a bit. I got to avoid the issue of how one properly evaluates assignments. For me, this question is all about authority.

Currently, as a TA, I struggle with commanding the classroom. Alongside a very experienced professor, I manage a class of 60-70 people. When I call the class to attention there are still pockets of gossip in the back of the room. It takes a few tries to draw the class together; I often I feel defeated.
I now do the majority of the grading in this course. Although the professor and I work together to set up an approach with which we both agree, I often feel as though I'm doing something wrong. What if a student deserves an 87 instead of an 83?? These numbers all seem so arbitrary to me, but they have a concrete effect on the lives on the students. Those four percentage points could be a very important difference for them.
Two important questions bounce around in my head:
1) What/Who gives me the authority to make these sorts of decisions?
2) What happens if the students do not accept this authority?

#2 is where I tie in our readings. I feel that with both Mirtz and Freeland's approaches there is a really progressive way of handling power in the classroom... that worries me as a first-time teacher with all the duties/responsibilities of a REAL instructor (qualified by the grading I wasn't allowed to do as a peer facilitator).

In Mirtz, I do understand what she is pointing out as an important "writerly" activity. That is, the identity-formation of these "indirect" conversations. Furthermore, as a student, I value this indirect talk in my groups. These sorts of exchanges make me feel comfortable; without this comfort, I don't talk. I clam up. I stare at the floor. I shake, blank on words, and so on.
What I do not understand regarding Mirtz's article is the way we, as writing instructors, can best distinguish ourselves from other college classrooms. If indirect talk can be thought of as a positive activity in our writing classrooms, one that is conducive to the type of learning we want our students to engage in... then what is the value of indirect talk in other classrooms? In a geology classroom, with small groups, how would a professor be responding to indirect talk? Better yet, how should they be responding-- is this different from what Mirtz is advocating for our purposes?
My concern here is that this approach to indirect talk seems contrary to our responsibility in some sense to introduce first-year students to the college environment. (To borrow from James, if we are to act in some sense as those who introduce first-year students to the environment of this university...) How different are our classrooms, really? How different should they be?

Regarding Freeland's article, I find so much discomfort in this set-up. I believe my main concern with a conference-heavy writing course is simply that I do not have experience as a writing instructor. I feel that, as a first-timer, I will tend toward a more traditional approach. I don't want to be thought of as that teacher who James spoke of today in class. Don't I need to establish, in some tangible way, that I have and deserve the authority given to me by the university (?)
Again, to bounce off of James, he points out, "since our professor ran our class so poorly, beyond the accepted definition of ‘free-spirited’, and we knew what the expectations were (none), grading scale (made up), we didn’t do a thing and didn’t feel bad doing it. If a student is not feeling like he/she is getting her money/time/effort worth from the professor, what’s to stop them from blowing off the class?" I feel as though even though Freeland is obviously not as absent-minded as the unnamed professor in this example, s/he could easily be misconstrued as such by the students. And isn't maintaining respect for authority absolutely essential to the job?

I hate phrasing it as such. But ULTIMATELY the grade has to mean SOMETHING, and that weight comes from authority, right??(!)


Perhaps an important jumping-off point here would be, you are thinking about this all wrong.
I invite any/all suggestions here.