are actions stronger than thoughts?

Not in the inner world of imagination where images live and play. However, these images can be projected out onto the world, or manefested in the physical realm.  Don Quijote was a perfect example of a man who created and lived in his own imagined world. Of course, most would say he lived in a delusional world but that may be a limited way of looking and seeing. 

I believe the imagination played a major role in ancient times, not that I've been there, but I've gathered this from books and movies I've seen. As a child I spoke to spoons, rain drops, and trees. I imagined and believed they all had feelings and thoughts as I have. They were a part of me and I was a part of them. Whom or what do I speak to today? Ummmm, I guess I speak less as I get older. I seem to have less to say or have less of a need to say it, or both.  On second thought, I still speak to trees and feel them as part of me.

wanna be teachers, just like me

I ask myself as lots of wanna be teachers and new teachers do--what it takes to be good. We've read about teaching and writing in this class, and they stimulated thoughts but never answered this question. I then thought, good teachers are dynamic and imaginative, listen to their students, know the material well, and exude passion for what they do, just like me.

9 men on the 1 train

I got on the # 1 train this morning at around 5 AM and surprisingly found (9) men on the train, some older and some in their 20s. Most of them looked South or Central American but one looked Dominican for sure. They seemed to be either going to, or coming back from work. (At some point, I wondered if they worked together in a restaurant or a building of some kind.) I looked at their miserably tired faces: (1) man was painfully trying to remain awake while (2) were sound asleep (and looked the happiest), and the other (5) men were just bleakly staring down at the floor or out into space, also having weary expressions on their faces. The last man was reading a small soft-covered book while slightly nodding off.  I questioned and tried to imagine their inner worlds, and I embarrassingly admit that I found myself thinking: " These men have no imaginations.... They are too tired to even care." But of course, we all know this isn't true--all humans imagine. These men would not be sitting, or reading, on the train if they didn't imagine.  Nonetheless, I sensed that they had hard lives and thought only the faculty of  imagination could help them get through their hard times, just as it would for any person, including myself. Then I imagined these faces in an ESL classroom, and me teaching English. Of course, these observations are mainly projections of myself and the world I'd like to live in.

TIP

I can't believe the TIP assingment has taken me so long. I should be done by next year. (No just kidding.) I hope to be done (well done) by Monday evening. I read more articles than I had anticipated to read. They were interesting though. My topic is on imagaination and it's not an imaginary topic. I have begun my synthesis and it should by finished by late tonight, or even tomorrow. The introduction will be the final page. Imagine that.

Hope everyone is doing well.

Frank McCourt Video

Just saw the video on Frank McCourt, I especially liked when he talked about imagination--my TIP topic, somewhat. He said, that he and others knew they would get out of the "juicy slums " in Ireland, because they dreamt they were getting out. They had imaginations and wished to go to America. This brought to my mind how no one has time to imagine today--I think it's partly due to the internet. But I think as time marches foward, the less we seem to use our imaginations for whatever reason--maybe the need is not there since we have a larger middle class society. Everyone seems to be caught up in the commercial world and in conventional middle class values (which is ok, I guess), but I'm a romantic and feel sad about using our imaginations less. However, I could be wrong, maybe we aren't using our imaginations less or if we are maybe it'll be revived. Imagination, like a frustrated teenager, is very misunderstood.  http://www.viddler.com/explore/nyusteinhardt/videos/29 Regarding the video, the West Village scenes evoked nostolgic feelings--made me want to go there for a walk. But then I recalled the crowds and thought of all the homework I had still and that was like having a bucket of ice water thrown in my  face. Anyway, great video. Thanks to Nancy.

ironyuse to (each meaning of irony)

After reading  a metro news story: "Palin meets a gun owner she doesn't like," I thought what a wonderful  lesson this would make to teach students about irony, especially to help them understand irony as a literary device.

second language composition

All three schools of thought are important in order to stop the pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other. Also, students level and motivation are important here. ESL students who are capable of going into a class that teaches academic writing across the curriculum, should be in that class. Not every ESL student is on the same level. There was a time when I needed to emulate/imitate either the great romantic imaginative writers and/ or the disciplined academic writers. Its all  a process whether its controlled, traditional, or the process approach. So I don't get it when they refer to one as a process approach and the other as simply controlled or traditional. It's all a process that has to be internalized in order to write as a disciplined student. I think the controlled and traditional versions are important for college adult writers who are not native English speakers. They are older and the writing process has to be consciously controlled for an internalization process to take place in the race pace of college life. That's how I see it. This argument, however interesting, is ridiculous. All three approaches are important and relative, just like everything in life. This said, I agree- a writing approach that just focuses on a student expressing his/ her personal and emotional feelings and thoughts is not preparing a student for college. That's all good in the beginning stages. A student must eventually learn the discipline of academic writing for certain core courses or majors. Even when I wrote a critical essay in poetry, I wrote it for an academic audience. I had to learn this, I didn't know how to write like this, and couldn't write like this till I was in college for around three years. It's a gradual process. I find it interesting that none of these studies talk about the individual's pace.  That's the real issue-how someone arrives at some information at a slower pace but no less intelligent, actually sometimes even more intelligent, but pace is the issue here. Schools, teachers, and the system as a whole do not give many students the time they need to understand the information. It's all about progress at a fast pace; that's why standardized testing is popular. It's also popular because of the big bucks it brings in.

On a personal note, I enjoyed writing for the humanities and about fiction much more than I did for the sciences. I have an active imagination and felt my tongue on a leash whenever I had to write for the sciences back in the day when I was a B.A. student. I didn't enjoy it.  However, whether I'm writing for the arts or sciences, it's a process.

literary imagination

 In general mixing disciplines is a great way to bring new isight and interpretations to fiction.  History especially, which is about life, can help stimulate the imagination about a story's situational events or its characters. I'm not saying that a work of fiction can't stand alone as a work of art, but history can provide  richer layers and meaning. Sometimes the historical context in which a story is embedded is obvious but not always. Another interesting observation, is that fiction comes from life... and no matter when or where, basic human needs and desires never really change.

The third bank of the river- father's checked out

This rich and multifaceted story is narrated by a young boy who is longing for his father to return home. The reader learns from the young narrator that his father has ordered a canoe and plans to live in it. Although the young son describes his father as responsible and dutiful, his action suggests quite the opposite from a rational point of view. Amid all the pain and suffering the father causes his family, particularly his son, while virtually appearing untouched by their grief, would lead one to view this man as cruel or even insane.  However, Rosa's story could be, and I think was meant to be, interpreted on a a mystical level as well. Although, the author never gets inside of the father's head and the reader never learns what drove him to his decision, it is clear that his plan was deliberatiely and meticulously designed, the boat " was built to last."

Although the son convincingly describes his longing to see his father throughout the story, he ironically fails to rise to the occasion when the opportunity of reunification presents itself. This missed opportunity leads to his torturing himself for the rest of his life. However, I think the son not only takes his father's place, psychologically, but he also becomes his father through a psychic merging process. Through this merger, the son is driven to a kind of madness as the boundaries between them dissolve till finally the father ceases to exit, " Nobody ever saw or heard about him again." 

After the scene where the son runs away from the father, he describes, in my view, the symbolic location of the third bank: "when death comes I want them to take me and put me in a little boat in this perpetual water between the long shores; and I down the river, lost in the river, inside the river... the river..." (55). The repetition indicates a form of madness that leaves in the reader's imagination a picture of the son succeeding his father on the river drifting in a canoe "built to last." ( a twilight zone moment)


It took me some time to question this third bank idea, but when I did, I wondered how many banks a river has. Two banks came to mind, but really didn't know for sure. So I googled images of  riverbanks and two indeed are what I saw. Then I wondered what this third bank represented?  I knew at this point that it wasn't a physical structure; therefore, it must be an invisible one, and that led to its symbolic signification. It's crucial that the reader explores the symbolic meaning of the third bank for Rosa's story to be more fully understood. I also think this third bank has more than one symbolic location or meaning. I interpreted the third bank to simultaneously represent death, sanity, and the canoe itself as an extention of the river. The river is also symbolic of the passing of time. In the narrative the son observes the river constantly "renewing itself" while he himself deteriorates from age and illnesses, which I believe, are prematurely brought on by his obsession with his father. Ironically, he is concerned with his father's well being while neglecting his own. The more the narrator-son tells the reader about his father, the less reader knows about the father; however, a  fuller portrait of the narrator-son is fully blown.(This is  definitely a "Bartleby" story from a Latin American perspective.  I wonder if Rosa was influenced by Herman Melville's "Bartleby.")

Finally, regarding the relationship between the father and mother, I sensed a deep disatisfaction coming from both sides. The mother clearly seems frustrated and disappointed with the father. I inferred that the mother is annoyed at the father's level of commitment.  Although the son sets the stage by presenting his father as responsible and dutiful, he never mentions anything that indicates his father's love. (although being dutiful is a form of love, I think something else is going on here.) Perhaps underlying the mother's "ranting and raving," as narrated by the son, is a longing for her husband to be less dutiful and taciturn, and instead to be more affectionate and communicative. Overall, I intuitively sensed a father who wasn't emotionally present and an enraged mother who had been left with the burden of caring for the household, the children, and perhaps even the business. Therefore, I interpet the father's state of limbo on the river as a reflection of how he had been when he lived on land with his family. I also think the father repesents other men in general who collapse or shut down from the pressures and demands of society, and of family life. Moreover, the son's sacrifice in giving up his own life and refusal to see the truth about his father is a continuation of his childlike wearing of rose-tinted glasses to avoid  facing the deeper psychological realization of his father's emotional absence even before embarking on his self-imposed isolation.

teaching vocabulary

I'm getting TESL certified at the New School and I have to do a reading lesson plan for this Saturday. I had planned to teach the vocbulary in context but then I thought of myself and how that doesn't always work for me. Let's see what other ways are there to teach vocabulary? When I've taught before, I have allowed students to use the dictionary, but the teacher doesn't want us as prospective teachers to encourage the students to use dictionaries. I don't understand why-- I think there's a lot a student can learn from the dictionary. My own vocabulary has increased from looking up words in the dictionary. A good dictionary shows spelling, pronunciation, number, and what part of speech a word is. Perhaps, the teacher is against dictionary usage because looking up words take too much class time. Anyway, if anybody has any ideas, I'd appreciate it. Activating their schema to see how much they already know might be a place to start. Ideas are welcomed.

Bruffee collaborative learning

  What is collaborative learning? Is it a student-centered learning style? Is it the ESL learning approach? And is this approach being applied to other fields? Who is it for? Is it for the students from disadvantaged backgrounds, or for students with wholes in their education? Or will it include every type of student? These are some of the questions generated by the Bruffee and Hawks' essays.

As I mentioned in the classroom discussion I prefer the old traditional learning style. On the other hand, collaborative learning is a benign idea that could prove productive at times. It allows students to work together and be interactive and reflective on the material taught or ideas inspired in class. However, despite its positive qualities, I don't think collaborative learning works in every situation or with every student  Personally, I prefer learning from a teacher who profoundly knows his discipline and enjoys engaging the students, but this doesn't exclude listening to peer members. I particularly prefer it when I'm sitting in a humanities or literature course analyzing short stories and poetry and then writing about it. An insightful literature teacher can provide frames of windows for the students' imaginations, into which they can glance and experience meaning; perhaps even inducing an  "aha" moment for a few students, as one professor always did for me. The teacher will illicit thoughts, insights, and lure students into a class discussion. An imaginative literature teacher is skillful at teaching about irony, foreshadowing, and other literary techniques, as well as reocurring patterns, and show how they enhance artistry, depth, and meaning in fiction. The collaborative approach could then be a means for peer members to discover these reoccurring patterns and  techniques in real life, or in their personal lives, and to draw parallels/connections between life and the events in the story. I think collaborative learning would serve ideally as a supplement to tradition style learning, not as a replacement. If peer teaching replaced the literature teacher in the classroom, it would be a sad state of affairs: Personally, I'd feel cheated of a quality education. I believe students should question collaborating learning's place in the classroom as well.

humble servant to the underground writing process

Elbow describes the discovery process of writing as he guides the readers through the deeper layers of the writing process, having them gradually swim up through each layer till their heads are out of the murky waters of writing. Elbow elaborates on the importance of allowing the process to breathe if  a writer wants to move beyond the surface of shallow mediocre writing.  What I love is how Elbow brilliantly describes this process, which is in the same writing manner that he is suggesting to the reader when working through thier own writing blocks. This approach allows the reader the opportunity to internalize the exact writing process he's asking of them. And the reader can at once intuit and imitate the writing strategy necessary for their writing to "cook" and "grow," a process, according to Elbow, that will help them find their own voice and thoughts through free writing.

 (He certainly knows his elbow from his armpit.)

Elbow can be compared to a Jungian analyst who uses Jungian psychology to help someone work through the writing blocks; furthermore, the blocks are where the precious jewels of writing live and from where good writing comes.

Moreover, Thompson's meandering streets and dark narrow alleys that become cities and suburbs are analogous to Elbow's muddy waters of writing.

response to kathie

Yes Kathie, it's sad that schools institutionalize/standardize knowledge. To me, that means students are taught to shut up, sit still, and give the "correct" answers like good little parrots in order to pass tests. They are not taught to use their souls or imaginations and are not allowed to have thier own pace or process when learning. Even when fiction is taught, historical context is almost always left out. How can readers truly understand works of art and literature if its not placed in its times. The story's essence will be lost. Teaching fiction in historical context is one means of activating the student's imagination- if taught with imagination. Schools need to change the way students are taught, but I doubt I will see this in my life time.

October 10, 2010 5:49 PM

Post a Comment

Tovani stimulates thoughts on Hull and Rose's reading or have I been merely distracted?

Tovani's down to earth and direct manner seems to have drawn in the students successfully. The reading strategies she introduces to the class are organic and easy to apply. Reading these four chapters, and hearing the responses from both Tovani and the students, made me think about my own reading experience. I can relate to all the feelings and reading difficulties the students mention, but I have also come to the reading strategies discussed in the book on my own naturally, however late, but not too late  Therefore, I'm all for intervention-- sooner is always better than later. Why were Tovanni's students not  helped in grade school?

Tovani's approach and teaching strategies also stimulated some thoughts on Rose's discussion with his Asian student Robert.  I never fully understood why Rose was seeking insight into Robert's conclusions of the poem. I know by listening to how Rob arrived at his conclusions, Rose was getting a better understanding of its source, and thus of Robert, but was it for its own sake? Or was it for the sake of exposing and creating an entree, for Robert, into the traditional scholarly interpretations of literature? (Or perhaps it was both.) Not that this would be misleading; we all know that that's what academia does best-to pass down information and knowledge of other scholars. I mean, who today has time to foster original thinking. However, although I understand that teacher's have limited time and a great deal of material to teach, I believe that one should not lose sight of one of the most important goals of education, to lead the student to the capability of thinking for himself.

To get an answer, I had to glance over "The Wooden Shack." I went to the conclusion section and read the last paragraph-- I think this explains it: "Robert's interpretation, though, will cause his teacher to modify his reading, and the teacher's interpretation will help Robert acquire an additional approach to the poem."

By "modify his reading," I understand that Rose will not automatically assume or expect the students to have conventional interpretations of the readings; nonetheless, the knowledge Rose imparts will juxtapose Robert's own social and cultural interpretations of the poem's lines. This doesn't mean Rose intends to give up having expectations altogether:  Since there are right on or "off the mark" answers, according to Professor Rose, it seems Robert will be left to struggle on his own with these side by side interpretations, with the expectations that he will eventually arrive at the conventional conclusions presented by Rose, which is what I suppose the author intended, because Rose's reading seems to be much more reasoned and on the mark.

More importantly, the presence of expectations are inspiring when they are imbued with high expectations of a student's ability and intelligence to comprehend and perform well,  even when not performed at the conventionally expected pace.

 Approach all and everything with a wary eye, which is the scientific approach.


,

what I learned from Tompkins' reading

I learned that in modern literary theory, literature is about signification, which I understand to mean creating a specific meaning, not just strong emotions.

Longingus says, "The ultimate goal in studying literature is to be done to master a technique," whereas, modern criticism takes meaning to be the object of critical investigation:  "unlike the ancients, we equate language not with action but with signification."

I might be wrong, but the old writers and critics seem more profound than the modern critics, even though the modern critics would not think this. They  seem to be intellectualizing more than the old critics who believed in action and creating an experience for the audience . An example of the old view could be a group of people gathered around a campfire drinking wine, singing and dancing, whereas the modern critics would sit around a campfire intellectualizing about these people singing their songs, dancing, and their music. In other words, understanding vs doing. I believe "doing" is a more holistic approach to understanding, and thus more profound. The modern view is a more narrow scientific approach. Of course, I could be all wrong about this heavy and sometimes even convoluted reading. However, I enjoyed reading parts of it. It's definitely worth revisiting and intellectually grappling with the ideas.

the wooden shack

I enjoyed reading Hull & Ross reading, because it is a clue as to how the student Robert arrived at his own interpretations about the poem. This study  will be helpful when I teach reading a poem or any other genre. The following is an example of how not to teach:

           "...  the laudable goal is facilitating under prepared students' entry                into the  academic community community is actually
           compromised by a conversational pattern that channels students
           like Robert into a more "efficient" discourse. The desire for
           efficiency and coverage can cut short numerous possibilities
           for students to explore... --all necessary for good writing to emerge"

There's a tension/conflict between good writing and participation in intellectual work. Ironically, what teachers are trained to teach, and their goal oriented behavior can sometimes interfere with a student's intellectual development, because it blocks the student's need to arrive at an understanding at his own pace and in his own way.

In this process between Hull and Robert, both the teacher and student will influence each other. Hull is forced to remain open and consider Robert's interpretation, whether or not he agrees with Rob's conclusion. This is important, because Rob has to go through his own learning process in order to develop to the point where he will be intellectually independent. He will be able to read the poem and come to a sound interpretation by himself, and I strongly believe this should be the "real" goal of education.  The teacher's goal should not be to impose his point of view on his students, but provide content and a context in which ss will learn to think for themselves.

This said, I know this is the ideal goal with which good teacher's struggle, and perhaps with time the forces against them will ease enough so that it will be possible for this goal to be realized.

How I came to writing

I remember coming to college and not knowing simple basic writing terms, or grammar:

When I heard an excellent English Professor, whose name I rather not mention, tell  a student in class that "it would be helpful if you  wrote topic sentences in your paragraphs," I scratched my head wondering what's that. I also didn't know anything about quoting, paraphrasing, and citations.  Although I was a middle aged-adult who had lived a pretty full life when embarking on my college journey, I was unprepared to write a college essay.

When everyone left I went over to the professor's desk to ask her what a topic sentence was. She was very generous with her time and explanation. I was a little shy, but I was too old to let embarrassment stop me from learning. Thus, I asked her if I needed to learn how to write a topic sentence. She answered "no, your paragraphs flow quite  nicely, however, you do need grammatical help." When she kindly enumerated the things I did wrong, grammatically, I thought to myself, "Wow, it would've been easier if she'd just told me that I have a topic- sentence issue."

Anyway, that's when I decided to get help: I was an assistant manager at a cafe in the East Village and I reached out to two retired public school teachers who were regular patrons. I paid them to explain and help me understand the grammar rules when possible, and to listen to me read my writing. We worked together for a year. Yep, I needed that much time, to learn grammar and basic writing skills, which I obviously missed out in my earlier education. But I also needed time, because these bad habits (errors) were deeply ingrained.  In fact, I sometimes still read my work aloud or into a tape recorder, then play it back to catch my errors, especially when the reading and writing is complex. (Well at least it's cheaper than paying retired teachers to help me point them out.)

I guess it makes sense that I became an English major, and now I'm in this MA Language and Literacy Program. I'm also concerned with young college students who struggle with reading and writing. I  empathize with them, but I need more than empathy if I'm going to help them improve. That's why I'm here, to learn and teach the tools of writing.

What Should Colleges Teach?

Stanley Fish writes so brilliantly clear in his analysis about what colleges should teach that I almost want to agree with him, but I can't because of my own personal college experience. Though I agree with everything he says to defend his position (and love the way he says it), I can't comfortably state that all instructors/teachers should only teach grammar form in college writing composition courses. To me, that would not be a college composition writing course-it would be a grammar course. I sincerely believe that the different subject reading materials are crucial for a student who comes from a certain disadvantaged background but also for a student who has a fertile imagination-- both need food for thought to write about, even if for different reasons. I could see an unadulterated grammar course being good for students who are mathematically-minded and have no interest in discussing or writing about other fields or genres. However, Fish's idea would make it very difficult for many students who are already having trouble writing in standard English or a newly immigrant student who doesn't yet know the language. Learning grammar in such a stringent formulaic manner could turn off enough students to make the current writing problem situation worse than it already is.

That said, I agree with Fish's point that teaching grammar form, function, and meaning are badly needed in colleges, especially since we have many students who are first generation and have never mastered speaking and writing the standard form of the language enough to be successful in colleges or in society as a whole. Not speaking or writing well will limit these students when they go out into the world. In addition, we have native-born English-speaking students who are more interested in communicating through the Internet, e-mail, and texting, and have not cared to develop or improve in academic writing or about learning the finer points of the language. Nonetheless, I see reading and writing about other genres just as important as learning grammar for overall  success in college and future life. Furthermore, I believe that grammar can be taught in context of the selected reading material from multiple genres.

The problem, in part, may be that instructors who are bad at teaching formal grammar-- or get frustrated with students not responding in class when they do teach it-- decide to limit or delete it from the study course altogether.  As we all know, teachers teach in what they are interested, which is good because they'll be more engaged and engaging.  Therefore, it may just take a teacher like Fish, or his clone, to be able to pull off teaching a class that focuses only or mostly on formal grammar.  However, I believe all four (grammar, reading topics and discussion of and writing about the topics) are vital for the development of writing in all its aspects. In short, students need to know how to read, think, and discuss in order to better write about multiple genres. This is important for students who are paying, in time and money, to get a solid university degree.

Regarding the students who are not accustomed to reading and having discussions on current topics, or on any intellectual matters, at home, are at a great disadvantage when they enter a classroom, because content has never been provided for them. They come into the colleges with minds that are like blank slates needing to be informed and awakened in order to learn and think. How can these students begin to write a critical essay without having awareness and knowledge of the world surrounding them. It's true that "young people who can't write can't think analytically or critically," but people who don't know how and why to read, and discuss topics interpretively/analytically, can't think or write well either. It works both ways.

Although I know some professors see it beneath them to teach students grammar, it's time they come out of their ivory towers and deal with it instead of sending the students to tutors who don't know how to explain grammar, or even worse,  sending the students to the learning-disabled office, which I have witnessed more than once.

 I know some teachers do this out of frustration; however, that doesn't make it right. It can be very demoralizing for a young student to be sent to the school learning-disabled office. In fact, I've heard often times that these students are not learning disabled in the traditional sense; instead, they need someone who will help them work through the difficulties they're having. That requires a tutor or teacher's time and effort.  Of course, this is easy for me to say, since I'm not a college teacher. Who knows- when I teach full time I may find myself doing exactly what I am criticizing. However, I hope I never resort to these quick and misinformed measures out of frustration, especially since I'd be colluding with those who are interested in keeping the status quo, which isn't in my interest either.

Fish and others seem to be devaluing the reading and discussion aspects of writing. Students learn grammar to improve their writing, but writing goes beyond grammar (though I admit, it is needed in order for the student to go beyond).  Nonetheless, students should not be expected to pull ideas out of a magical hat. It's too frustrating. They have enough to deal with. I state again that I agree with Fish in that grammar form ought to be taught, but I believe it should be taught in tandem with discussion, reading,  and writing in multiple genres.  Moreover, the course title should emphasize that grammar form and compositional writing, will be taught. This way, the students know what to expect and the teachers know that it is expected of them by their superiors. (Of course, an alternative could be to teach a separate formal grammar course and a separate writing composition course.)

Final thoughts-It's interesting to note that Lynn Cheney is the co-founder of ACTA. The fact that this right-wing organization supports Fish's argument in that grammar form should be the main focus in a writing composition course makes me suspicious of ACTA's motives, as it does Fish. It's very possible that ACTA and its founders are more interested in thwarting information and critical thinking; however, the ACTA people say that most college professors are discouraging critical thinking by indoctrinating students with their own liberal-leaning perspective, which inhibits broader independent thinking.

However, this hasn't been my experience at the City College of New York. I have always been presented with a balance of both sides, and never felt pressured or like I was being prodded one way or the other. But I cannot say what the situation is at other colleges, even though I've read, for example, that Harvard and Yale lean left and Stanford and Chicago lean right. But that's another discussion.

Local Knowlege blog-common sense

The title suggests that common sense should be understood as a cultural system. Common sense is common understanding among a people in a particular culture, and different cultures have different notions of common sense. (That's not to say there aren't any universal common sense notions shared by these different groups....)

The author quotes Wittgenstein's clever and interesting comparison between language and city: ... Ask yourself whether our language is complete--whether it was complete before the symbolism of chemistry or the notion of calculus was annexed, for these are, so to speak, the suburbs of our language." W seems to be saying that our language has not always been as developed as it is now--just as suburbs didn't exist till the development of cars, dirt & paved roads, railways, and express highways, thus making it possible for people to move away or out of crowded urban areas to improve their lives.

Language of chemistry and calculus is likened to the suburbs. They represent abstract thought. His discriptive analogy expands further: Our language can be seen as an old city: a maze of little streets and squares, old and new houses." These little streets and squares represent our old language while "straight streets and uniform houses" represent modern/comtemporary language. "Houses with addition from various periods" symbolize new language-- words, phrases, new ways of talking, and possibly spoken English with new accents & dialects.

Geetz's piece on common sense is heavy, and could be heavier going for those who don't have at least minimal knowledge of these thinkers' systems of thought. I had to read it twice, and wouldn't hurt to read again either.

The Right Handbook

I agree with the authors, most professions/fields have their own way of including/excluding others. According to the reading, grammarians and scholars do it as well.

Re: It's interesting to note that the English language being graded -- high-class, low-class, and standard English-- is not a linguistic construction but a social one. Society controls people - or, I should say, people do it in context of society, because they are interested in keeping the status quo. They do it by keeping the middle, working, and poor classes in the dark: "Ignorance leads to insecurity."  Of course, there are ordinary citizens who just follow the existing conditions without questioning it--baaaaaa. But they did not create it even though they play a role in, consciously or unconsciously, recreating or maintaining it. In a way I understand this, because I find myself at times following like a sheep as well, especially when I conserve my energy for working, going to school, and trying to get ahead. It takes a lot of energy to go against the mainstream.

Getting back on track-- It's great that we are being made aware of the academia snobbery "straight from the horse's mouth." Nonetheless, every professional field does protect its own interest. For instance, look at psychiatry: The diagnostic manual is filled with hard and dense language to describe "pathologies," which is applied to behaviors. However, often times these behaviors are very common and much easier to understand than the language used to describe them. The psychiatic profession does this to sound scientific/objective, but it's also a way to keep the lay person dependent on "shrinks".  The patient or ordinary person thinks the psychiatrist must know something because (s)he understands this obscure language. Lawyers do the same: It's called legalese.  It's also worth noting that both professions charge a lot of money. It's a big business.

I read the writing sample about consciousness, and I was surprised when I turned the page to see that an expert author wrote it. At first I thought it was written by a student, but then I realized that the authors of The Right Handbook were showing how published writers/scholars get away with breaking the rules.

My thoughts on the matter are that a student ought to learn the rules of writing before (s)he ventures out to break them. Here's an analogy in the spiritual realm: If a spiritual seeker goes to yoga class and the instructor says " to get enlightened, you have to let go of your ego." If that spiritual seeker doesn't have a developed ego (but a fragmented one), how can he let it go." You can't let go of something you don't possess.   Same with grammar and writing-- how can you break the rules if you don't know it. 

Writing well is empowering. Personally, I have to work hard at it. It's not easy, because I started late in life. However, I believe if one didn't learn the rules of writing or grammar in elementary school, it doesn't mean (s)he can't learn it as an adult. Even though old habits die hard, I am able to recognize my mistakes when they are pointed, which I couldn't do before. The key is that one must be committed to working hard. It's also important to have a teacher/tutor who believes in his/her student,, and is willing to put in the time and  effort.

In  chapters 1 & 2, the authors make clear that it is important to have a standard dialect when speaking and writing in order to communicate effectively.  They're not advocating that students throw away grammar and the mechanics of writing. They are encouraging them to empower themselves by being in the know with regards to language. The authors help by providing some background in order to debunk certain myths that keep us ignorant.

blooper runs along the moon

blooper runs along the moon