The Fight for Freedom: Critical/Cultural Studies, the Writing Classroom, and Ethical Teaching in the University Context

The collection of readings for this week—grouped under the title Critical and Cultural Studies Pedagogy—expands the theories of CCS that Berlin touched on last week. Together, they examine the foundations, rise, and

Freire, writing in 1970, gives us our earliest sample for the week. Inspirational and steeped in thought-provoking theory, Freire’s piece gives shape to early foundations behind cultural studies by grounding it firmly in the notion of freedom. If an educator teaches methods for defining reality, then—Freire writes—“it is a courageous endeavor to demythologize reality, a process thought which men who had previously been submerged in reality begin to emerge in order to re-insert themselves into it with critical awareness” (621). Working with adult illiterates, Freire’s main goal is to examine and teach cultural literacy. His work outlines several tools and phases with which he implements this goal, but I believe his greatest accomplishment is situating cultural literacy (in this case that of Latin America) as work in both academic and equality.

Berlin, like Freire, also draws a link between instruction and enforced ideology. Writing now in 1988 (four years later than the article we read for class last week and eighteen years after Freire), Berlin classifies the teaching models of rhetoric into three different classes, each with a unique ideology on reality: cognitive, expressionistic, and social-epistemic

First, cognitive rhetoric defines “the real as the rational” (723). It divides writing into three stages: planning (further divided into generating, organizing, and goal setting); translating; and reviewing (both evaluating and revising). As such, cognitive rhetoric follows the theories of Flower and Hayes, Emig, and Bowel and Gintis. As Berlin suggests, it follows the epigram: “The existent, the good, and the possible are inscribed in the very nature of things as indisputable scientific facts, rather than being seen as humanly devised social constructions always remaining open to discussion” (725).

Second, expressionistic rhetoric argues that “the existent is located within the individual subject. While the reality of material, the social, and the linguistic are never denied, they are considered significant only insofar as they serve the needs of the individual” (726). Theorists within this class include Elbow, Lutz, and Murray.

Third, social-epistemic rhetoric, the most recent, is spearheaded by Burke, Bartholomae, Young, Bizzell, among many others. Within this camp, “the real is located in a relationship that involves the dialectical interaction of the observer, the discourse community … and the material conditions of existence” (730). Therefore, the real is never actually defined, but rather “posited” as “a product of the dialectic in which all three come together” (731-31). Chosen by Berlin as “the most worthy of emulation in the classroom” (735), social-epistemic rhetoric puts the question of ideology at the center of teaching writing and allows students to see the forces of society, culture, and self working within all writing.

Writing one year earlier than Berlin, Shor argues that Freirean notions of critical theory do not simply apply to the illiterate working classes of third-world countries but also have very important and extreme need to be implemented in thriving metropolises of America as well. Implementing dialogue as the key to unlocking critical literacy, Shor believes, instructs students in the quickest and most efficient manner. Through language, the “work” of the country becomes critical and critical thinking becomes much less remote.

Hairston, examining the current stage of writing as a discipline in 1992, portrays CCS with much different brush strokes than earlier scholars so far this week. Interestingly, she sees CCS at its core a method for instilling “dogma” and “ideology” (698) onto reluctant and resistant students. Ironically, the ideology which seeks to unmask hidden ideology instills and silences a resistant student’s ideology … I know that’s repetitive, but it seems to (comically) sum up the injustice to which Hairston points. Writing has become, in Hairston’s address, a product of its housing in English departments: critical theory. I was actually pretty shocked while reading Hairston at her extreme disregard for critical theory. Claims such as, “our society’s deep and tangled cultural conflicts can neither be explained nor resolved by simplistic ideological formulas” and “we have no business [as writing teachers] getting into areas where we may have passion and conviction but no scholarly base from which to operate” (705). Wow. Her whole distaste of critical/cultural studies makes complete sense; however, seems to completely turn the goals of the discipline upside down for scholars of rhetoric. She asks: What ever happened to trying to make students better writers? Why are we wasting our time teaching students in a writing class about sexism, structuralism, deconstruction? These, she argues, have no place in the writing classroom. She, it seems, leans a bit toward expressionism in agreeing that our classrooms are more diverse but need to be focused on the student first and then the student’s place within his or her community. I believe her argument is extremely relevant, especially to myself who at least as of late was a big proponent of CCS; however, it is still steeped in criticism and seems to just follow the same process of past expressionists who place emphasis on student writing, student experience—trying to detach the educator from focusing on the political and social constructs that line every piece of writing.

Smith, too, and as an excellent final note to the week, reconsiders CCS in the contemporary college. Writing in 1997, he is our latest example of writing in our sample and ends with very provocative questions on gatekeeping. Drawing attention to the fact that we as a discipline seem to steer clear away from the notion of gatekeeping, Smith brings to full-view the notion that scholars are always in contention within a university setting of gatekeeping: consider, as Smith does, graduation. Thus, Smith suggests it is best as scholar of writing to suit a course to the context of the university, where what is taught is of benefit to all majors and all students, not just those interested in composition. I believe what Smith would have us see is that teaching CCS in the writing classroom hinders students much more than it helps them. Just as Hairston critiques, we need to focus on teaching writing as discipline, not liberation.