On pedagogical responsibility and the subjectivity of style

Sometimes I wonder if I've gotten into the wrong field. I find that much of the time, I dislike classic "big-L" literature. I guess for me, English has never really been about the simple love of good poetic expression. That mentality has never quite been my bag. On the contrary, I got into English for the intellectualism- for that breed of abstract thought we refer to as "critical theory." But if I've learned anything in Graduate School thus far, it's that this sort of ivory tower intellectualism is more effective in alienating people than in creating a productive conversation, much less solve any of the cultural or political problems that it attempts to engage. Hence, when authors like Noam Chomsky talk about "intellectual fakery" in relation to disciplines like Marxism or Post-structuralism (which is really only an elaboration on the work of Saussure), it strikes a chord of truth. After-all, these are not issues that can't easily be explained to any 15 year old, as Chomsky has made note of.

But how did we get here? Why did we invent this sort of ivory tower language? It is important that we remember the premises on which post-structuralist modes of thought are based on. Contrary to the belief that literature can accurately mimic reality with any sort of accuracy, post-structuralism suggests that all human thought, including empirical observation, relies on ideology to construct meaning. For that reason, the most obvious way to expand upon academic modes of inquiry was to increase the stock of readily available signs. The result was a breed of thinking which endeavored to undo ideological falsities by creating new ideologies (we call them theoretical lenses) through which to interpret the world and its literacies. To an extent, this was successful- those who are versed in critical theory read and understand the world far differently than those who are not. Edward Said has called this a "critical consciousness" but such abstract terms can be misleading.

I don't believe people are tied to ideologies, or that it is impossible to usurp the cultural assumptions latent in contemporary "common-sense." On the contrary, the term "ideology" used proper connotes a system of ideas that can be built upon. The creation of new academic language has allowed for the simultaneous creation of a new common-sense. It is after all common-sense that power relations influence culture, that class differences exist, and that racism and sexism are still problems. It is common-sense that meaning is constructed through an exchange of cultural signs rather than from the signs themselves. It is also common-sense that individuals are enormously influenced by their environments, that they are socially-constructed. These are things that should be understood by everyone, but they are not. Growing up I was homophobic, sexist, and a bit racist as well. It wasn't until exposure to these new ideas that I became aware of the fact that my behavior was culturally influenced and socially damaging.

The creation of Ivory tower language has done two things: it has created terms through which to understand and speak about ideas that previously had no language, and it has allowed us to talk so abstractly and hermetically that no-one outside the field can understand anything we write. This means that our influence is relatively small, which is a sort of protection from those whose interests are not in mind in our breed of cultural criticism. We call this the problem of "putting theory into practice," because it would seem as if the (relatively good) ideas put forth by our genre can only be understood in the language through which it was conceived. But this isn't true. Our academic language has allowed for a discourse that undermines relatively simple cultural assumptions by complicating them. In order to accomplish this task effectively, it is necessary to think in terms abstract enough to enough escape "common-sense." However, the result has not been any sort of vastly complicated conception of the world. On the contrary, we have created a binary of simple oppositional ideas masquerading as inaccessible intellectualism. Marxism is the critical binary of capitalism, Gender Studies of heteroism, post-structuralism of expressive realism. If as Chomsky tells us, "people are not geniuses" we would do well to remember that mastering an academic dialect is not synonymous with being able to think better than anyone else. Rather, it helps us to think in broader, more abstract terms.

This is what is missed by Chomsky's criticism- our ideas are simple, but arriving at those ideas is most certainly not. What remains is to effectively disseminate them using accessible language. But what is the best way to do this?

I teach theory to my English 101 students. The texts that I expect them to engage are 75% abstract theoretical, 25% concrete political. For some of my students, this has meant engaging central themes and issues in concrete, researched terms. For others, it has meant the adoption of a theoretical language and abstract thought. The former is ideal, since it most directly bridges the gap between theory and practice. However, I have difficulty faulting the latter because I often feel that they understand the material more precisely than other students- that they have somehow engaged the material more fully. This leads me to ask: how much meaning do we have wrapped up in theoretical language? What is the ideal way for first year comp students to learn to write?

Poetic or literary expression is often associated with a veritable mastery of detail. Theoretical expression boasts detailed expression of abstract ideas. Is either the ideal way to write? I've struggled long and hard to think of a way that 18th century travel writing could inform the issues I'm concerned with, and I've realized that the best way they can work for me is in the question of style and empirical subjectivity. What claims of legitimacy are inherent in scientific or in literary writing? What is the legitimacy of our field, and what is the best way to teach writing? If we operate under the premise that universities create intellectuals- what sort of intellectuals ought we create?