Moore's article comes at a time of shifting social structures, particularly within higher education. Universities were experiencing an influx of students from demographics that, in previous decades, had been excluded from the college experience. This is post-war America, and the G.I. Bill has opened the ivory gates to a throng of first-generation college-goers, many veterans of WWII and Korea, many underprepared and all together unfamiliar with the expectations and norms of academic discourse.
So Moore's reaction is typical of those in higher education who were used to the "old ways and days" when only upperclass, prep-schooled, white boys attended college. The response to this influx of new students was 1)to sound the tocsin of literacy crisis and 2)to cultivate Writing Clinics and Writing Labs to treat the masses.
Literacy crisis is a recurring theme in American educational culture, and it typically accompanies times of economic, social, or political uncertainty. When there's a threat to the social order, those who are privileged by the status quo are called to arms in order to defeat the boogie man of social change. Unfortunately, the boogie man usually happens to be the people who have been systemically victimized by the prevailing social order; victims are blamed for this or that deficiency that threatens the very survival of our civilization (i.e. "you're threatening our way of life because your too stupid to get a job or join the army; therefore, we'll bifurcate our educational system in order to provide you with basic skills and safeguard our customary way of doing business against infection--which is you!")
I know this sounds cynical, and perhaps it's overly simplified, but the pattern is basically accurate. Systems are threatened by glitches; historically, glitches have been war, recession and depression, civil strife, etc. I don't mean to single out Moore; Moore is a product of his time, and no doubt, he probably genuinely sought to help students and shed light on current developments using the tools and language at his disposal.
This pattern repeats itself several decades later, during the Vietnam War, and much more drastic measures are taken: the advent of the open-admissions university, the creation of regular developmental/remedial courses, and the solidification of writing centers as a recognizable, normal feature of higher education.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kind of random, but...for those who are having trouble accessing my blog....this is the URL:
ReplyDeletehttp://sbryantengl6550.blogspot.com/
Hope that helps. :)
The occurrence of literacy movements in America is almost like a twisted form of survival of the fittest for humanity. If we are not smart enough, or unique enough in some way, then we will be pushed off to the side and be overrun by someone else.
ReplyDeleteIn a less cynical and threatening sort of way, it seems as though the writing center as a professional and unique entity was facing a similar survival problem and therefore writing center directors and other participants created the professional organizations like the NWCA, as is explained in Kinkead's article. In order to not be lost in the sea of composition and literature at NCTE and CCCC, writing centers HAD to make their own organizations and publications. In turn I think this effort continued to legitimize the "laboratory."
On the Summerfield article: Early on, I related to her enthusiasm for the idea of a writing center. I especially liked her ideas about the writing center being a "community of writers." I feel like this fits with the UWC mission of helping writers improve (rather than helping papers improve.) One reason I like this idea of community and conversation rather than strictly tutoring and instruction is because it allows the writing center to cater to more than just students who feel/have been told that they have some kind of deficit or injury when it comes to writing. It also allows for tutors to be sounding boards more than advisors. Summerfield's description seems less exclusive in that sense. Additionally, and what I feel is extremely important, Summerfield seems to allow for modeling on the part of the tutor. On page 25, Summerfield says that writing should be “interactive”—that is, both writer and reader should be involved. To me, this suggests that the process of interpretation can be modeled by the more experienced writer/reader (presumably, though not necessarily the tutor). At the very least, the tutor will be able to demonstrate a new point of view on the work, providing the writer with a new interpretive lens. In my own experience, hearing the way someone else interprets my writing has helped me to see my writing more objectively, so for me, the modeling is often as important as the feedback.
ReplyDelete