Thursday, June 30, 2005

A reasonable pedagogy and why I don't want one

So this isn't really the post I plan/ned to write later today, it's just something I want to say because I was bizarrely inspired by cbd's comment on Derek's blog about Bluto-in-the-cafeteria pedagogy. Which is: Fulkerson (and other taxonimists like Berlin) seem to believe we can and should lay out a nice grid to explain the rational cause and effect of why we do what we do when we teach writing. Now, I'm all for having reasons, but I don't really think we can count on reasonableness/rationality. Right? We are affective creatures. We can't rationally map what we do. We're Bluto in the cafeteria. Let's see if we can map some motives instead of gridding the reasons.

More, really, later.


jeff said...

Where does rationality get us?
Usually morality. Let's be reasonable. Let's be moral. Let's be ethical. Let's do things right (Aristotle: a good rhetor is a moral one).
Also in the latest CCC is the Ritter piece on paper mills. Its appeal is to rationality as well: Folks, let's be reasonable. To hell with our own blame in creating the situation, to hell with how media challenges authorship, to hell with cut and paste culture. Plagiarism is wrong! It can and must be stopped!
Good luck. History is usually against such rational moves.

Donna said...

Yup. We can control. We can be in control. A desire and illusion that's more of the managerial imperative, I'd say. (Of course I'd say. Can't seem to say anything else these days.)