ENG 5011

Spring 1999

The Struggle for Power

Over Knowledge

According to Stephen North, the field of composition is in the midst of a struggle for "power over knowledge." Scholars of composition are attempting to gain power, money and prestige . To aid them in this struggle, composition scholars are responsible for creating a "revolution" within their own field, attacking from within and causing great debate.

The intent of the scholars seems rather dubious. By creating this struggle they may gain nationwide attention and funds for composition studies; however, they seem to have done so at the cost of their own practitioners. If something is wrong in the field of composition and people are not learning to write, practitioners must be doing something wrong. The teachers of writing become the scapegoats.

Obviously, if the cry for revolution comes from within the field of composition, those in the field are the ones setting standards and deciding what falls short. The National Interest and the Teaching of English (1961), the document that published this cry to the world, admits that English teaching has been successful in the past. It points out that the goal of total literacy has nearly been achieved. However, this is no longer enough. The goal of "total literacy" is reduced to what the NCTE calls "mere literacy" (323). Apparently, knowing how to read and write is not adequate. The NCTE, authors of the document, seem to have changed the standards of literacy. This raises a question about who defines these standards. Must everyone conform to the standards set by the NCTE even if these standards have no relevance in their lives? North point out there is no evidence of a true crises; the American public does not seem to be suffering from lack of literacy (324). Despite this, the increase in literacy standards means that writing that was previously considered adequate for survival is no longer considered so. Composition scholars have decreed that all must conform to one standard, regardless of what their personal needs may be.

Upping the standards of literacy gives undeserved power to composition scholars, but writers may be the ones to benefit in the end. Raising standards for writing forces writers to conform to a standard for written communications that stretches across the disciplines. Since we live in what Joseph Petraglia calls a "rhetro-centric universe," where all knowledge is communicated through composition and/or rhetoric, higher standards in the English classroom should lead to new levels of communication and the sharing of knowledge (316). Writers will be more able to express thoughts and ideas and facilitate thought processes.

The negative side to new standards is quickly apparent to those responsible for helping writers reach a higher level of proficiency. New methods of teaching cannot be spontaneously created; years of trial and error are needed to discover what works. Scholars of composition have taken advantage of this problem and attempted to "discover new knowledge." When new knowledge surfaces, scholars accuse practitioners of ignoring it or misusing it (North 329). Here, then, is where the two themes of the current crises emerge. Scholars’ opinions differ about what the role of the practitioner should be. Some feel the practitioners should know nothing about research or theory but should only act according to what the scholars tell them. Others feel there must be a compromise; practitioners must learn discourse and theory as well as lore (North 331-333).

Neither of these models give any credit to what the practitioners already do. "Lore" is not considered knowledge and therefore practitioners have no power in the struggle. But what is knowledge? Composition scholars gain knowledge by study and research. Practitioners add to their lore by trying new things, observing what works and what does not work with student and recording the results for future reference. This process seems to make the practitioner a researcher and philosopher of writing instruction. Practice cannot be discounted; theory alone can only go so far.

It seems that students of writing would benefit more by the practice of writing teachers than by continued theorizing by scholars; theory without practice and application has no real results. If composition scholars are truly concerned with increasing the standards of literacy they must be willing to work with those that put theory into practice.

As Ann Berthoff points out, "If the questions and answers [of educational research] are not continually REformulated by those who are working in the classroom, educational research is pointless" (North, 334). Educational research without education goes nowhere.

Berthoff’s theory assumes that those working in the classroom will continually "REformulate" questions and answers. As North points out at various points within the chapter, this may not always be true. Many practitioners have given up the practice; what they do is not influenced by their own observations or scholars’ research. Those who teach writing below the college level often do not write themselves (326); those who teach college composition may not be primarily concerned with developing students’ writing skills. Instead, they may be more concerned with teaching literature or their own literary research. These are the instructors who are like barnyard geese (327); they do not learn from experience because they are not interested in what they have to learn. Teachers who are truly concerned with composition will learn theory and study research; they use these in their classrooms and add them to their lore. These are the practitioners who see the results. They are the ones who have learned where the real power lies in the struggle for knowledge.