Graff and Birkenstein see academic writing as one voice entering into an ongoing volatile conversation. Instead of existing purely for itself and in itself, the writing—the arguments and claims and points and ideas—exist because of and for the other. Only by engaging oneself and the other in this conversation does the larger dialogue expand and explore new avenues.
The rhetoric in the course description is very much in line with what Graff and Birkenstein purport. As students and citizens {and as humans existing for and with the other in mind, even if that other is yourself} we are challenged to enter into the middle of a conversation. Whether or not we know many facts about the topic is irrelevant. This will come in time and as it does we will attempt to inspire others to respond based on our employment of the exercises and assignments in the course. Using the already posited, we will construct our own arguments, predict likely objections and respond accordingly.
Both descriptions of academic performance rely completely on the existence of an ongoing conversation and emphasize the importance of challenging one’s own claims, opinions and beliefs. Both point out that this way of interacting is at the root of how and why we actively experience the world. However, I think Dr. Bammert’s perspective is more comprehensive—acknowledging the innate quality within humans to express and interact with the other in these ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment