Falsifiable Subjectivity

Subjectivity (essay 1 final)

Andre had not uttered a word in class, completely befuddled by the discussion transpiring in the classroom, these flippantly used words were being tossed around the room carelessly like stones into a stream, but many were unintentionally piercing his heart. The class discussion was supposed to be harmless, and for the predominant amount of the students it was little more than a platonic debate, but to Andre it was a tasteless display of ignorance and a direct assault on everything that he stood for. He stormed out of the room stammering words that he wanted to say. To this day his classmates didn’t know what was so unspeakably frustrating to Andre, but they certainly were careful to be more sensitive when talking about religious things in future classes.

This brief excerpt was obviously a prototypical, almost cinematic, example of the controversially ideological discussions that stirs up highly emotional results, often times someone cannot handle persecution and questions of authenticity imposed upon their beliefs. This can be blamed upon the natural clash of respectively opposing ideologies, but something dwells deeper within this continuous paradox. This mysterious enigma can be discovered when looking most inwardly, and this most intrinsic center piece is subjectivity.

            To help understand this term further, here is a very important example of the how quarreling subjectivities cause disagreements. This battle is waged daily in the political spectrum, this is due to the precedents that our Fore Fathers rooted our country upon. While America was a reasonable success, or at least thought to be so by most, people have questioned the legitimacy of the subjectivity that the country was founded upon, or at least have questioned whether or not the constitution is still applicable to modern day times. This is so hotly debated because subjectivity comes down to “personal interpretation,” which means the first American’s personally interpreted the constitution to coincide with circumstantial surroundings of their time, which some think that these once pertinent laws are outdated and that constituted laws should be malleable with time.

            These examples are just two ways subjectivity proves to be problematic, but clashing ideologies can happen just about anywhere, pertaining to anything, and one of these settings where it is quite likely to cause animosity is when considering academia in the classroom. The ambiguously considered term of subjectivity has grown to be quite the epidemic in the classroom culture. But how can this be when it is the very material that the principles of all intellectual academia are established upon? Disagreements of all kinds come down to this very precedent of subjectivity, but perhaps the most pressing one comes from the infamous debate between two scholars named David Bartholomae and Peter Elbow. Bartholomae, once wrote that all writing was in the context of previous writing, and that “nothing happens without imitation (Against the Grain 21).” Many of Bartholomae’s writings were along the same lines, altogether preaching an academic doctrine that previous subjectivities, such as the establishment of teachers in the writing classroom, were essential for transcendence as a writer.  However, Peter Elbow argued otherwise, saying that students needed to experience themselves as writers, meaning that it is important that student’s do not feel pressured by a professor or a rigorous academic discourse (Being a Writer vs. Being an Academic: A Conflict of Goals 79). If someone is attempting to find the superior viewpoint on how to teach, or how to correctly handle subjectivity, they might as well sign up to count all the grains of sand on the beach because it would be an endless struggle to name the winner. This is because this monster is not something palpable or definite in nature, it is an idea, that has been predetermined by men, and it also institutionalized into other men as seen conventionally appropriate.

            However, in the writing classroom, subjectivity can be helpful or detrimental, and these varying degrees of it can emerge in a plethora of different ways. Subjectivity is important when fundamental development needs to occur, because it can provide a premeditated academic discourse that has been proven to appropriately improve the necessary writing skills. If an effective academic discourse is stumbled upon, it should undoubtedly be utilized in the classroom. To inveigh a method that is noticeably garnering favorable results seems more anti-productive than anything else. However, finding a successfully subjective discourse that is dynamically sound is much more complicated than it appears, because the variable of student ability is always problematic when trying to find universally applicable solutions. This is one of the primary criticisms of the Foundationalist theory, it is too narrow minded in it’s philosophy of teaching students a particular discourse instead of seriously considering what they need to progress as a writer in the academic community (Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness 203).

            In my opinion it is certain that having no subjectivity is probably even more problematic than having one universal discourse. This is because if there is no discourse, then there is nothing “academic” about academic writing. Suddenly all works become collaborated into an undistinguished group of writing, no longer is there such things as good and bad writing, but instead all scholarly work has lost its merit and been thrown in with writing that is not as profound or groundbreaking. I say this without trying to denigrate other’s writing, because most of what I write will certainly be placed in the “less profound” section, but certain writing needs to be placed on a pedestal, because some brilliance should be embraced rather than squandered. If schools begin to ignore brilliance, or endorse the dull, due to a false sense of needing to patronize all forms of writing, so they may be seen equivalent to academic writing, then the universities are in a great deal of trouble.

            A flawless solution for such a long lasting controversy is not an entirely realistic ambition, but it seems that a reasonable compromise can be found in the middle ground of these two extremes. A proposal that seems to be plausible, both in keeping an intellectual integrity to Anti-Foundationalism and Foundationalism, and also that it has attainability in execution, is to create a multi-layered and multi-faceted subjectivity in academic discourse. Not that this idea is completely new, or that it hasn’t been attempted, but it seems to be the only feasible solution worth pursuing, because at least theoretically, a compromise is not flawed like the extremes that stand on their own. The multi-layered and multi-faceted subjectivity is purposefully positioned and designed to meet a variety of different kinds of academic writers, so it is accessible to some degree, regardless of style and in skill. The “facets” are referring to the stylistic differences between writers (so that the discourse does not ignore creative styles of writing), and with an outreach to multiple facets it is possible to aid and improve several different types of specialties, while also improving the other facets of writing within the individual. In theory, this could create a dynamically versatile writer that can contribute to the discourse community. With a broad multi-faceted approach, we now need to make sure that this discourse is not discriminatory to any ability of writing. This is at least important to silence the protests of anti-subjectivity advocates, and, of course, because it is reasonable to assume that everyone has something valuable to donate to the discourse community. With that being said, we should relax because that is why this discourse is designed to be “multi-layered.” With a multi-layered academic discourse we have the adaptability to teach writers without a certain requirement of aptitude, which is good to avoid any reprehensive persona within the community.

            In review, the kind of academic discourse we want to encourage is a discourse that is not discriminatory or patronizing, but one that is constructively refining scholars regardless of their abilities or their preference to academic or creative writing. Executing this should also be fairly simplistic, because it does not vastly deviate from current schooling, but it is far too important to forget to emphasize that this discourse should be stressed consistently throughout schooling, any intermittent efforts by uninspired teachers is not acceptable. Teachers must be motivated and on the same page as other instructors, the lack of this is a common problem among universities. Testing and competition should be highly encouraged because these are helpful in placing students where they need to be, skipping classes that students test out of is exceptional and also encouraged. If this discourse is handled correctly, it should be helpful in identifying what kind of subjectivity the university needs to be founded upon and also to create a versatile academic community.

Work Cited

Elbow, Peter. Being a Writer vs. Being an Academic: A Conflict of Goals.

Bartholomae, David. Against the Grain.

Bizzel, Patricia. Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness.