1. Bartholomae states that alternative methods of relaying historical accounts are often "silenced' by the 'official' disciplinary history, one couched in the rhetoric of 'objectivity" (Bartholomae 13). Though Bartholomae makes the case that individual writers are driven to try from a purely "objective" standpoint, to what degree is true objectivity even possible for an individual writer? If writers are only being taught to feign objectivity is there a case to be made for the individual voice being lost in favor of an unobtainable imperative? Even if true objectivity is possible, is it really even desirable to write from such a lack of perspective?
2. Fulkerson presents four different philosophies regarding the "ends" of writing, each prioritizing different values in writing from things like individual expression and clear communication, to accurately representing eternal reality and persuasiveness (Fulkerson 409). He makes the claim that "writing always has four dimensions; no teacher can ignore the one he or she does not emphasize" but is it truly possible that writing could involve a synthesis of all four theories, even though it seems to be the case that the expressive philosophy and mimetic philosophy are directly at odds with one another? To what end is it possible for a writer to try and represent external reality without first attempting to shed themselves of their perspective and their voice?
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteYour first question interests me greatly and seems very philosophical. For me I don't believe capital T True objectivity exists, however I believe it is important to strive towards objectivity in hopes of accessing more truth. As for the desirability of objectivity, I suppose that depends on the demands of the writing. If someone is looking to gain an empirical understanding of the multivarious factors causing the rise of the US steel industry, then objectivity would be desirable. On the other hand, if someone is looking to know what it was like to work in a early 20th century steel mill, then objectivity would not be desirable. In all, I believe the proper form of writing, whether objective or subjective, typically depends on audience expectations.
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteIn response to your second question: We have really been inundated with theories in the past three days, and what I've noticed across all articles and both classes is the extent to which none of them are perfect and many of them seem to work in conjunction or on a partial level a lot of the time. In Fulkerson's story where he disagrees with his students' praise of another student's paper, he says that, since the students received the paper well, it was successful from a rhetorical perspective. However, he did not like the paper because he felt that the argument was based on untrue facts, which is evaluating the paper with a mimetic axiology. Later on, he observes that many people like reading pieces that are expressivist in nature, which represents both rhetorical and expressivist success. Even the axiologies that he argues are now very unpopular, such as the formalist axiology, maintain partial viability. We have left behind our obsession with the five paragraph essay, but a paper littered with grammatical errors or extremely poorly organized would hardly communicate well to an audience, making it a rhetorical failure via formalist failure.