Where does the “eco” in “ecocomposition” come from? Asking this question seems like a good place to start navigating the theories set forth by Cooper, Owens, Dobrin, and Weisser. As Dobrin and Weisser note, “Etymologically ecocomposition reflects ecology, a science that evolved specifically to study the relationships between organisms and their surrounding environments” (8). For me, the prefix “eco” instantly brings to mind the marketing phrase “eco-friendly” (a marketing phrase, of all things) and secondarily conjures a generalized, amorphous idea of wilderness. Point being that “eco” has come to suggest a host of meanings rather than one, and that defining the term “ecocomposition” may require diverging from the habitual significance of “eco” toward an understanding of composition as it relates to ecological systems.
Ecocomposition as a concept certainly is more complex than the idea that writing, like household cleaners or recycled toilet paper, can be "eco-friendly." To explain the relationship between ecology and ecocomposition, Cooper compares the dynamic processes within ecological systems to the act of writing. She affirms that “an important characteristic of ecological systems is that they are inherently dynamic... in place of the static and limited categories of contextual models, the ecological model postulates dynamic interlocking systems which structure the social activity of writing” (368). Cooper's idea suggests that dynamic systems within the “ecological model” are comparable to the fluidity of systems at play within a discourse community.
The exchange of ideas is essential to the concept of dynamic systems, specifically that “ideas are also always continuations, as they arise within and modify particular fields of discourse” (Dobrin and Weisser 369). Writing thus becomes recognizable as a dynamic, social activity as opposed to a solitary, self-referential one. "Fields of discourse" or "discourse communities" always already exist and all writing that writers produce is contextualized within and by these communities. There is no writing that exists all alone, solely a product of the author's mind, absent of any outside influence. This realization is particularly essential in the pedagogical realm, where educators can utilize the ideas behind ecocomposition to encourage their students to see how everything they write has a greater context than merely the classroom.
It is essential that in this age of increasing environmental and social degradation that all students be given the tools to not only navigate the discourses within their community, but also to participate in a meaningful way. Dobrin and Weisser argue that ecocomposition pedagogy has the power to develop critically engaged and aware people, and that such people are then empowered to “resist hegemonic discourses that create anti-environmental legislation” (578). Drew goes even further than Dobrin and Weisser do, arguing that “every student who graduates from an institution and remains committed to living an indefensible consumer lifestyle… constitutes a failure for that institution” (31). If the intent of an institution is to impart some measurable degree of critical reading and writing skills to those students who pass through its doors, then it seems entirely reasonable to say that students who leave college with their long-held ideologies intact do indeed represent a failure of that institution.
On that note, I also agree with Drew’s assertion that a “sustainable pedagogy” must be “inherently interventionist” (29). I am not yet completely confident that I can inspire my students to question their long-held assumptions, but I do think that it is the educator's role to do just that. As a brief example, a student of mine is interested in writing about “why global warming isn’t man-made.” The assumptions that she is bringing to her writing are starkly evident, and it seems that the best advice I can relate is that effective writers must consider evidence and viewpoints contrary to their own. My aim is, of course, to cause her to thoughtfully question her position and hope that she stumbles across something that causes her to critically think about her argument. Dobrin and Weisser argue that the most effective means of creating change within a community is to "encourage students to be critical of the very environments in which they produce discourse" (578). The role of an educator is therefore to first help their students develop an awareness of the discourse systems with which they interact, then to give students the theoretical tools to question and deconstruct their own assumptions.
Adrianna, I relate to this lack of confidence to "inspire". It seems you have the right approach for your student. Finding that balance between the "inherent interventionist" and "teacher" roles is critical. And tough! because it's a shifting balance. I guess I look at it like this, If a student isn't making these personal connections in a writing class then where are they going to make them? Writing holds those truths about yourself that can dramatically groundshift the critical thinking process.
ReplyDeleteIn my first experiences with the term "Eco" as attached with criticism, I admit I was resistant. In part I think it was due to that I have always had a strong connection with the world around me, with nature, with places. I'm well traveled on this Continent at least, and I guess I had already started the dialogue between the "semioshphere" and the "bioshpere" without realizing it.
I think as teacher and assuming the role as an "interventionist" it is crucial to be aware that getting a student to question the inherent relationship they have with the world around them you might encounter resistance, they might not even like you for a long time afterwards. I know the perspective of some of my favorite teachers has started out this way. Really, I think what was missing during this process was self reflection. I reflected, but not until much later after the class was over. That's why I really appreciate Dorbin and Weisser's reflective approach with writing. It can take some of that role of being the "bad person" that, upsets balance and crumbles the barriers that hold precious assumption, away from the teacher and place it on the shoulders of the student.
Adrianna, I’m glad you delve into this question of what our role as instructors are when dealing with the socio-political assumptions they have brought with them to college, and I wholeheartedly agree with your answer to (perhaps stealthily, or so I like to imagine) give students the tools to critically analyze and deconstruct their long-held, long-unquestioned beliefs. I try to keep my own liberal East Coast politics in check in the classroom, but it is clear that there is some polarization among the students when it comes to open-mindedness – students that are either willing to explore all sorts of beliefs or just haven’t come to college with a concrete set of beliefs in the first place and students that will not, at least right now, consider anything beyond the set of beliefs they’ve taken from home. And what good would it be for me – a sort of foreigner in Montana, coming from the swanky East Coast – to overtly challenge them? I am trying to create a classroom in which open discussion and a spirit of inquiry thrive.
ReplyDeleteI think of our interactions with and our responses to our students’ beliefs as similar to their papers. We are not here to do line-by-line edits, correcting typos and the sporadic misuse of commas; indeed, if we did that, we would fail miserably in preparing them for the next four years of academic thinking and writing (not to mention Owens’s expectations for how we should prepare them for life after the institution). Similarly, we do not correct the beliefs we find “incorrect” or ungrounded. Instead, we impart tools for critical thinking and an importance for intellectual exploration and credibility so that they can develop an informed, justified set of beliefs, not just in our classrooms – not just for their personal academic arguments – but, ideally, in every sphere of society they’ll come in contact with for the rest of their lives.
Adrianna,
ReplyDeleteI so enjoy your thoughts regarding writing as a social activity and the classroom being the space to provide a social, critical space from which to compose. The idea that all writing is never done completely alone is one I hope to transfer to my students. Many of our students are still in their first weeks of college. These beginning weeks of WRIT 101, I hope, are facilitating an interesting transition from writing at the secondary level as a highly individual act, to a sphere of social, communicative and critical writing at the post-secondary level. I imagine this transition is a great challenge for some, although I hope along with critical conversation and a celebration of class discourse, their transition will be somewhat natural as they learn to adapt and participate in the college classroom.
Your discussion of critical discourse and the means of a university failing or supporting their students on the basis of what rules and ideologies students will live by post-graduation, is also interesting. I suppose I didn’t think of WRIT 101 as kind of training ground for students in terms of understanding and participating in community discourse that may challenge or inform their own individual beliefs, both through writing and discussion. Challenging oneself, discussing and discovering are central to any college classroom, freshman or not. Skills adopted and refined in our classes will hopefully lead to more successful college years for our students. I suppose whether or not they choose to challenge their own unique ideologies may indeed require hard work on both their side and ours. Let’s see what we can do…
Thanks!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assertion that educators, like us, can draw from ecocomposition and use the concept of writing’s dynamic qualities to help students realize the larger context of their writing. Going along with this idea, I also concur with Jenny’s comment that in the beginning, Writ 101 is about transitioning the students from viewing their writing as an individualized, static act to seeing it as the communal, dynamic, integrated act that it truly is. As a Writ 101 instructor, I’ve already tried to emphasize the collective and dynamic aspects of writing by having my students engage in group brainstorming and peer review sessions, as well as requiring them to create public blogs to post their writings. I think that the Op-Ed assignment will really help illustrate this point to the students, as it requires them to find, analyze, and engage with previous academic conversations on their topic of choice. As our students join in these conversations by writing about their local issue, they’ll realize how what they’re saying is affected by what’s been said before.
ReplyDeleteYou also bring up a good point about Drew’s six tenets of sustainable pedagogy. Drew suggests that our sustainable curriculum should encourage students to challenge “the assumptions implicit within [consumer] culture” (29). As a student of critical theory and cultural studies, I think it’s easy for me to accept that consumer culture should be disputed and deconstructed—but, like Noel, I understand that not all of my students will feel this way, and it’s not necessarily my role to “overtly challenge them,” as she put it. I think that through our instruction in Writ 101, we can give our class all the tools for critical thinking, but we can’t force our students to use them. We can only strongly encourage them to follow-through: not just to attain the grade they want in the course, but to apply to all of their writing. After all, as ecocomposition theory asserts, writing is a dynamic process—what they learn writing the PAA or Op-Ed in our course should (and if they engage their skills properly, hopefully will) apply in all of their future writing endeavors.
Hi Adrianna,
ReplyDeleteI loved that you started this post by exploring what the word “eco” means. It’s true that we all have certain ideas and images that immediately come to mind. This is true for our students as well, which is why it is important to help our students explore and understand their vague notions or concrete ideals about ecocomposition and sustainability. I like the idea that the article “Breaking ground in Ecocomposition” brings up of looking at our classrooms as their own ecosystems that connect us, our students, and the ideas that we generate together into a unique set of classroom systems (Dobrin 576-577). These systems are connected to our own personal experiences that we each bring with us into the classroom, which invariably can lead to some confusion as we try to facilitate a conversation with so much variation in personal experiences, but it can also lead to interesting conclusions that we may not have reached on our own. This is why it so important to have a frame of reference to help us work though the ideas brought up in class, the article “Breaking Ground in Ecocomposition,” explains that “As we and our students struggle to make sense of the deluge of information surrounding environmental issues, analyzing rhetoric provides a means to organize and clarify much of this information.” (Dobrin 580) Ecocomposition can not only help us understand sustainability in a succinct way, it can also help us help our students sift through and organize the information our students are processing during our classes.
Another thing brought up in the article was what our roles in the classroom should be and I agree with Noel that teaching is not about telling our students that their ideals are wrong, but rather about giving them the tools they need to make an informed decision and inquire into different ways of thinking, if we can do that then we are doing our jobs.
Adrianna
ReplyDeleteI'm for lack of a better word "stoked" that you brought in Drew's assertion that a "sustainable pedagogy" must be "inherently interventionist" (29). There is always a fine line in regards to what we "can" do and what we "should" do as teachers in an effort to ensure that students are given the proper theoretical approaches in an effort to, as you put it, "deconstruct their own assumptions." But where is the line we should draw in regards to the pedagogical debate of can vs should in the realm of what we impart theoretically on to students? Students can be inherently obdurate, and I am wary to agree with Drew that it constitutes as a failure on behalf of the institution if a student remains "committed to living an indefensible consumer lifestyle" (31) when in turn it perhaps was a failure of the theories we were exposing them to? How do other disciplines within an institution play a part in promoting a "sustainable pedagogy?"
When we have to ask