The Boxing Effect (An Anti Essay) by Jeanne Gunner
The basic argument here is that in asking what is college writing, we limit what writing is by defining it, especially since by defining it we reduce writing to a product of our capitalist culture. would say more, but it's midnight.
That is the most important idea, Daniel. The idea of writing as commodity and how that affects college-level writing, abstracting it "from any individual purpose" (112). This causes teachers of writing to provide students with "standard equipment"(112), instead of thoughtful and critical writing skills. It is from this concept that we get the title of the (anti)essay. By using this "assembly process" for teaching writing, we are "boxing, bundling, and otherwise delivering learning packages through a writing process that standardizes all products" (113). She expands this analogy to the institutions of higher education themselves, claiming many of them are just identical boxes that limit students using class-based ideology.
I do see her point on these issues. In many ways standards can lead to standardization, like the boxing effect, which diminishes student success (in this case their writing). However, I do not feel comfortable with her belief that any attempt to define college-level writing will lead to "mechanic curricula" and "institutional atomism" (119). We should not be enforcing formulaic writing as standard, but there needs to be a uniform goal for all college students. If not, the credits and diplomas received would be meaningless. Students writing at the college level need to be able to do more, at least be attempting to do more (as expressed by Ronald Lunsford), with language and thought than those who have not taken the steps to challenge themselves intellectually through university education.
That is the most important idea, Daniel. The idea of writing as commodity and how that affects college-level writing, abstracting it "from any individual purpose" (112). This causes teachers of writing to provide students with "standard equipment"(112), instead of thoughtful and critical writing skills. It is from this concept that we get the title of the (anti)essay. By using this "assembly process" for teaching writing, we are "boxing, bundling, and otherwise delivering learning packages through a writing process that standardizes all products" (113). She expands this analogy to the institutions of higher education themselves, claiming many of them are just identical boxes that limit students using class-based ideology.
ReplyDeleteI do see her point on these issues. In many ways standards can lead to standardization, like the boxing effect, which diminishes student success (in this case their writing). However, I do not feel comfortable with her belief that any attempt to define college-level writing will lead to "mechanic curricula" and "institutional atomism" (119). We should not be enforcing formulaic writing as standard, but there needs to be a uniform goal for all college students. If not, the credits and diplomas received would be meaningless. Students writing at the college level need to be able to do more, at least be attempting to do more (as expressed by Ronald Lunsford), with language and thought than those who have not taken the steps to challenge themselves intellectually through university education.