Let me just first apologize to Chris. I had every intention of blogging last night, but, alas, Murphy’s Law reared its ugly head and it didn’t happen. I had it all planned out so I would not be trying to create knowledge (i.e. understand) with little time to spare. Everything from dense readings needing a substantial dictionary (no pocket size here, folks!) to an emotional daughter who is still dealing with the deaths of her friends needing someone to lash out at fell into place according to the evil plan. It was not a pretty night, to say the least. So anyway, here I am posting a blog and trying to make sense of my world in a social-epistemic way, or so I think I am.
Berlin fulfills every expectation of a sophomoric reader like me—I dare say he even surpassed my expectations in that I could not make it through the first paragraph without consulting a dictionary and taking copious notes. His statement that “a rhetoric can never be innocent” certainly seems to reiterate what Julie has declared time and time again: composition is always persuasive, no matter the intended purpose. Ideology seeps forth, even from what appears to be a simple compilation of analyses and syntheses. Berlin does make his position perfectly clear: he is not a fan of Flower and Hayes and their pursuit of a scientific explanation for a writer’s purpose—his unquestioned goals—as we discussed last week. But, aren’t there unquestioned goals inherent in any type of rhetoric? Can we really ascertain all of our goals when we compose and weigh them to determine whether they are self-serving? And, there seems to be no love between Berlin and die hard expressionistic proponents. His description certainly fits nicely into modernism. Curiously, I wonder: Did modernism influence expressionistic rhetoric or vice versa? Or, were they created from the same mold? And you know how it can be when you come across a word you have never seen before and then all of a sudden it is everywhere? I came upon the word bowdlerized and, of course, I had to look it up. I decided it was a very cool word to know. Then, lo and behold, I check my email this morning and my word of the day is—you guessed it—bowdlerize. Interestingly, Dr. Thomas Bowdler edited not only Shakespeare because the original wasn’t suitable for the delicate sensibilities of women and children.” He also found it necessary to edit the Old Testament. What a guy. Anyway, apparently social-epistemic rhetoric is where it’s at. Is this partly because the followers have accepted the fact that text is ideological in and of itself? Ever since I was introduced to social constructivism, I am a devout believer. Berlin makes some great points about rhetoric having an historicist orientation. What else can it be? His forms of false consciousness ring so true for today’s students. As a matter of fact, my daughter and I just had a conversation the other day specifically about the “absence of democratic practices in all areas of experience.” Not that we were discussing Berlin’s essay, of course. She was on her soapbox about the fact that today’s education system (for lack of a better term) does not force (allow?)students to learn from their mistakes and accomplishments; in other words, they are denied opportunities to practice self-discipline and self-organization and instead structure is forced upon them so that they are not really ready for the real world and the consequences of their actions. I’m not sure I have explained myself well here, so I can explain later if necessary. And, it seems to me that these forms of false consciousness have fed the consumerism that has made a shambles of our economy. But I digress…
In a previous reading, there was discussion of the fact that society is not static and neither should writing instruction. Maybe it was Berlin, but I just cannot put my finger on it now. Anyway, our approach to teaching writing must fit the times in which we live and I agree with Berlin and Shor that social-epistemic allows for social changes.
In confusion, we pretty much covered Emig last week, but her theory seems to fit with Berlin. I’m not sure where Burnham lies, but I must say that some of bell hooks ideology rubs me the wrong way, which has pushed me away from expressivist views. Although it has tried to run the opposite direction of current-traditional, there seems to be the message that we must stay far away from current-traditional, but in essence it becomes just as "bad" as what it is running away from.

Looking forward to our class discussion tonight!