- “the transition involves a shift from the notion of knowledge as the apprehension of universal truth and its transparent representation in language by rational and unified individuals to the notion of knowledge as the construction in language of partial and temporary truths by multiple and internally contradictory individuals…With knowledge seen as rhetorical, or socially constructed, the collaborative aspects of writing became foregrounded, and any technology that enabled more effective collaborative practices in writing became attractive” (143).
- “The modernist assumption that still structures most of our language about power is that power is as possession, that some people have it and can give it to others or share it with them or help them gain it. In contrast, Foucault argues that power functions not as a possession but as a relation, and that it attempts to stabilize power relationships that are favorable to one party that result in power appearing as a possession” (145). “[P]ower is always an action taken by individual’s actions, and thus the shape of power relations is always a matter of individual agency. ‘Sharing’ power is not a matter of giving up something you have but rather of deciding what you want to do in any given situation and being conscious of and taking responsibility for how what you do affects others” (149).
- “Their behavior does not seem to be simply motivated by institution forms of power and self-interested [the modernist understanding of responsibility], but rather by an impulse to be responsive to and responsible for me and to and for other students…If we assume that responsibility is an obligation to the Other and not a submission to authority,…students become individual against not responding to a teacher-authority but to a teacher-person whom they feel responsible for just because he is a person, a person who, like any other person, deserves an answer” (153). “[By] not tightly policing [students’] behavior in these [electronic] forums, we can allow them to make such choices and perhaps better prepare them to participate responsibly in other uncontrolled situations” (154).
- “The lesson that postmodern ethics suggests for writing teachers faced with what they see as inappropriate behavior in electronic conversations is that rather than acting as wizards who enter the conversation only to lay down the law or to establish democratic decisions-making procedures, they should put more trust in students’ more self-conscience and should engage in electronic conversations in such a way as to enable students to take up the change to consciously consider and take responsibility for the effects their actions have on others” (157).
Cooper asserts, “Like all writing (and language use), electronic writing responds to cultural changes, including the specific ways that communication technology has been developed: writing online sets up a different rhetorical situation and encourages different writing strategies than writing for print does…[E]lectronic writing…reflects the postmodern condition of contemporary culture” (141). In this piece, Cooper argues that “to understand what’s happening in electronic conversations in writing classrooms we need to understand some transitions in assumptions involved in the shift from modernism to postmodernism. As applied to the practices of teaching writing, the postmodern condition involves a transition in assumptions in at least four areas: a transition in assumptions about knowledge, language, and the self, a transition in assumptions about power, a transition in assumptions about responsibility, and a transition in assumptions about the teacher’s role in the classroom” (142-3).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Tags
All
|