Re: Let's talk theory

["B. Silk" <bsilk@titan.iwu.edu>]

Good question, Deany!  I'm inclined to agree with Christina, though, when
she says (as you quoted), "to argue that [social construction] provides
all the answers, or even answers sufficient to warrant the devaluing of
other theories and philosophies of education. . .seems unwise" (36). 
Sometimes I think that theory in the writing center (or anywhere else) is
like the old story about the five blind men trying to describe an
elephant--each one explains an elephant only in terms of the part of the
animal that is within his reach. We cannot *know* the whole elephant.  
The only way in which this is a problem is if we assume that the part 
that theory blindman/theory explains is the whole elephant.  As long as 
we know we're gathering clues, we're open to learning and insight.

The blindman who feels the trunk of the elephant says that we can help
writers by understanding that, in terms of psychological issues, the mind
uses three knowledge bases to produce writing (procedural, content, and
discourse); the blindman who feels one of the legs says that we can help
writers by understanding that acquisition or process of writing ability is
irrelevant because what writers produce is dependent upon (or limited by)
the discourse/culture;  the blindman who feels the tail of the beast says
that we can help writers by understanding that, regardless of where the
content comes from, it is the individual writer who bleeds words onto the
page and therefore the emotions, memory, self-concept, and sense of agency
in the writer must be nurtured. 

I think this is a much more interesting animal than our reach has been 
able to tell us so far.  I second Deany's question.

  --Bobbie


   Bobbie Silk
   Illinois Wesleyan University
   P.O. Box 2900                  
   Bloomington, IL  61702-2900     
   (PH:  309/556-3085)
   email:  bsilk@titan.iwu.edu