Re: theory and practice

[bobbie silk <bsilk@keller.clarke.edu>]

Jon (he of the fine appreciation for manure metaphors) gave us an
interesting quote from Chuck Schuster who asserts that the opposite of
theory is not practice but rather "thoughtlessness" or "mindlessness,"
while the opposite of practice is "inertia."  I think this is an
interesting perspective--particularly when juxtaposed to our thread about
neural pathways.

I believe rather firmly that those of us who consciously try to teach
critical thinking (which I do not separate from writing) do not actually
teach something that the brains of our students haven't already done. 
What we teach is awareness and disciplined application of thought
processes students already perform.  The same is true of theory.  No
matter how "practical" we consider ourselves, we nevertheless
unconsciously theorize our way through life.  We develop theories to
explain why our spouses were so silent during dinner or why our students
failed to respond to some boffo lesson that's always worked for us before.
The difference between those theories and the hoity-toity theories on
the other side of the gap that Neal refers to is not in the process that
forms them but in the processes that promote and institutionalize them.

Insightfully, Neal asks what purpose is served by the gap between theory
and practice. And Joan points out that we seem to replicate (even as we
deplore) these gaps.  She finds one reason in the need to look good for
promotion, which I think is probably quite true.  

Another reason might have to do with a sort of blue collar/white collar
connotation in our discussions of practice and theory.  Theory, of course,
is white collar, while hands-dirtying practice is blue collar.  Those of
us in writing center work may be even more sensitive to this connotation
because of administrative or faculty attitudes toward our place--or
status--in the hierarchies of institutionalized education.  (Are we
"service" or "educational" units?)  I think it is particularly important
that *we* fight the urge to align ourselves on one side or the other of
this false class distinction.

But the gregarious human animal not only has the capacity to generalize it
also has the capacity to classify.  Us and them.  At some point each of us
seems to take a side--and then that choice becomes part of individual
identity and we must defend it no matter what. 

My collar today is neither blue nor white--it's an olive green turtleneck. 
When it serves my students or serves my own understanding, I make sure my
work in theory and my practice inform each other.  In writing center work,
do we really have a choice?  Would we really want one?  If people in
composition studies make a choice (they do theory and theory = white
collar), are we forced to be their (false) opposite? 

  --Bobbie