Synthesis Theses

Through speaking with a student, I have figured out a way to explain how to come up with (or "generate") a thesis for the synthesis. The general structure of a synthesis thesis is something like:

All these essays relate to one another, but. . . .

The key is to make this relation and these differences meaningful by making the thesis specific to the three essays.

The only way to do this is through READING and RE-READING. Your thesis may be the last thing that you actually write down on the page. It is only through moving through these essays, noticing patterns and divergences, similarities and differences, that thesis (and thus, meaning) will emerge, as I noted in our lecture. Its through looking at the concrete connections and then distinguishing them that paragraphs will emerge, which will lead to an organization, which will lead to your own thoughts about the essays. You already have ideas about each of the essays independently, the task now is to think about all three essays as a whole.

If you do not have a thesis, but have "readings" of each of the texts, hopefully your peer reviewers can help you draw one out.

I recommend that you write a little paragraph TO each of your peer reviewers about what you feel like you need to work on that your peer reviewers can help you with (in addition to the assigned tasks). I want you to read each other's papers as if they were your OWN papers that you would have to turn in. I want you to help each other write each other's paper as a collaborative effort. This is not "cheating"--this is collaboration and realizing that meaning rarely comes from one's own head alone.

Good luck!

Organizing Paragraphs

Today, I will be sending you a Word document of the completed (rough draft) of my essay with explanations about the paragraphs and organization.

I hope that I have shown the importance of organization and topic sentences. I feel like when I first learned about topic sentences that they would make my writing sound mechanical and boring (and indeed, I learned topic sentences out of the context of an actual paper). But really, they (along with transitions) are essential aspects of a paper.

As such, this will be something heavily weighed in the Synthesis assignment.

Thank you everyone for such great classes today. Participation was great (due to the very helpful suggestion to return to the cards) and I felt like we were all engaged.

Liberal Arts, Politics, and Education: A Response to Rick Scott, Rick Perry and university education reform

Class,

I'm not sure if this will be of interest to you, but figured I'd post this on both my academic blog and this class blog:

"This university without conditions does not, in fact, exist, as we know only too well. Nevertheless, in principle and in conformity with its declared vocation, its professed essence, it should remain an ultimate place of critical resistance--and more than critical--to all powers of dogmatic and unjust appropration" --Jacques Derrida, "University without Condition"  


In class, we have been discussing endlessly the idea of "education," as understood in Richard Rodriguez's "Achievement of Desire," Paulo Freire's "Banking Concept of Education," and David Foster Wallace's "Address to Kenyon College." All three of these pieces, we could generalize, are inspired by the spirit of the liberal arts, a spirit that maintains that education is more than information or "knowledge." It involves, to use Freire's terms, a "humanization" of the world. As such, a lot of emphasis is placed on the power of the humanities. The university, although it has extended its range (particularly as a state university) has always been rooted in 'humanistic' discourses, as even the notion of "science," in the classical university hardly concerns the producing of "jobs"--which seems the primary goal of Rick Scott: "“If I'm going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I'm going to take that money to create jobs,” Scott said. “So I want that money to go to degrees where people can get jobs in this state.” Rather, the university has always been a place of discovery and invention of knowledge.

Now, I am a far cry from disagreeing that we need jobs in the state and people that are qualified for those jobs. However, is it not the case that most jobs are a function of "on the job training"? In other words, does it hurt people that  majored in English, Philosophy, Sociology, or Psychology? Is the University supposed to give anyone the practical know-how to succeed in a job right out of college? Are there not other institutions, aside from the four year State university that can prepare someone for a job better? Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, is not "humanistic" thinking conducive to innovation. I mean, is it an engineer's courses (for example) or their creative thinking that will lead to innovation? Is it not precisely the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that comes from an individual's creativity that "creates" new jobs.

I realize that I am asking several questions rather than giving answers. I guess what intrigues me about this whole "university reform" thing is how the terms of the argument keep slipping. At the beginning of the article, we have the idea that they want to eliminate Humanistic disciplines. Somehow this is linked to other changes, such as "weeding out unproductive professors and rethinking the system that offers faculty job security."

We might ask what he means by "unproductive professors." At University of Florida, we have, for example, and insanely productive faculty in terms of publications, research, and conferences. Of course, because English would be considered one of the degrees with the "least" job prospects, I suppose this makes English research irrelevant. So "unproductive faculty" seems to be a euphemism for professors who are producing "humanistic research," which, these politicians may argue, is not "research" at all.

And so we get to the other issue: Job security. Namely, that term that makes every conservative politician shutter: tenure. Tenure, people like Texas businessman Jeff Sandefer (who wrote a policy paper for Perry), argue "places too much emphasis on research. To be promoted, faculty must publish original work. As a result, they spend less time in the classroom and often delegate teaching to graduate students" ("Liberal Arts"). Agreeing with this sentiment, former Wall Street Journal Editor Naomi Riley claims, "there really needs to be a refocus on the students in front of you [. . .] They use the people at the bottom to do the teaching" ("Liberal Arts").

Ok, so, the logic is that by abolishing tenure, professors will focus less on research and more on students, which will somehow help produce jobs? But, again, I ask, are the courses that "Science and Math" students take going to help create jobs or simply qualify them for jobs that already exist? Is it not the case that abolishing research (in the sciences) will not allow such benefits of research that should eventually benefit our society?

Riley (Naomi Riley, above--not me--god I'm embarrassed that I have the same name as this person) claims that " top professors produce the kind of work that ensures job security, making tenure irrelevant" ("Liberal Arts"). But as many better and more qualified writers than me have pointed out, tenure is less about merely "job security" and more about academic freedom (see Cary Nelson) . Academic freedom allows professors to inquire and research into what they want to research in. It allows academics to research topics that may not align itself with certain ideologies or market imperatives, thus allowing the research (ideally) to be less influenced by people who, say, might threaten their livelihood if they don't produce the right results. This freedom is just as important in the sciences as it is in the humanities (think climate change research). Thus, tenure is not irrelevant, because it keeps people like Rick Scott from getting rid of departments that don't seem to be doing the right kind of research that supports a particular conception of a university's purpose.

So who is focusing on our students? Well, first off, tenured professors. In the English department, our faculty not only prolifically produce research, but most are teaching undergraduate courses in English. So the fact is, faculty, at least in the Humanistic disciplines, are focusing on undergraduates. Furthermore, it is true that a lot of our basic "survey" courses in English are taught by Ph.D. candidates. My question is, how exactly are we the ones "at the bottom" as if we were completely unprepared to handle undergraduates? Why can't we think about these people positively as those "future professors"?

If teaching in the Humanities is less about merely "transferring" knowledge--if teaching is instead about a co-creation of meaning and knowledge, about facilitating and creating conditions inside and outside the classroom for students to explore and learn, then how does a Ph.D. qualify me any more or less to teach survey courses in English, or, as I do, composition courses? A Ph.D. would qualify me as an expert in my field in research. This is why tenured faculty do research as well as teach.

Clearly, although the politicians try and justify what they do through utilitarian arguments about jobs and the functioning of society, this kind of thinking is an attack on thinking that disrupts the status quo's values. Although I am not someone who believes that my writing heralds the coming revolution or creates the possiblity for utopia, my research and thinking that I do in graduate classes produces the ideas and attitudes that I teach even in my composition class. For me, as for those like Blanchot, writing is disrupting and ambiguous. I would extend that and say that the "humanities" are ambiguous--even the status of humanistic "knowledge" is ambiguous. We deal in questions of value, questions of value that sometimes exceed immediate market gain or merely economic progress in terms of jobs. However, I would argue that it is precisely creative, innovative, and resistant thinking--in whatever discipline--that creates jobs and, ultimately, new human possibilities.By eliminating fields of knowledge,  we close down the possible and, perhaps, more importantly, the (im)possible.  As Jacques Derrida writes,

"I will speak of an event that, without necessarily coming about tomorrow, would remain perhaps--and I underscore perhaps--to come; to come through the university, to come about and to come through it, thanks to it" (Derrida 213).

Works Cited

Taking the liberal arts out of a state university education?

Derrida, Jacques and Peggy Kamuf. "The University Without Condition." Without Alibi. California: Stanford University Press, 2002. Print.

Synthesis Outline

Technology's Peril and Potential 

I. Introduction

       Introduces context

       Summary of texts

       Synthesizing thesis 

II. Compare and contrast of text's "problem" focus

      provides examples and elaboration

III. Compare and contrast text's "response" to this problem

      provides examples and evidence to support point

IV. Synthesis on "moral" questions

      Provides examples from own life/student's "own" thinking

V. Conclusion: reiteration of points, shifting to "we," offers reflection on "warnings" of technology. 

This is a basic outline of the article I sent you all as an example. Again, I'd like to reiterate that you can use these three texts in different ways in order to get your point across. However, the main thing I will be looking at in this synthesis is the flow/structure of the argumentation. I want you to "get somewhere" in the paper.

DFW blogs and Future Synthesis

A lot of you definitely got what DFW was saying in the commencement speech. I realize that this was the "easiest" piece we have read because it was originally given orally and it is a genre that we are all familiar with. Freire's work in particular is of a "theoretical/philosophical" genre that makes it more difficult to comprehend and Rodriguez's was a lengthy scholarly essay.

In your syntheses, it will be really important to not merely erase the several differences among these 3 articles. Indeed, I would recommend that you discuss the three articles in a particular order, showing their relations through making your own argument. Many of you seem to be partial to DFW's point, which is fine. One of the best ways to actually write something meaningful is looking at each piece as a "challenge" to the other. I would argue that much of Freire's piece challenges DFW's piece in ways that we have not explicitly discussed.

The best way to do this is to pay close attention to each of the texts. It will be imperative that you move past summary into more close reading. You will most likely  have to re-read Freire (and Rodriguez) since they have probably faded a bit from your mind.

David Foster Wallace

"I just think that fiction that doesn't explore what it means to be human today isn't art"

short and sweet today. Can't concentrate. Looking forward to seeing what you all wrote about the speech!

"Applying" Knowledge

A lot of you have talked about how we need to learn how to "apply" knowledge rather than just merely learn facts. But is the issue merely one of "application?" Application seems to imply knowledge as something we "use." Indeed, I tend to use the phrase "tool for thinking" when I discuss the ways your book frames the writing process.

However, is there a kind of knowledge that resists use? In a world where everything is in an instrumental relationship with everything else, in a world where our lives operate smoothly and without a hitch, is there room for disruption? Is there room for knowledge, attitudes, or skills that resist this dominant way of engaging with the world?

Is this not what Freire seeks? Knowledge that resists those that oppress others? "The problem-posing method presents this very situation ["the situation within which [we] are submerged"] to them as a problem." Indeed, it is our very situation, our very condition, our very "natural" attitudes and practices that become problematic--that become an invitation to change and resistance.


Food for thought.