Expressivist Aesthetics and the Purposes of College Composition

I've briefly discussed a few of my concerns regarding the expressivist tendencies of some new media theorists; however, Geoffrey Sirc's article is the most explicitly expressivist I've read so far. He says (114), "I'm most interested in composition that has an ultimate poetic effect" while talking about teaching composition (rather than creative writing or graphic design). And he goes on to call for a focus on aesthetics in the classroom: "Our first aspect, then, to how we might use technology to achieve powerful ends with new media lies in aestheticizing the scene of composition in an idiosyncratic, obsessed way" (116). Hence, he envisions students as artists: "I want students--designers, now, not essayists--free for such associational drifts: entering things naively, without countless rehearsals; tying to capture a mood or vision" (121). This approach concerns me because I fear it will do little to prepare students for either college or the "real world." I appreciate any teacher who wants to teach their students passion for art, to teach them how to love something. However, I think that a purely aesthetic approach to composition is irresponsible.

I find it interesting that so much of the discussion of new media seems to stem from expressivism. We've heard arguments for this kind of composition pedagogy before from teachers who think that their main purpose is to facilitate their students' creativity and help them unlock their inner writers (now graphic designers). I, however, have a hard time buying into such arguments. That's not to say that I don't appreciate aesthetics. If I'm teaching texts by Milton or Shakespeare, I do so partly because I believe that they are examples of some of the greatest poetry written in the English language. I also do so because of how they reflect and challenge their contemporary social and political milieus, and they help us discuss how and why they continue to hold cultural value.

Sirc's argument for a focus on aesthetics is perhaps complicated by his own aesthetic: "It's important, I think, to have students work with lived texts of desire (rather than, say, the middlebrow academia of a Jane Tompkins or Mary Louise Pratt) in order to develop a passional aesthetic like Cornell's and Benjamin's" (117). The value placed on avante-garde art highlights it's ability to challenge, but perhaps also undermines the composition classroom's ability to give students access to a dominant discourse. Sirc argues that many modern composition teachers are basically curators; however, this assumes that teaching a dominant discourse necessarily perpetuates the hegemony. Can it not also provide awareness in order to challenge the hegemony? If we "let students use what they really care about and love (or hate) as the new subject matter in their work" (125), are we not somehow abjuring pedagogical responsibilities (not just institutional, but social)? I would like my students to enjoy what they are working on as well as be genuinely interested in it, but I'm not sure that that should be my highest priority.

Let me end with an example. Research shows that most students communicate with each other through text messages, but academics communicate primarily through emails. This has led some to suggest that we should start communicating with our students via text messages rather than emails. Wouldn't such a transition be a disservice to students in the long run? If we try to appeal only to their passions, how will they learn what they need to know?

Sirc, Geoffrey. "Box-Logic." Writing New Media: Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition. Logn: Utah State UP, 2004. Print.