Coleridge and Creativity: My Strawman Argument for a Larger Debate on Creativity in a Composition Classroom

Emily's presentation on Coleridge, his ideas on creativity, and creativity's connections to writing was compelling for me. I really latched onto the idea of the hatred some theorists have for Coleridge's philosophy.

Coleridge's perception of writing as a product of inspiration, not cognition, is very, for the lack of a better phrase, "artsy-fartsy." David Bartholomae immediately provides a paradox for Coleridge's ideas on writing in the introduction to"Inventing the University."

"Every time a student sits down to write for us, he has to invent the university for the occasion--invent the university, that is, or a branch of it, like history or anthropology or economics or English" (605).

In short, you can't wait for inspiration to come sweeping through the strings of your aeolion harp-self when you have a paper due at the end of the week on subject you may not really care about.

Maybe, then, Coleridge isn't talking about ALL writing, but just creative writing. Bartholomae continues: "The student has to learn to speak our language, to speak as we do, to try on the peculiar ways of knowing selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding, and arguing that define the discourse of our community" (605).
Darn it, creative writing has its own community too.

So, Emily's discussion on how much contemporary theorists loathe Coleridge's handcuffing of creativity to writing has a basis for me when considering Bartholomae's points.
Emily's final point on rhetoric engaging imagination is interesting too: we have to use our imaginations to make arguments effective, even in the most dire predicaments, but how do we get students to associate creativity with rigidly structured academic writing?

Pueblo, represent.

In his work, The Persistence of Difference in Networked Classrooms: Non-negotiable Difference and the African American Student Body, Todd Taylor seems to be agreeing with Bizzell and Min-Zhan Lu's faith that "students from the margins can effectively operate, or negotiate, within both dominant and home cultures and that the effect of such border crossings can be the subversive and productive reverse acculturation of the dominant group by the marginalized" (220). From this belief that marginalized students can change or influence a dominant culture, Taylor proposes that "profound, deep-seated difference is, by definition, non-negotiable" (220); difference can make an impact but can not be made uniform.

Taylor notes that there is a history of researchers who "[bring] up issues of difference or suggest that he or she is attempting to consider the circumstances of people of color but then fails to address either difference or color in substantial ways" (221).

Jonathan Alexander, in Out of the Closet and into the Network: Sexual Orientation and the Computerized Classroom* is almost in conversation with Taylor. Alexander's research is focused on marginalized voices also, those of reticent homosexual students. Alexander points to Jeffrey Weeks' "particular history" that shapes sex and sexuality. Alexander asks, "The question now is, of course, how do computers help students realize and think about the 'social phenomena shape[ing this] ... particularly [sic] history" (211)?

The same question could be asked by Taylor. Both authors point out that computers can serve as anonymous forums that will allow for "reverse acculturation of the dominant group by the marginalized;" for Taylor, we must recognize the physical bodies of those who respond online in a disembodied place for the effect of reverse acculturation to take place (223). For Alexander, online discussions allow for "a growing awareness of how 'normalcy' is a construct and not a given" (215). Reverse acculturation, although never stated as such, is occurring in Alexander's study. Taylor simply suggests that reverse acculturation is possible if certain steps are taken to recognizing the body that is active in the non-body of a computer network.

I'm generalizing Taylor's discussion terribly, but it's important to note that both authors, who were published in the same issue of Computers and Composition, see the computer as a way to equalize voices.

*I have to point out that it was startling to see that our institution (under a former name) is published in a text from Bedford/St. Martin's and that Dr. Margaret Barber is acknowledged as well. Pueblo, represent.