In their article “Reading and Writing Without Authority”, Ann M. Penrose and Cheryl Geisler observe the differences of two students’ reading and writing processes, and their final writing products, when tasked with the same reading-response assignment, in view of their contrasting levels of authority. One student is an “insider” (authority) and the other an “outsider” in the domain of knowledge related to the provided texts (readings) and the subsequent assignment (response), as well as in terms of their educational qualifications. Penrose and Geisler argue that process differences separate our writer with authority, Roger, and our writer lacking, Janet, that extend beyond the differences of their levels of base-knowledge in the topic. Roger appears to have a keen understanding that texts are authored claims of knowledge, which can conflict and be tested, while Janet looks to texts for facts, to later report on those understandings. In denying herself of personal authority, Janet misses out on the “generative practice” of writing (and of knowledge-building) with goals that should instead be centered in evaluation and response, according to Penrose and Geisler.
So how do we cultivate our own authorship so that we can be creators rather than reporters? We can start by recognizing the value of personal knowledge and give ourselves permission to put ourselves in the conversation. Penrose and Geisler assert that Janet (and in turn, all of us college students) “needs to believe there is authority to spare”, and view the furtherance of knowledge as an on-going communal process.
Each week, as we write our response blogs to the readings, including this one, I grapple with how much is necessary to reiterate from the articles to provide context for evaluation, without feeling like I am mostly reporting. I see myself in Janet, consuming readings and internalizing some of them, thinking ‘this is what they are saying about this particular topic’ or ‘this is how they define this’, which not only promotes an outsider view of the material and field from the get, but it also fails to recognize that this is only what a particular author is claiming. It may be important in building the knowledge of a topic, but it isn’t spoken for, and there is room for me as an author. Just like Janet hunting for truths in readings, I can look to the professor to establish truths for a subject, as the authority. But, Penrose and Geisler assert that educational practices should insist on interactive models, which promote students voices, much like our small group discussions in class. And it is important practice in seeing myself as an insider, and participating in the on-going construction of knowledge, because there’s always room.
Leave a Reply