Janet and Roger were assigned to write an essay on paternalism, and Penrose and Geisler set out to document the two completely different ways these students approached their topic. Janet was a college freshman and her way of writing an academic paper was more like an outsider looking in; Roger was studying for his doctorate, and his way of approaching a paper was to interact with the sources given to him as if they were all truths that could be questioned and yet also built upon. I want to say that I am a student who identifies more with Roger’s methods than Janet’s, but after some self-reflection I think I am still at the level of Janet’s writing.
I identify with both Roger and Janet, in the sense that I think like Roger, but what comes out on paper is Janet. Roger had this way of looking at his sources as though he was in conversation with them, like all of them could be true, and all of them could be wrong all at the same time. That kind of thinking can open up many kinds of points of view in one’s paper, and this nuance only develops your claim into something richer and substantial.
In my own head, that’s what I feel is happening; I’m weighing the sources as different perspectives to consider what I can build off of, some contending with my claim, others supporting. It’s admirable that by the end of Roger’s research he managed to “flatly [change] his mind” because once you stick with a claim in a paper, it’s difficult to say otherwise. It’s largely a great deal of work to refigure your own way of thinking to accept the “truth as multivalent,” as Penrose and Geisler put it. The trouble that arises is translating my own complex and messy thoughts into a paper that seems just as nuanced.
“While Roger continually tested authors’ claims through the use of examples and test cases, Janet used examples only to clarify or illustrate. She viewed “the book” as something to be understood and reported, not questioned or elaborated on.” I don’t think I have ever resonated with something so strongly. While I don’t think a source should not be questioned (as I believe you learn best if you’re allowed to poke holes into “truth”), I’ve internalized that if a source is reputable and peer-reviewed, the authors professionals in the field, and overall the work just sounds “correct,” there’s not much I can do to go against it. I’ll take a quote from the source, plop it into my writing, maybe comment on how it supports my claim, and then move on with the next source. It’s a comfortable, formulaic process that has held my hand for my entire academic life, and breaking out of that mindset to become somebody like Roger is quite some heavy handed mental gymnastics.
Strangely, I’m reminded of my Week 1 blog post, particularly on Catherine Savini’s essay and what I’ve taken away from it. If I want to become more like Roger in thinking and in writing, I can’t be afraid to be a little messy with putting my thoughts on paper; I suppose I will come out the other side with a more compelling paper if I just fall into the pit of fruitful questions and embrace that sometimes the truth can be everything and not, you know what I mean?
Leave a Reply