In his conclusion to “Writing with Teachers: A Conversation with Peter Elbow,” Bartholomae is reluctant to formally conclude his argument, because his conversation with Elbow continues. This got me thinking about the open-endedness of the idea of discussion and dialogue, and how this open-endedness is perhaps antithetical to the idea of writing a conclusion-driven argumentative paper. If we are encouraging students to recognize their place in the conversation—that is, to situate themselves “in time” and “inside a practice” (65)—then how can we ask them to, in a way, conclude that conversation with their own, albeit hopefully thoughtful, argument? Our interest in well-considered thesis statements does not necessarily have to suggest this, of course, but for many of my students the idea that they are suggesting something potentially useful in an effort to merely join in the dialogue is completely foreign to their already developed sense of the “purpose” of writing. I am constantly reminding my students to avoid absolutes, to think critically, to avoid reducing issues to an either/or, black/white dichotomy; this is because I see real use for this skills in the “real world”, and not just while composing a piece of academic writing. But this focus I think at times confuses the issue. What am I asking them to do, if not to conclude something? And if they vacillate between two sides of an issue, claiming both are correct (a good practice) I tell them they must find an argument, a stance, a debatable position from which to operate. To most of my students, these two positions are contradictory. Just like Bartholomae is reluctant to conclude while his discussion is ongoing, my students find themselves reluctant to conclude in a misguided effort to avoid absolutism. I’m not sure how to demonstrate to them the usefulness of the thesis-guided essay in a way that helps them see themselves as part of the dialogue.
Oct 162015