If within social-epistemic rhetoric we acknowledge that we cannot be free of ideology and try to incorporate it into our pedagogy, then one issue I foresee is that language will become the sticking point. If, as Berlin asserts, “[i]deology is. . .inscribed in language practices, entering all features of our experience” (479), then how are we as educators supposed to point out assumptions and attempt to overturn ideological frameworks as we ask the students to use an ideology-laden language in their writing? “Formal academic writing” is a term I’ve been using pretty willy-nilly recently on my student’s papers, because there has to be some sort of style presented that they can emulate, and yet how can I expect them to become meta-aware of that language’s limitations and assumptions when they are forced to learn to use because it is the only way I, as an “academic” and their teacher, will be able to tell that they “get it”?
I am inspired by the idea that social-epistemic rhetoric responds to the notion that “the observer, the discourse community, and the material conditions of existence are all verbal constructs” (488), yet I am at a loss as to how a foundational, formal, academic writing style can even begin to critique itself. This type of rhetoric is so appealing to me because it appears to democratize the writing process and allow students “the means for self-criticism and self-revision” (490). However, it is constructed within and by a specific, restrictive discourse that I believe does not allow for the level of self-reflexivity that Berlin claims. “Question, question, question,” I tell my students: “never take anything for granted, overturn your assumptions.” And yet I’m asking them to do so within a very defined framework, the arbitrary rules and boundaries of “good” academic writing. Berlin critiques expressivism because that approach has a huge blindspot regarding whether students are truly able to “[challenge] official versions of reality” while still being products of that reality (485); yet through expressivism, students are able to at least feel as if their voices and experiences matter outside of an academic context. They are able to utilize a language that does not necessarily mimic an academic one. With social-epistemic rhetoric, though, I worry that in practice it is hard to truly push students to question everything, while at the same time saying “Do not question this. This language is best, this format is best, this mindset is most advantageous to accurately and succinctly proving your points.”