View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The University of Utah: J. Willard Marriott Digital Library GOOD PEOPLE MAKE GOOD FRIENDS: CRITICAL FRIENDSHIP AND ETHOS IN COLLEGE COMPOSITION by Douglas Forsgren Christensen A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of English The University of Utah August 2014 Copyright © Douglas Forsgren Christensen 2014 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Douglas Forsgren Christensen has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Thomas Huckin , Chair May 1, 2014 Date Approved Cecil Jordan , Member May 1, 2014 Date Approved Jennifer Andrus , Member May 1, 2014 Date Approved Scott Black , Member May 1, 2014 Date Approved Leonard Hawes , Member May 1, 2014 Date Approved and by Barry Weller , Chair of the Department of English and by David B. Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT This dissertation argues that scholarship on ethos in first-year writing courses overlooks important articulations in the relationship between teacher and student and between peer students. I apply a theory heretofore little known in the American writing studies conversation called critical friendship. In short, critical friendship is the medium in a pendulum between total friend and total critic. I apply this theory in the context of the philosophical tropes from Emanuel Levinas, whose theorizing begins in the Levitical notion: Love your neighbor as yourself. He calls for responsibility to the other in the form of a continuous response to the ongoing call of the other. Chapter 1 defines critical friendship and offers a rationale for using such a theory. This chapter also defines and explains my use of ethos, which has layers of complexity and competing histories. The chapter concludes with an introduction to my understanding and use of Levinasian theory as a matter of critical friendship. Chapter 2 examines how teachers respond to student writing. I argue against a historical preference for agonistic practices, suggesting instead that teachers should be reflexive about their understanding and application of critical distance by offering in equal measures thoughtful critique and friendly mentoring. After Chapter 2 asks, “how should teachers respond to student writing?” Chapter 3 asks the question, what should students write? Here I turn to Michel de Montaigne to mitigate the contemporary discussion in writing studies about personal writing and academic writing, often identified in opposition to one another. I propose Montaigne’s practice of essaying as an example for first-year writing students as a useful way of looking and observing in order to experiment with thinking, reading and writing the world. Like Chapters 2 and 3, Chapter 4 examines proximity, but this time in relation to technology. Here I argue that students can benefit from an historical perspective on what counts as technology in order to understand their own performance of ethos in highly mediated environments. iv For Sara (who may never read this dissertation, but remains my best critical friend) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. viii Chapter 1. CRITICAL FRIENDSHIP: ALERITY IN THE CLASSROOM ............................1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 Ethos... .....................................................................................................................7 Critical Friendship .................................................................................................19 Why Critical Friendship? .......................................................................................34 Levinas: A Critical Friend .....................................................................................43 2. CRITICAL FRIENDSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY: RESPONDING TO STUDENT(S) (WRITING) .............................................................................57 Introduction ............................................................................................................57 Response in First-Year Composition .....................................................................59 Alterity and Levinas ...............................................................................................65 A Response to Response ........................................................................................67 Acknowledgement .................................................................................................81 Care…. ...................................................................................................................87 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................103 3. CRITICAL FRIENDSHIP AND THE ESSAY ...................................................106 Introduction ..........................................................................................................106 Bartholomae and Elbow .......................................................................................111 The Familiar Essay and Montaigne .....................................................................119 Montaigne and the Familiar Essay .......................................................................129 Conclusion: What Students Should Write ...........................................................140 4. MEDIATING PROXIMITY IN CRITICAL FRIENDSHIP: ETHOS IN THE DIGITAL AGE ...........................................................................................145 Introduction ..........................................................................................................145 Literature Review .................................................................................................149 Proximity .............................................................................................................150 Paying Attention ..................................................................................................155 Computers in the Composition Classroom ..........................................................168 MOOCs — A Problem of Proximity ...................................................................179 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................185 5. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................188 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................199 WORKS CITED ..................................................................................................207 vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In On Certainty #378, Ludwig Wittgenstein writes: “Knowledge is in the end based on acknowledgment.” I have thought a lot about this line as I have considered this leading page for my dissertation. In my section on acknowledgment in Chapter 2, I acknowledge the role of other people in the development of knowledge generally. Truly, my knowledge, my epistemology is always in relation to the knowledge of others. This is a Levinasian confession: anything I know or “profess” comes always in relation to other minds and hearts. In fact, much of this dissertation work is my personal attempt to decipher the relationship between how I know what I know and what others know, it is always interdependent, never linear. There are many university professors who have challenged and nurtured my understanding. Some who stand out in addition to my immediate dissertation supervisors are Steve Tatum, Vincent Cheng, Howard Horwitz, and Mary Strine. There are also influential helpers in the Writing Program and English department to thank, especially Maurine Mathison, Natalie Stillman Webb, Daniel Emery, Polly Light, Lisa Marie Shaw, and Gerri Mackey. I am grateful for Susan Miller (in memoriam). While she drove me crazy in her way, she also drove me to think harder, more creatively, and critically about my argument in relation to other arguments. Fortunately, her clearest guidance remains available in her writings. Leonard Hawes was a beloved instructor and invaluable interlocutor at a crucial moment in my doctoral work. His open heart and sincere concern for students equals his thriving intellect. Jay Jordan has provided steady feedback and realistic encouragement. He has always told me the truth about my writing and pushed me to keep writing. Jay is a bright and helpful advisor. Jenny Andrus came to my committee late, but just in time. She has been a very willing and attentive critical friend, believing in my thesis when I did not and forever helping me navigate complicated intellectual landscapes in innovative ways. She makes the daunting task seem doable. Thank you to Scott Black from whom I never had the benefit of taking a class (a legitimate regret), but who in good faith signed onto my project out of philosophical enthusiasm for my topics. I have truly enjoyed our coffee shop discussions where he always makes clear his love for conversation about texts and