This article raises questions about the social, cultural, and political assumptions embedded in the concept of authorship. The discussion occurs within the framework of social-constructionist theories and is based on a feminist critique of science and composition. This critique challenges us to remember that we and our students operate within a culture, that we and our students are located within gendered categories and along class and race lines, and that each of us has a history and a system of beliefs or worldview. Additionally, the author suggests strategies for infusing personal understandings with professional/academic writings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Althusser, Louis
. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.”Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books, 1971. 127-186.
2.
Apple, Michael
. Cultural and Economic Reproduction in Education: Essays on Class, Ideology, and the State. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982.
3.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. C. Emerson. Ed. M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.
4.
Barthes, Roland
. Image-Music-Text. Trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977.
5.
Belenky, Mary Fieldet al.Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1986.
6.
Berthoff, Ann
. Forming/Thinking/Writing: The Composing Imagination. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden, 1978.
7.
Bleier, Ruth
. “Lab Coat: Robe of Innocence or Klansman's Sheet?”Feminist Studies/Critical Studies. Ed. Teresa de Lauretis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. 55-66.
8.
Bourdieu, Pierre
, and Jean-Claude Passerson. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. London: Sage, 1977.
9.
Britton, Jameset al.The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1975.
10.
Brunner, Diane DuBose. Case Studies in Two Contexts: Self-Sponsored Writers' Subjective Impressions of Written Fluency. Dissertation University of Georgia, 1987. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1988. 2378541.
11.
Brunner, Diane DuBose
. “Strategies for Blending Public and Private Writing.”Composition Chronicle3.6 (1990): 4-7.
12.
Foucault, Michel
. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon, 1982.
13.
Giroux, Henry
. “Critical Literacy and Student Experience: Donald Graves' Approach to Literacy.”Language Arts62 (1987): 175-181.
14.
Hubbard, Ruth
. The Politics of Women's Biology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990.
15.
Juncker, Clara
. “Writing (with) Cixous.”College English50 (1988): 424-444.
16.
Keller, Evelyn Fox
. Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. San Francisco: Freeman, 1983.
17.
Kelly, George
. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Vol. 1. New York: Norton, 1955.
18.
Kirby, Dan
, and Tom Liner. Inside Out: Developmental Strategies for Teaching Writing. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1981.
19.
Miller, Nancy K.“Changing the Subject: Authorship, Writing, and the Reader.”Feminist Studies/Critical Studies. Ed. Teresa de Lauretis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. 102-120.
20.
Nelson, Marie. Personal communication. 20 Nov. 1990.
21.
Pagano, Jo Anne
. Exiles and Communities: Teaching in the Patriarchal Wilderness. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990.
22.
Polanyi, Michael
. Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.
23.
Reichman, Henry
. Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for Schools. Chicago: American Library Association, 1988.
24.
Simon, Roger
. “For a Pedagogy of Possibility.”Critical Pedagogy Networker1.1 (1988): 1-4.
