I think dialogue (e.g., Daedalus or email) in the classroom
is a liberating way to teach writing. It reduces (though does
not eliminate) certain cultural politics that inhibit some
students from participating as much as others. And it
prepares students for the sort of discourse that will be
necessary if they are to participate fully in democratic
social arrangements.
But I also think that dialogue alone is misleading, since
a lot of discourse outside of the classroom is monologic.
Perhaps we can use dialogic pedagogical techniques to teach
students to critique the ethnocentric monologic texts that
marginalize certain people.
I also think that monologue is a useful discourse
st5rategy/(form?) for students to master, since certain
goals in cultural politics are not attainable through
dialogue--we need to fight monologue with monologue
*sometimes*.
Although Bob and Greg (more Greg than Bob right now) are
writing their posts as though they completely oppose
the other, I don't *think* either would oppose what I've
outlined above. Is there a both/and? Bob seems to want
to find a middle ground in which nothing is favored (though
he himself seems to favor dialogue), but I can't tell yet
if Greg is willing to budge.
Bruce McComiskey
East Carolina University
enmccomi.ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu