On Yagelski's "Writing Roles for Ourselves"

Robert Yagelski’s book involves the analysis of student works as a way of analyzing how literary discourse can be used as a way of “constructing a self or selves that can enter specific discourses ni order to act in specific situations for specific purposes—academic or otherwise” (Yagelski 92). He attempts to gain a greater understanding of his students by analyzing their works and hypothesizing about their writing choices. He does this because he is “interested in understanding better how [student’s] texts came to be… to help them claim agency for themselves and ultimately develop … a literacy based on the notion that writing and reading are part of the ongoing struggle to become ‘fully human’” (93).

Yagelski gives us some background and dismal setting for his classroom in the State University of New York at Albany. After giving a brief overview of the variety of students in his classroom, he introduces us to Celina’s essay which was a response to the prompt asking students “‘to draw on your own experiences to explore an issue or problem in education that might interest the rest of us and help us better understand education’” (95). Celina’s essay is written in what she refers to as “Black English” and argues for the validity of this language as a valid form of communication, stating “Aint nothing wrong with Black English that it aint considered par a ‘correct’ English except that the white people and ideology got everybody thinking that its only one right language and that the one they put into everything” (97). After giving us a look at Celina’s essay, Yagelski summarizes the class discussion, telling us that “the discussion was really not about Celina’s draft but about the larger issues her essay was intended to raise about language and power and race relations” (98). He tells us that on advising her about her essay, he is “not much help” and he focuses on “matters of style and tone and how these will affect her readers” (99). His basic suggestions were to retain the argument for Black English, but to bring the message more toward the use of standard English methods in order that her point may be taken more seriously.

Yagelski uses this essay as a way of discussing discourse and they may sometimes “not only contradict each other, but they contain inherent contradictions within themselves” (101). He discusses the works of Bartholomae and Bizzell regarding academic discourses and comes to the conclusion that academic writing for students “is not just an attempt to enter an unfamiliar academic discourse community, but also part of [their] effort to construct a self that can claim agency within as well as outside that community and its discourses” (103). He also concludes that “to some extent all writing is ‘personal’” (105). This is to show that the complexities of who someone is can be seen in how and what they write.

He goes on to give us another example of how personality and individual concerns can show up clearly in writing. Yagelski introduces us to Larry, a student that is described as having grammatical writing problems despite prior good grades and being near to graduation. When Yagelski makes him realize that his grammar problems matter, he explains that it is “not the ‘grammar’ as such but what it reflects about his abilities as a writer: that he hasn’t learned how to write in ways that the academy values” (113). This is apparently one of many failings for Larry as his essay examples indicate. His writings reflect a very angry voice and Yagelski analyzes the self-esteem issues that manifest themselves in the student’s work. He tells us that these styles crop up in all his writing for the semester, even in an essay that should have been less personal, Yagelski tells us that “He was to have discussed an issue or problem, but he quickly returns to his issue, his problem. And his essay becomes another effort to confront that problem and reclaim some sense of self-worth” (117). His analysis of Larry’s writings indicates again how writing is used to construct agency within discourses and become “fully human.”

I found this reading to be quite interesting and I think Yagelski makes some good points about how we are able to, in a sense, evolve by writing. I have found that writing is a useful exercise for learning; at least as useful as reading is. Being able to compose a written work requires us to analyze ourselves and our position regarding the subject matter in order to form coherent arguments or narratives. This analysis gives us a chance to reflect on our thoughts and actually organize them in a way that we will be able to better understand them ourselves.

Yagelski tells us that “Literacy can represent empowerment…only to the extent that they can use it to negotiate the challenges they face in their lives outside the classroom” (124). I find this statement to be both true and misleading. For teachers, the primary goal of education should certainly be the development of their students into functionally competent human beings that will be able to take the lessons of the classroom and apply them to other situations throughout their lives. This certainly gives the student in question an immeasurable power that allows them to better steer their own life decisions. But I believe that literacy is also empowering to some extent within the academic system. I think that Yagelski’s student analyses show that clearly. Their self-realizations that were brought about by the functions of literacy are themselves empowering. Even were they to remain indefinitely within the education system, they would still be empowered by their responses to assignments in that through their efforts, they are better able to understand themselves and how they relate to their community.