Based on ongoing exchanges between Peter Elbow and David Bartholomae, this essay critiques the ideology of expressive writing and Elbow's 1969 text, Writing without Teachers. Bartholomae defends his definition of academic writing and defines expressive writing in an attempt to distinguish between the two. While Bartholomae acknowledges ambiguity in the term academic writing, he constructs a definition by distinguishing academic writing from what it is not. He claims that since "academic writing is the real work of the academy," there can be no writing that is "without teachers" (63). Bartholomae further asserts that Elbow's text ultimately works to preserve the authority of the student as well as the assumed value of expressive writing. Instead, Bartholomae argues that basic writing as well as other college classes should be spaces in which we investigate the "transmission of power" (66). College writing courses, he says, should teach students about intertextuality as well as the dialogic nature of reading and writing, helping them to recognize that they are writing "in a space defined by all the writing that has preceded them" (64).
Berthoff attacks the idea of the five-paragraph essay and writing instruction that focuses on error. Instead, she advocates an approach that "preach[es] the gospel of the uses of chaos and the making of meaning" (5). Using the "us-against-them" approach (the writing instructors versus the deans), she comments that the deans want students to write beautiful, well-organized prose but give little or no thought to how students get there. She argues that students will come to that beautiful and well-organized prose only by combining personal and public discourse.
Elbow argues that an author can serve two purposes—that of "the writer" and that of "the academic." Elbow explains some of the conflicts between the two roles and offers insights into the pedagogical implications of both epistemological views of teaching writing. These conflicts and discussions of competing epistemologies in the first-year composition course include what to read, how to approach "key texts," and how much to read, among others. Elbow also raises several important questions: "Who gets control over the text, and what are the competing interests of both positions? How should the student articulate information that is absorbed from the reading (as a writer or as an academic)? What kind of language shall I try to instill in first-year students in a writing course?" (78) "[H]ow shall I teach my students to place themselves in the universe of other writers?" (78).
Many experts in the field of basic writing use narrative in their own academic discourse but do not allow their students to use narrative in the classroom. An examination of the academic discourse about basic writing indicates that narrative is used widely as a way to make academic issues relevant to our lives. In light of this, perhaps we should reconsider our skepticism about the value of narrative discourse in the basic writing classroom. Narrative has attributes that foster many of the academic skills we seek to nurture in our students. For one thing, it serves as a form of legitimization—a way for students to establish a position before those who might otherwise dismiss them. Furthermore, narrative can facilitate metacognition. By asking students to distinguish between the story and the presentation of the events, we encourage them to think about the process of thinking. Perhaps most important, narrative can provide access to the mysterious, the spiritual, and the awe-inspiring. Through narrative, students can explore themselves and their place in the world, including the academy. They can discover the relationship between their lives and their ideas.