Petrie Dishes and Social Constructs

Ok. Any of you who know me, even marginally, know that I actually like Cultural Studies. It's an especially interesting discourse into which you can toss different theoretical systems and, well, play. So I approached the George and Trimbur article with a pretty open mind. I was just curious as to see how Cultural Studies could have it's application to composition teaching. After wading through 7 pages of familiar and unfamiliar names, dates and titles I got to the section on “Connections to Composition.”
I continued to wade.
And wade.
And wade.
Through such well argued positions as Berlin's “particularly rich discussion of. . . reading of cultural texts,” and Faigley's evaluation of “postmodernism not just as a theoretical problem but as a sensibility that increasingly pervades contemporary social life.” (GT 80-81) This is rigorous, challenging, possibly even brilliant stuff. There are worthwhile insights that should be considered and kept in mind, especially when you do cultural inquiry.
I was only left with one question. How is this composition?

Relatedly, I bounced up and down on the theoretical diving board and, somewhat more cynically, jackknifed into “Cognition, Convention, and Certainty” by Patricia Bizzel.
It was a belly flop on the order of Free Willy. Bizzel's critique of the Hayes and Flower article I was previously so enchanted with was reminiscent of Simon from American Idol, just more meticulous. However, I felt like a Beatles fan at an Oasis concert when she started to propose her own recommendations regarding “the fact that all discourse communities constitute and interpret experience.” (VV 401) Much like Robin felt about the stage process model in Hayes and Flower, I feel here. Bizzel is explicating audience rather well, but she's not really adding much by interchanging the term with discourse communities. She hasn't really added anything beyond a well described process pedagogy when she concludes that “the main casualty of our theoretical debate can be the debilitating individualism which adds so much to classroom strain.” (VV 409) A well-focused approach involving voice, purpose, and audience will serve this end just as well.

Trimbur. Consensus. Dissensus. With all his focus on “exploring the differential access to knowledge and the relations of power and status that structure this writing situation” (VV 471) as well as references to Habermass, Benjamin and Rorty that there wasn't so much as a nod to bio-power or Foucault. As it stands I must reiterate the above – it's great to inform the students of the social influence and ideological interpellations and limitations they live in the middle of, but emphasis based on their own voice and experience still seems to be the most realistic method for the actual learning as opposed to indoctrination in the classroom.