Preview this article: Review: Rhetorical Democracy: Discursive Practices of Civic Engagement, edited by Gerard A. Hauser and Amy Grim, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/57/1/collegecompositionandcommunication4022-1.gif

Preview this article: Introduction, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/65/5/collegeenglish1298-1.gif

Research Article| January 01 2001 The Materiality of Language and the Pedagogy of Exchange David Bleich David Bleich Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Pedagogy (2001) 1 (1): 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-1-1-117 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation David Bleich; The Materiality of Language and the Pedagogy of Exchange. Pedagogy 1 January 2001; 1 (1): 117–142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-1-1-117 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2001 Duke University Press2001 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Articles You do not currently have access to this content.

Preview this article: Collaboration and the Redagogy of Disclosure, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/57/1/collegeenglish9148-1.gif

Examining the relationship between language and literacy and the societal experiences that help shape it, this political and polemical book builds on the author's previous work in reader-response criticism and challenges the now dominant assumption that language is an individual transaction independent of any social context. Moving through a series of interrelated essays, David Bleich explores topics including the social psychology of men, which he maintains exerts undue influence on everyone's education; conceptions of knowledge now offered by feminist epistemologists; social conceptions of language and knowledge found in the work of G.H. Mead, L.S. Vygotsky, Ludwik Fleck, and Mikhail Bakhtin; the influence of gender on language use; the views of current thinkers on the social character of the classroom and academic communities; and the process of individual language development.

THE STUDY OF RESPONSE TO LITERATURE has tried to use the epistemological standards and research procedures of the quantitative sciences. In this well-known method, a research site is established, the object of research is stripped of inessential features, the researcher stipulates and seeks to maintain independence of the object and its independence of him, and then draws conclusions that he believes others will have no trouble accepting. If accepted, the conclusions are considered objective knowledge and are discarded only when there is a more persuasive argument for another conclusion. Because both the old and new knowledge are considered objective, the new is considered true and the old false. True knowledge is understood as the representation of something intrinsic to the object of study; the process of knowing is the act of representing the object and its working in the correct way. The object of study, it is presupposed, is unaffected by the attempt to understand it. In Subjective Criticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978) I have discussed how, in major areas of human knowledge, this objective epistemology has been questioned, and in some instances, suspended or discarded. Many who have studied response have indicated similar misgivings about the traditional research methodology and reasoning. Nevertheless, most response researchers have continued to expect results from the approaches that have brought success in science in the past. The task of developing knowledge of response to literature, however, presents an especially clear occasion for showing how and why to change these expectations, and how to reconceive the problem of research in this area along more productive lines. This change in perspective involves identifying response research with literary pedagogy. The interest in response has evolved historically from the growth of the pedagogical profession and from the gradual onset of universal literacy. When few could read, pedagogy aimed to develop reading skill and then reading habits. When the

Preview this article: Comment & Response, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/37/5/collegeenglish16703-1.gif

Preview this article: Pedagogical Directions in Subjective Criticism, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/37/5/collegeenglish16695-1.gif

Preview this article: The Subjective Character of Critical Interpretation, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/36/7/collegeenglish16957-1.gif

Preview this article: Psychological Bases of Learning from Literature, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/33/1/collegeenglish18809-1.gif

Preview this article: Emotional Origins of Literary Meaning, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/31/1/collegeenglish20358-1.gif