Brand Part Deux

“Every act of knowing there enters a passionate contribution of the person knowing what is being known.” -- Michael Polanyi

We did not get a chance to talk about Brand on Wednesday and she creates a decisive argument regarding affect or emotion. To be clear, she does not think that the model presented by Flower and Hayes or other cognitive writing theorists are wrong, “just incomplete” (p. 711). In the larger picture, what Brand is taking on is this notion that expressive discourse and emotions are not valuable, are not a tool that should be used, and something that is certainly NOT scientific. Motivation may be talked about as something to consider in writing education, but often it is pushed out by cognitive concepts as they “…patterns itself after the harder sciences” (p. 708). Affect is simply not taken seriously in writing or research about writing. If affect is used to justify or talk about writing, especially in cognitive theory, it is only to be “…pulled out when other explanations fail” (p. 708). Therefore continuing emotions less-than value. In David Winter’s research, “emotional neutrality is considered morally the most advanced” (p. 708). Brand goes on to critique that being “aloof from one’s emotions” is the “hallmark of the liberally educated” according to Winter (p.708). Therefore something that writers should strive to do.

Brand declares, “But aloofness really is impossible” (p. 708).  She then goes on and creates a list of different items that we are “looking at” and ultimately relate to one another on page 708. Although even she states that her argument may be oversimplified, what she is saying is that all paths lead back to emotion. As humans, everything is grounded in emotion.  Brand says “we need reminding that the very idea of being both human and impartial is a contradiction in terms” (p. 709). She goes on to discuss that logic is not the normal mode of human thought and that we must create language so that we can study and deal with emotion in writing. She does not discredit cognition in writing. Although she does question this computer-centered idea that this is how we think. Cognition is important in the sense-making process, however, “…it is in emotion that this sense finds value” (p. 711).

This article made a lot of sense to me. When I think of powerful and meaningful writers that have inspired the world (Maya Angelou, Gloria Steinem, bell hooks, Jennifer Baumgardner, ANGELA DAVIS…pick your own author), how can emotion not play a part in what they are writing, what inspires them to write, and the political issues that have created the environment of their writing? As far as feminism goes, I do not think it is possible to separate feminist writing/critique/analysis from emotion. The work done to create equality is fueled by emotion. Whether it be writing to further the cause or wearing black because your legislature sucks. To build on this Brand talks about making sense of words. She briefly talks about Vygotsky and how he talks about the sum of all psychological events associated with a particular word is what makes sense. Meaning if I throw out a word like assault, this word may have a similar cognitive meaning for people (similar denotative meaning for people), but the events in your own life will also come into play. Life circumstances will create a different or more or less vivid meaning and picture in your mind or where your mind goes when you hear the word (signifier/signified). And this is where emotion comes into play. This is where we have to combine cognitive reasoning and emotion.

I have never taught composition, however, when I assign projects and papers in class I always say, find something that is meaningful to you. Your best work will be something that you are invested in or interested in, something that you care about. So far, this has been true. The work that I have seen students create on their own and choose has been far better than what I choose for them. Does this have something to do with emotions? I don’t know, but I’d like to think so.