Does the 'regular Joe' stand a chance?

If cultural studies are indeed, a "more generalized response to the rise of mass society and the forms of cultural experience characteristic of modernity, the metropolis, and the emergence of the "people" (or the popular masses) as a force in history" (Tate, 77), then the 'regular guy' and the 'rhetoric of the regular guy' should be the center. It makes sense that the effect of cultural studies on composition would be an attempt to move the writer away from the literary critic mode to one that reconnects the writer with his/her ordinary experiences. If we want people to write, they have to have a frame of reference for it. They have to be able to relate to what they write about. They have to be able to relate to the discourse community that reads their work.

The prevalent practice of hegemony - where the leadership or predominant influence comes from the "elites" (or maybe the instructor???) -doesn't encourage student writers to write about their ordinary experiences. Rather, they are asked to write about situations, events, literature, etc for which they have no frame of reference. Then, in order to give these writers a frame of reference, teachers spend time analyzing the literature and performing close readings. So, the composition class becomes a literary analysis class and the writing goes away. This is the point George and Trimbur make on page 78 of A Guide to Composition Pedagogies.

And, what's it all for? So that the writers can write about something that satisifies the academic discourse community. The discourse community proved a common thread in both George and Trimbur's Cultural Studies and Composition (Tate, 71-91) and Bizzell's Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing (Villaneueva, 387-411). Does the discourse community impede the truest, most pure use of composition as it relates to cultural studies? It appears so.

Bizzell's discussion about the outer-directed model of language and thought show that discourse communities are its entire focus (Villaenueva, 391). Obviously they are powerful. Even if writing-across-the-curriculum programs are being used "as a way to demystify the conventions of the academic discourse community" (Villaneueva, 392), I don't think they can effectively do it. There are still certain ACADEMIC discourse community expecations regardless of the subject matter. For example, a writer would be penalized for writing 'This is 4 ppl 2 read' in science class, math class, English class...I'd wager that this would be unacceptable for every class! It's just not appropriate for the academic discourse community. Yet, it's perfectly suitable for the student's text-messaging discourse community. Maybe we need to do a better job reminding students about "appropriate time and place." Bizzell hits the nail on the head when she says that "...educational problems associated with language use should be understood as difficulties with joining an unfamiliar discourse community" (Villaneueva, 397). I completely agree with the point she makes on page 401 in relation to difficulties with goal setting and that perhaps, these writers are completely unaware that certain conventions even exist in other discourse communities. When we look at it through the academic filter that we are so accustomed to, this seems incomprehensible. But I think she's right----understanding discourse communities and having background knowledge go hand-in-hand.