Into the Blogosphere

Gallagher, Jamey. “‘As Y’all Know’: Blog as Bridge.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College 37.3 (2010): 286-94. Print.

In this article, Jamey Gallagher argues that writing instructors can use blogs to help students gain greater facility with academic writing. Gallagher extends David Bartholomae’s use of the term “commonplaces” as it appeared in “Inventing the University.” For Gallgher, commonplaces incorporate “style and purpose” (286), and four commonplaces that identify the political blogs he examined are “informal language,” “intertextuality,” “the personal address,” and “the rhetoric of the provisional.” These commonplaces help make blogs “examples of emplaced, agency-granting writing and [. . .] bridges to academic writing” (286).

In his examination of a political blog, Gallagher notes the informality of the language makes the work accessible. But the informality is not the result of carelessness. Rather, the informal language, he argues, is part of a carefully structured attempt to mimic thought processes. This informality is also inviting to students because it deemphasizes grammar and correctness and creates a more inclusive atmosphere. Next Gallagher addresses intertextuality, which refers to the linking that typically occurs in blogs. This represents two fundamental parts of writing that writing instructors often tend to teach: using sources as part of an argument and writing as a social act. In addition, the comments that occur in blogs add another layer of intertextuality and open up possibilities for the development of a discourse community. The personal address is a significant commonplace of the blog as well, one that allows specific development of a persona. This, too, is an inviting aspect of blogs. Readers are encouraged to directly engage with the author and become a part of the conversation (something academic writing can sometimes neglect). Such an emphasis on voice can benefit those writing instructors who actively encourage their students to discover their voices in writing. Finally, Gallagher explores the importance of the rhetoric of the provisional. This emphasizes the act of thinking and responding rather than asserting, allowing for more open-ended consideration. This leads him to conclude that, in good blogs, “[t]hought is valued over the rant. The provisional is valued over the final. Community is valued over individuality. All of these qualities are what good, solid academic writing values as well, and what the worst kind of academic writing fails to value” (291-92).

What I find most compelling about Gallagher’s piece is that the suggestion here is not that blogs are good simply because students can relate to them or because they are new. Instead, the author points to key areas of overlap blogs share with the types of writing institutions often expect of their instructors. And Gallagher points to the faults of blogs as well: they can be belligerent and anarchic, sloppy in their composition and thought. However, I think Gallagher’s piece gives writing instructors cause to further consider incorporating Web 2.0 genres as tools to help students move into academic writing.