Discussion Questions:
1. To justify his term, “thinking to write,” Smit argues that writing is a form of political action that catalyzes change within our communities and also at the larger societal level. Does “thinking to write” ignore the idea that thinking and writing are intertwined and concomitant processes? More generally, can this sort of simplification be used in good writing for its pith and persuasiveness even if it is slightly misleading? Should writers throw out punchy terms when they run slightly afoul of precision?
2. Smit claims that “academic culture” is generally seen as a “collection of elite groups whose primary job is to maintain disciplinary standards, to act as gatekeepers” (209). Does society view research scientists as mere “gatekeepers”? Are they not seen as innovators who advance our understanding of the world and technology? Smit also seems to think composition experts, granted appropriate access to other disciplines, will have little trouble gaining sufficient knowledge to master scientific discourses. Is there really a class of people with the aptitude and desire to become experts in science, composition studies, and cultural criticism?
3. Smit wants a (r)evolution that will “make our country as a whole more open and accommodating, more fair and equal, a better place to live” (213). Does better communication necessarily lead to better decisions and policy? Does increasing personal understanding of discourse communities really make one more sympathetic to outsiders and novices? Do Aristotle’s beliefs about the goodness of rhetoric still reign in the field?
