![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
Philosophy concerns asking fundamental questions about practices, concepts and objects: their meaning, how they function, what they presuppose and what makes them distinctive. Within Creative Writing, we often ask about the effectiveness of the workshop, classroom activities or we inquire about our subject's past and present distinctiveness. But the question of a philosophy or philosophies of CW has gone largely unasked. This paper considers a number of questions about how CW articulates itself in terms of its view of teaching, autonomy and the scope of CW research. The paper argues that if CW is to be an autonomous discipline, then various problems need to be addressed. It concludes by identifying two current schools, or philosophies, of CW: integrationism and monarchism. Whereas the latter seeks to rationalise CW as an autonomous discipline, the former seeks to see it as part of a broader education in the humanities. Ultimately, the paper seeks to create a framework for a new area of investigation in CW scholarship.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Dr Craig Jordan-Baker is subject leader in creative writing at the University for the Creative Arts.
Notes
1. About the role of university creative writing courses, Kureishi claims, ‘[i]t's not about the course. The whole thing with courses is that there are too many teachers on them, and most are going to teach you stuff that is a waste of time for you’ (Flood Citation2014).
2. For example, NAWE's new journal, Writing in Practice lists among its principal aims the ‘critical examination of the history and pedagogy of Creative Writing’ (National Association of Writers in Education http://www.nawe.co.uk/DB/nawe-news/writing-in-practice.html.).
3. The quote does not directly relate to a training/education distinction, but to the distinction between ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ approaches to learning. There are, though, clear conceptual links here between the two.
4. It is relevant to recognise that different national traditions may influence the objectives of teaching CW. For example, it is possible that the historical connection in the US between composition and creative writing may contribute to a more instrumental emphasis. This of course is a larger question which cannot be considered here. However, while I do not discount the influence of national traditions, such philosophical questions equally apply to CW internationally.
5. It should be noted that Bizzaro and other commentators sometimes emphasise CW-as-education and at others times, CW-as-training. I take this to be symptomatic of a lack of clarity on the fundamental issue which makes clear consideration of the subject all the more important. As such, my quotations above do not necessarily reflect my belief that their authors wholeheartedly subscribe to one position or another, only that there is a distinction to be marked and become clearer about. As Myers reminds us, ‘[o]riginally the teaching of creative writing … was an experiment in education … it was not a scheme for turning out official writers’ (Myers Citation2006, 4). The question then is an open one.
6. This is most obviously shown in Leskien's comment that ‘[i]f one admits optional, contingent, and unconnected changes, one is basically stating the object of one's research, language, is not amenable to scientific recognition’ (Cited in Robins Citation1997, 208).
7. For example see Jordan-Baker (Citation2013), Robins (Citation1997) and Seuren (Citation1998).
8. For example, in discussion of individualised learning, McLoughlin states, ‘[t]hat is the reason why Creative Writing, like Fine Art is about teaching techniques that help the individual develop their own art’ (McLoughlin Citation2009, 125).
9. This claim is based on research carried out by Donnelly (Citation2012). For example, her survey found that, ‘[t]he [workshop model] serves as a primary focus or a major component in 80% of creative writing classes’ (75) and she quotes sources that claim overall, CW courses consist of 50% workshop (78).
10. Indeed some within creative writing seem to actively avoid such pursuits. One recent example is Sue Norton's paper on research within the field. She claims, ‘I am built to reflect and articulate, not to research’ (Norton Citation2012, 69).
11. ‘As a humanist Foerster believed that writers required a humanistic education that would give them a permanent sense of literary tradition … [t]he larger purpose … behind Foerster's whole plan of literary education was to rediscover critical standards’ (Myers Citation2006, 135).
12. ‘It is not such a stretch, after all, to construe Creative Writing as ideally situated to integrate all the strands of English studies as a nexus of both reading and writing’ (Haake Citation2012, 134).
13. One also might consider Peter Abbs’ understandings of arts education and emphasis on an holistic ‘aesthetic education’ to be sympathetic to an integrationist position: ‘[I]n the context of teaching, the arts share the same twin concerns for the appreciation of art and the production of art’ (Abbs Citation1989, 40).
14. ‘My argument here is limited to Ph.D. programmes in creative writing only, as I would argue that in order to exist, Ph.D. programmes must account for their identity by building markers of professional difference in their candidates’ (Ritter Citation2001, 208).
