Stony Brook University - SUNY Digital Repository

elevance of context is what finally forces one to abandon the
comforting dualistic belief in permanent right answers to all
the important questions” (56), what we have, yet again, is a
testimonial to the vital influence of peers and “community” upon
engendering that relativistic perspective. Because of what she
is concentrating upon here, it is not surprising, then, that
when she writes, “If Perry’s research helps us understand our
students and their writing, then it should also help us to teach
them more effectively” (57), her greatest advice to teachers who
would also use Perry’s scheme in their writing classes concerns
that question of “community” – “context and relationships,”
using her terms. Upon this front, she writes that, “Because
Perry’s scheme deals specifically with the recognition of
alternatives and differences, it is essential for students to
listen to peers as they express and justify differences of
opinion” (58). She explains the “essential” nature of the
writing classroom as “community” further:
[T]he centrality of community to the value system
that supports Perry’s scheme strongly argues for the
importance of students learning from each other’s
differences. The pain and risk of abandoning earlier
worldviews is too great to take on without help;
according to Perry, that help must come from the
group that first caused the student to question her
attitudes. […] [H]omongenous classes ignore the
social framework of the Perry scheme, at the same
time they severely limit the use of important and
effective writing strategies. (58)
And again, the role of the writing teacher within this
“community” of would-be “critical thinkers” and “critical
217