John’s Comments (group member since May 10, 2012)

John’s comments from the Composition and Rhetoric group.

Hi Ericka,

The group has fallen by the wayside, but I would love to get things back in place. I've been swamped, but it was a positive experience when its as up and running. Do you have any suggested texts?

Any reading suggestions for 2015? I'd like to pick this group back up.

I've been swamped, but I wanted to say that I've been thinking a lot about your response. And I really like your idea that the assaying metaphor "is meant to get us thinking about what we define as 'precious' rhetorical actions." I'll write more soon. Cheers!

Hold the phone, I'm going to do a 180 degree turn on what I said last night. Well, maybe more of a 90.

Rereading the definition of assaying that I pasted a few posts above, it seems to be more about *analyzing* the precious metals than digging for them. So I think my last post is wrong.

Maybe the scorched earth is traditional rhetorical criticism that excluded women or even traditional feminist rhetorical criticism that is all about "rescue, recovery, and reinscription."

In this way, assaying as a metaphor is dealing with the precious metals that we already have--figuring out how to analyze them appropriately, perhaps even ethically.

But I think we run into two problems with this:

1) We still don't get rid of assaying as driven by profit. The "precious" metals are only precious insomuch as they can be sold on the market.

2) If assaying is about analysis and not "digging," then how do we find more "precious metals" to assay?

Maybe a 3rd question is about historiographic method. How do we discover without digging? Is that possible? Is the "digging" metaphor actually a problem?

Cool! Thanks for writing back, Caitlin. I'm happy to have someone participating. I too like the idea of digging around in a lot of "worthless" stuff, and I also like the idea that this approach allows us to move beyond simple "uncovering."

But……when I first read "assaying," I was thrown for a bit of a loop; the metaphor does not seem to match up with a lot of what I was reading Royster and Kirsch discussing and valuing in feminist scholarship. Assaying (as a process generally, not necessarily how they're discussing it) seems aggressive and phallocentric. I have an image of digging and drilling for oil and mining for ore. I think about a lot of heavy machinery ripping apart the landscape and blowing smoke into the air. Also, in mining, the purpose is profit. They're digging around to find whatever they can sell.

So essentially I have this scorched earth image of a strip mine where the earth has been torn apart for profit. Is that how scholars want to think about feminist rhetorical scholarship? Maybe I'm being way too cynical. Or maybe I'm missing how they're using assaying in a way that's kind of tongue in cheek.

Or maybe it's just too late on a Friday night and I should go to sleep. I'll go with that one and pick this up tomorrow.

In a Twitter conversation about this book (I was promoting this reading group), Kristen R. Moore said to "Note the use of assaying as an [?] metaphor we might trouble." *note: the question mark is her own.

Here's what we get from the internetz' favorite dictionary, thefreedictionary.com

assay
n.
a. Qualitative or quantitative analysis of a metal or ore to determine its components.
b. A substance to be so analyzed.
c. The result of such an analysis.
2. An analysis or examination.
3. A bioassay.
4. Archaic An attempt; an essay.
v. (ă-sā′, ăs′ā′) as·sayed, as·say·ing, as·says
v.tr.
1.
a. To subject (a metal, for example) to chemical analysis so as to determine the strength or quality of its components.
b. To bioassay.
2. To examine by trial or experiment; put to a test: assay one's ability to speak Chinese.
3. To evaluate; assess: assayed the situation before taking action. See Synonyms at estimate.
4. To attempt; try.
v.intr.
To be shown by analysis to contain a certain proportion of usually precious metal.

I'm glad this was brought up on Twitter, because I've been thinking a lot about their use of geological and mining metaphors. It does seem strange to talk about history of rhetoric and specifically feminist histories of rhetoric in this way. But strange isn't always bad, I guess.

What do others think about assaying? Does it work? Is it a helpful way of thinking about this material? If so, what does it allow us to see differently? What does it limit us from seeing?

Fantastic news!

I'm glad to see someone is reading (and enjoying) the book. I read the first two chapters in early March, but then CCCC and post-CCCC got in the way. Your post is the motivation I need to get back on track.

I do know that Dawn Armfield is reading, too.

Anyone else?

Caitlin, do you have any questions to get our discussion going (while I catch up)? I guess I have one for you: Does this book connect with your research interests? If so, what kinds of stuff are you working on?

Cheers!

Let's dive in!

Love this: "Our sophisticated irony saw through the truth of romantic myth as something irrelevant, preferring to deal with more manageable half-truths like reified technique" (117).

Also love this: "Myself, I'm always looking for work that sends me, that gives me something I'm not used to, student writing that enacts the death of academic writing along with its rebirth, and I find that far more frequently with the less-mediated prose of so-called basic writers, writers whose texts are interpretable as meditations on the nature of writing, pursued as if in dialogue with a questioner of ideal innocence and congenital blindness" (118)

I have such contradictory feelings while reading this book.

Sometimes I'm right on board with Sirc's prodding: "how do we know we understand composition? Perhaps we simply lack the discourse to conceptualize the composition fully" (96).

And I laughed when he poked fun at how (big C) Composition would analyze the David Crosby song. That observation is smart and almost even poignant.

But when he starts comparing Jackson Pollock to basic writers in the university he starts to lose me:

"The correctness of line, how it plagued Jackson, now the Archetypal Basic Writer. To decide to live outside the law of those standards that had been so cruel to him, so unyielding, was very brave; and then, to rise above them, conquering them by avoiding them, living to show there are other ways to produce powerful art" (98).

Does this observation not seem overly romanticized? Am I misreading this passage? I agree that basic writers can have those similar feelings of being constrained by form, but doesn't it seem a little patronizing to see them all as young Jackson Pollocks ready to live "outside the law?"

"Composition as I see it has now become a delay in glass, all writing is screen-writing. There is the artifact, which has been written about in notes, which refer to other artifacts, which contain ideas worked over previously or written about to friends, etc." (65)

"All that I demand of writing is that it have written; that is expose itself, announce itself, appear as writing. Writing stripped bare. Writing that wows me, dazzles me, that announces, 'you're coming onto something so fast, so numb, that you can't even feel' (R.E.M). Writing from a vast universal field, as wide-open as a Kansas prairie, where language, thought, and vision act upon one another; panoramic writing, filled with all sorts of wonderful, useless treasures" (66).

I don't always agree with Sirc, but I adore his style. There are moments (like those above) where I find myself wanting compositionists to be more like this, to draw on their full range of writing talents to produce something that I want to read. (Is that a bad thing that I want this? Like Peter Elbow, I love academic discourse, but that's not all I want).

Sirc's style is a breath of fresh air. I find myself nodding along, caught up and captivated by his arguments and his ethos as truth-teller/rabble-rouser.

One thing that bugs me early on is that he keeps coming back to an idea of the "sublime" which seems, frankly, highly questionable at best. At worst, the sublime seems bound up with high grand style, taste and social class. All of the artist's he quotes, Duchamp and John Cage, for example, seem like trotting out the same old transgressors, a move he also critiques (to his credit: He does talk about 2pac. Excellent!)

So I guess I want to know a definition of "sublime" that isn't dripping with privilege (but I'll settle with a definition, at the very least).

Just a few quotations that jumped out to me as I'm reading.


“ …I want to reflect on the novel textures that might be brought to Composition’s current course designs, the possibilities that exist for altering the conventional spaces of a writing classroom, allowing the inhabitants a sense of the sublime, making it a space no one wants to leave, a happening space” (1).

“I began to realize that something questionable happened in our field in the late seventies and early eighties: our insecurity over our status as a valid academic field led us to entrench ourselves firmly in professionalism. To establish Composition as a respectable discipline, we took on all the trappings of traditional academia—canonicity, scientism, empiricism, formalism, high theory, axioms, arrogance, and acceptance of the standard university department-divisions. We purged ourselves of any trace of kookiness, growing first suspicious, then disdainful, of the kind of homemade comp-class-as-Happening that people like Lutz tried to put together” (6-7).

“Frankly, I don’t care how a biologist writes. I assume it’s pretty conventional stuff, thoroughly implicated in the traditional departmental divisions that stultify the academy. If the folks in biology want to get together with me and talk about how to re-evaluate the form and subject of biology, I’m there. The way such writing represents the entrenched disciplinarily of academia makes it of dubious value as part of a material sublime” (8)

“Our self-imposed formal and material subservience marks a sad betrayal of the spirit of verbal risk and writing-as-life that marked the best of our history” (8).

“Our texts are conventional in every sense of the word; they write themselves. They are almost wholly determined by the texts that have gone before; a radical break with the conventions of a form or genre (and I’m not speaking here about the academic conventions of the smug, sanctioned transgression, e.g., Jane Tompkins) would perplex—how is that history writing?…how is that going to help you get a job?” (10).

Happy New Year!

I look forward to starting off the new year with Geoffrey Sirc's English Composition as a Happening. I've heard a lot about this book over the years, mostly because of his critique of Ways of Reading, a comp reader my graduate program used back in the day. I'm hoping this book will challenge some of my entrenched beliefs about teaching composition, which is, I guess, what any good piece of scholarship will do, right?

One of my resolutions is to try to maintain this site better -- be more active and engaged, writer better discussion threads…etc. But I would also love to see more folks involved. If you're reading along, feel free to jump in and talk about your reading experience.

I finished Peckham's book last night and I want to say that I appreciated his even-handed critique of the problems that (sometimes) occur with critical pedagogy, including, of course, the alienation of working class students. As a person that struggles with--yet continues to work with--critical pedagogy, I found this to be a valuable review of many of the pitfalls and "blunders" that can happen.

A few problems:

1) I know his books wasn't an exercise in sociology, but I found myself wanting more of a nuanced take on the terms "working class" and even "middle class." How is he defining working class, for example?

2) On a related note, I found some of his "Working class students read like this……Middle class students read like this" analysis almost like a bad stand up routine. It seems difficult if not impossible to generalize how entire social classes read/write. For example, in my (anecdotal) experiences, I have found reactions to my variation on critical pedagogy to be unpredictable from class to class and semester to semester. Some "working class" students enjoy themselves and learn while more "middle class" students are alienated and sometimes it's the opposite and sometimes there's a mix. I have never found it so easily demarcated.

3) Peckham often falls back on the argument that critical pedagogy is teaching political viewpoints, not writing skills. But I would like to see him acknowledge some of the pedagogies that successfully combine the politics of *writing* (not just political positions in general) with writing skills instruction. Say, for example, translingual critical pedagogies that investigate the ways politics directly affect students writing.

4) When it's all said and done, the book really amounts to a Lit Review and critique of previous literature on critical pedagogy without offering much of an alternative pedagogy. I know this is one of the more common critiques of scholarship that sometimes irritates me so I'm not sure how I feel about stating it, but this one more than most, I think, really did not carve out a pathway toward something new or different or better.

5) I would also like to see him talk about what he liked so much about Ira Shor's pedagogy. He mentions this in passing a few times as a great example of a pedagogue that treats his well, never gets into that. As a fan of Shor's work, I would have liked to have seen some more about this.

Not to be too hard on Peckham. I did enjoy the book and found many of his critiques of critical pedagogies spot on and often too close for comfort.

Anyone else? Bueller……..Bueller………...

"Escape from the patronizing attitude naturalized through the educational industry is, I argue, a prerequisite for an authentic Freirean pedagogy. But far too many critical teachers have difficulty stepping outside the assumption that they know and their student's don't" (13).

also

"We don't learn when we run around patting each other on the back" (15).

Update:

I hope this message finds you all well.

My semester got the best of me - as semesters, on occasion, tend to do.

Because I'm lagging behind, I've decided to extend the conversation about Peckham's book through December. I hope that I am not disrupting anyone's reading schedules. I also hope this extension opens up more opportunities for folks to contribute.

Cheers to everyone this November. Best wishes and happy reading!

I am behind on my reading schedule. I'm still working on Rhetoric of Remediation, but I'm also looking froward to Peckham's book.

For right now I'm just copying/pasting the discussion prompt from last month - not much has changed. Feel free to jump in!

Post quotations that are interesting, observations, questions, or maybe even notes from your reading. Main point: your post doesn't have to be a mini essay, devastating critique, or illuminating insight. Anything is fair game. If the conversation is going in a direction that you find uninteresting (and listen, if I'm involved in the conversation, that's more than likely the case) take us in a new direction.

Also, please continue to suggest books for our reading list. If you want to make changes to the monthly reading schedule, please let me know. It's not fixed in stone. I'm happy to move stuff around to accommodate research schedules, classes...etc.

bump

I'm still waiting for my copy to be delivered via interlibrary loan. In the meantime....

Feel free to post quotations that are interesting, observations, questions, or maybe even notes from your reading. Main point: your post doesn't have to be a mini essay, devastating critique, or illuminating insight. Anything is fair game. If the conversation is going in a direction that you find uninteresting (and listen, if I'm involved in the conversation, that's more than likely the case) take us in a new direction.

Also, please continue to suggest books for our reading list. Also, if you want to make changes to the monthly reading schedule, please let me know. It isn't fixed in stone. I'm happy to move stuff around to accommodate research schedules, classes...etc.

-- open discussion about the September 2013 edition of CCC