[Teaching_Composition] the value (or not) of disciplinarity
Irvin Peckham
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:03:14 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C77D24.90837737
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree with just about everything that Bill and Russ said. I agree =
with some of what Doug said. I agree with a lot of what Debra said. I =
agree . . .
=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Irvin Peckham
Director of the University Writing Program
Louisiana State University
ipeckh1@lsu.edu
http://www.english.lsu.edu/programs/dept/ugrad/firstyear/
225-772-5963
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=20
From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com =
[mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of =
Thelin,William
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:17 AM
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] the value (or not) of disciplinarity
=20
Too much to respond to here, Doug, and think we'll probably just have to =
agree to disagree on your championing of the university system. While I =
think the German model has not worked in that education until the 1970's =
was limited to the upper and middle classes, our educational system is =
certainly collapsing and segregating now. Knowledge has been =
compartmentalized to the point that first year composition students will =
and often say, "Why do I have to know this? I don't want to be a writer =
or an English major." I think knowledge is learned (to use a generous =
term) without the requisite philosophical and rhetorical understandings, =
as the university and college are simply means to an end in a capitalist =
economy. But since you want to eliminate such discourse from this =
dialogue (Marxist thought is, after all, irrelevant as we've been told =
over and over again), there's not too much else I can say on this =
matter.
=20
However, I will challenge your statement that disciplinarity has been =
set up as a straw person, presumably in my discourse as well as other =
places. People from our field have indeed insisted that disciplinary =
boundaries be maintained. It wasn't all that long ago that Maxine =
Hairston waged her war against composition courses that taught =
politically-charged subject matter because she felt that the subjects of =
racism and sexism should be taught by experts in sociology and =
anthropology departments. Compositionists, apparently, could have =
nothing to contribute, even a rhetorical understanding of how these =
issues have been framed, for instance, in law cases (the infamous U of =
Texas at Austin controversy). How often have you heard on the WPA =
listserv or elsewhere that our subject is writing and that is what we =
should be teaching? I find such reductionisms absurd, as nothing takes =
place in a vacuum. Maybe to find middle ground, we can say that =
disciplinarity can be perceived along a continuum. I could separate =
myself from strong advocates of it like yourself, Doug, (and you =
probably would want to separate yourself from some of those to the right =
of you on this matter). A weak version of disciplinarity would allow =
for deference to expertise without the need to own or exclude, making =
collaboration without co-optation possible. I could be comfortable with =
that.
=20
Bill
=20
________________________________
From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com on behalf of Doug =
Downs
Sent: Wed 4/11/2007 10:09 PM
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: [Teaching_Composition] the value (or not) of disciplinarity
Bill (with Irv) lays bare for us the underlying argument: we shouldn't =
even be trying to have a discipline.=20
Which raises a clear divergence of opinion -- which has been around for =
the last 15 years -- at their simplest, the basic positions are that 1) =
disciplinarity is a bad and unrealistic idea, and thus so are the =
departmental structure of universities, and division of labor, and all =
things capitalist that attach to, flow from, and enable it; versus 2) =
the embrace of or at least comfort with disciplinarity, territorality, =
compartmentalization, etc, etc, etc. as the status quo of how knowledge =
is made.=20
I like compartments, even as I enjoy working across their boundaries. I =
don't mind division of labor and all it entails, even as I like the =
notion of cross-training. That is to say, I'm not (and no one is) =
supporting the straw caricature of disciplinarity that is so often =
offered by those arguing against it: that to say writing, for instance =
(or chemistry, or philosophy, or economics) can be "owned" is to say =
that only the owners get to know anything about it, use it, influence =
it, control it, etc. Or to imagine that once a discipline is =
established, only it can/gets to talk about its subject. *Of course* =
those things aren't true, which is why no one really thinks them, as far =
as I can tell. That's not what pro-discipline types are arguing for, or =
from. In fairness, I should also note that I am not in the LEAST =
bothered by the fundamental concept of ownership, particularly again as =
we can easily reject the straw caricature of "ownership" that "only I =
have it and I don'!
t ever let you have it." Certainly ownership works that way sometimes, =
but that's not the only meaning of ownership and that's not the only way =
it works usually.=20
So, if I were to argue for disciplinarity, departments, ownership, =
territory, walls, boundaries, boxes, and all that other "bad stuff" =
(apparently), it would simply be to say, as one can say about most of =
the other boogeymen of current cultural critique, *it works*. It's just =
ludicrous to say that the German university model adopted by the U.S. =
and the world since the 1800s hasn't worked, unless you're a dedicated =
pastoralist. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Before that, =
we operated on the model that all was philosophy, religion, law, and =
mathematics, and not coincidentally we didn't know a helluva lot about =
how the world actually worked. Now we know more, and I will assert that =
we know more than we would have without the resources, methods, models, =
and division of labor provided by disciplines and departments. The =
university isn't corporate because of these things; it's corporate =
because it decided (correctly, I'd say) that it needed more money to do =
its j!
ob and (disastrously, I'd say) sold its soul to the corporate world, =
which now "owns" the university.=20
Thinking that because knowledge cannot be contained in disciplinary =
boundaries, those boundaries are therefore a flawed and unworkable =
notion, is absurd. My stomach and my liver "share" "knowledge," but my =
stomach is not my liver and that's a condition I'm quite happy with. =
The fact that boundaries exist does not justify the reductio ad absurdum =
that boundaries are impermeable or monolithic. The fact that systems =
operate with distinct entities that nonetheless cooperate (divide labor) =
to achieve an overall common good is, well, what defines "systems" to =
begin with. There is no reason the university and the world's models of =
division of scholarly or academic labor can't be understood as having =
this kind of systemic function. Because, uh, THEY DO. (Not, mind you, =
that I'm arguing that the humanities are the university's spleen. Just =
its gall. :-)
To be flexible, I might also say that perhaps there was a time when =
disciplines were more effective than they are now -- like when people =
first began to realize that molecules have physical properties connected =
to and yet separate from their chemical properties, and that molecules =
might thus be studied both from a perspective of physics and a =
perspectitry, and that while people who did such things would absolutely =
need to talk to each other, since the answers of one shape the questions =
of the other, there was still a difference between physics and chemistry =
and no single person could master all the methods and pursue all the =
questions that arose about molecules across the realms of knowledge. =
Now, perhaps, with the "basic" work in these fields very far along, it =
makes less sense to be disciplinary and more sense to be =
"interdisciplinary" or, more accurately, *micro*disciplinary (master of =
neither parent discipline but instead of the tiny subspeciality now =
formed out of some!
amalgamation of the two, or many). This, by the way, is where =
activity theory becomes most helpful for systems analysis.
I go on at such length because inevitably, among the critical theorists =
of our field, the question of composition's place in the university (or =
*not* in the university) inevitably devolves to a question of the =
legitimacy of disciplines and a critique of the notion of centers =
(without which it is damn difficult to define a discipline) and then the =
corporate capitalist status quo. While I do not wish to detract from =
Deb's higher-order questions and focus for this module, there is this =
undeniable undercurrent that disciplines and departments and centers are =
BAD THINGS -- which brings into question the fundamental premises on =
which Deb's questions are based.
I would find this critique of disciplinarity, departments, and centers, =
and thus the structure of the modern university, far more convincing and =
much less tiresome were it ever levied from a position other than =
postmodernist and anti-capitalist. Is there any other reason, besides a =
general dislike of division of labor, a latent wish for pastoralism and =
organicism, a distaste of anything with a disciplining center, and a =
dislike of anything smacking of corporate capitalism, that should make =
us think the current system of disciplines and interdisciplines is =
broken beyond repair or never worked well?=20
And if not, then we might just get on with our conversation about *how* =
to be a successful discipline in the academy, based on the premise that =
such an outcome is both 1) possible and 2) worthwhile.
Cheers --
Doug
Dr. Doug Downs
Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric
Writing Program Coordinator
Dept. of English and Literature
Utah Valley State College
800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058
LA 114w
801-863-8572
>>> "Thelin,William" <wthelin@uakron.edu> 04/11/07 11:33 AM >>>
I think this is exactly the point, Kate, although I'm not sure on what =
side of this debate you are falling. Composition (and compositionists) =
feels such a need to be accepted as a discipline that it never stops to =
ask why it should want to be legitimized by the academy. Right now, =
most universities function under a corporate model that mimicks the =
worst aspects of capitalism. Education is a commodity that has little =
to do with learning. Students are spending so much money for their =
degrees that they are in a position to demand high grades for mediocre =
work. But even if we look back to the past, the disciplinarity that =
marks the academy was flawed at the outset. There are no tight =
disciplinary boundaries that separate knowledge. Talking about politics =
in a composition classroom should be as natural as talking about writing =
in a composition classroom, just to use one example. But departments =
fight for turf so they try to "own" the right to teach certain subjects. =
Noth!
ing could be more absurd. This is not to say that certain scholars are =
not specialists in areas and should not be consulted as authorities in =
disputes. I'm talking more on a systemic level. So really, in trying =
to own writing, composition is trying to ingratiate itself into a system =
of capitalism and disciplinarity that are at odds with authentic =
learning.
Bill
________________________________
From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com on behalf of Kate =
McKinney
Sent: Wed 4 Post--Defining Ownership
>
>What do you think causes the excitement?
>
In terms of "socially structured [belief] in ownership" of our programs =
and
our pedagogy:
The more we "own," the more we are legitimized. And as subversive as =
some of
us can be, we (comp instructors, till now institutional grunts) want =
formal
acceptance and legitimacy within the academy--the structure that =
constructs
such ownerships.
--Kate McKinney
Grad TA, NCSU
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger: appels gratuits de PC =E0 PC !
http://www.msn.fr/newhotmail/Default.asp?Ath=3Df
_______________________________________________
Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition
To unsubscribe, please visit =
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update =
your information.
_______________________________________________
Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition
To unsubscribe, please visit =
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update =
your information.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C77D24.90837737
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>[Teaching_Composition] the value (or not) of =
disciplinarity</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I agree with just about everything that Bill and Russ =
said.=A0 I
agree with some of what Doug said.=A0 I agree with a lot of what Debra =
said.=A0 I
agree . . .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</span><sp=
an
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Irvin Peckham</span><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Director of the University Writing Program</span><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Louisiana State University<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>ipeckh1@lsu.edu</span><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><a
href=3D"http://www.english.lsu.edu/programs/dept/ugrad/firstyear/">http:/=
/www.english.lsu.edu/programs/dept/ugrad/firstyear/</a></span><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>225-772-5963</span><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</span>=
<span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
[mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] <b>On Behalf Of =
</b>Thelin,William<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:17 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Teaching_Composition] the value (or not) of =
disciplinarity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id=3DidOWAReplyText27899>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>Too much to respond to here, Doug, and think we'll =
probably
just have to agree to disagree on your championing of the university
system. While I think the German model has not worked in that =
education
until the 1970's was limited to the upper and middle classes, our =
educational
system is certainly collapsing and segregating now. Knowledge has =
been
compartmentalized to the point that first year composition students will =
and
often say, "Why do I have to know this? I don't want to be a =
writer
or an English major." I think knowledge is learned (to use a
generous term) without the requisite philosophical and rhetorical
understandings, as the university and college are simply means to an end =
in a
capitalist economy. But since you want to eliminate such discourse =
from
this dialogue (Marxist thought is, after all, irrelevant as we've been =
told
over and over again), there's not too much else I can say on this =
matter.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>However,
I will challenge your statement that disciplinarity has been set up as a =
straw
person, presumably in my discourse as well as other places. People =
from
our field have indeed insisted that disciplinary boundaries be
maintained. It wasn't all that long ago that Maxine Hairston waged =
her
war against composition courses that taught politically-charged subject =
matter
because she felt that the subjects of racism and sexism should be taught =
by
experts in sociology and anthropology departments. =
Compositionists, apparently,
could have nothing to contribute, even a rhetorical understanding of how =
these
issues have been framed, for instance, in law cases (the infamous U of =
Texas at
Austin controversy). How often have you heard on the WPA listserv =
or
elsewhere that our subject is writing and that is what we should be
teaching? I find such reductionisms absurd, as nothing takes place =
in a
vacuum. Maybe to find middle ground, we can say that =
disciplinarity can
be perceived along a continuum. I could separate myself from =
strong
advocates of it like yourself, Doug, (and you probably would want to =
separate
yourself from some of those to the right of you on this =
matter). A
weak version of disciplinarity would allow for deference to =
expertise
without the need to own or exclude, making collaboration without =
co-optation
possible. I could be comfortable with that.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Bill</span><o=
:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'>
<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> =
teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
on behalf of Doug Downs<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wed 4/11/2007 10:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Teaching_Composition] the value (or not) of =
disciplinarity</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Bill (with Irv) lays bare for us the
underlying argument: we shouldn't even be trying to have a =
discipline. <br>
<br>
Which raises a clear divergence of opinion -- which has been around for =
the
last 15 years -- at their simplest, the basic positions are that 1)
disciplinarity is a bad and unrealistic idea, and thus so are the =
departmental
structure of universities, and division of labor, and all things =
capitalist that
attach to, flow from, and enable it; versus 2) the embrace of or at =
least
comfort with disciplinarity, territorality, compartmentalization, etc, =
etc,
etc. as the status quo of how knowledge is made. <br>
<br>
I like compartments, even as I enjoy working across their =
boundaries. I
don't mind division of labor and all it entails, even as I like the =
notion of
cross-training. That is to say, I'm not (and no one is) supporting =
the
straw caricature of disciplinarity that is so often offered by those =
arguing
against it: that to say writing, for instance (or chemistry, or =
philosophy, or
economics) can be "owned" is to say that only the owners get =
to know
anything about it, use it, influence it, control it, etc. Or to =
imagine
that once a discipline is established, only it can/gets to talk about =
its
subject. *Of course* those things aren't true, which is why no one =
really
thinks them, as far as I can tell. That's not what pro-discipline =
types
are arguing for, or from. In fairness, I should also note that I =
am not
in the LEAST bothered by the fundamental concept of ownership, =
particularly
again as we can easily reject the straw caricature of =
"ownership"
that "only I have it and I don'!<br>
t ever let you have it." Certainly ownership works that =
way
sometimes, but that's not the only meaning of ownership and that's not =
the only
way it works usually. <br>
<br>
So, if I were to argue for disciplinarity, departments, ownership, =
territory,
walls, boundaries, boxes, and all that other "bad stuff"
(apparently), it would simply be to say, as one can say about most of =
the other
boogeymen of current cultural critique, *it works*. It's just =
ludicrous
to say that the German university model adopted by the U.S. and the =
world since
the 1800s hasn't worked, unless you're a dedicated pastoralist. =
(Not that
there's anything wrong with that.) Before that, we operated on the =
model
that all was philosophy, religion, law, and mathematics, and not =
coincidentally
we didn't know a helluva lot about how the world actually worked. =
Now we
know more, and I will assert that we know more than we would have =
without the
resources, methods, models, and division of labor provided by =
disciplines and
departments. The university isn't corporate because of these =
things; it's
corporate because it decided (correctly, I'd say) that it needed more =
money to
do its j!<br>
ob and (disastrously, I'd say) sold its soul to the corporate =
world,
which now "owns" the university. <br>
<br>
Thinking that because knowledge cannot be contained in disciplinary =
boundaries,
those boundaries are therefore a flawed and unworkable notion, is =
absurd.
My stomach and my liver "share" "knowledge," but my =
stomach
is not my liver and that's a condition I'm quite happy with. The =
fact
that boundaries exist does not justify the reductio ad absurdum that =
boundaries
are impermeable or monolithic. The fact that systems operate with
distinct entities that nonetheless cooperate (divide labor) to achieve =
an
overall common good is, well, what defines "systems" to begin
with. There is no reason the university and the world's models of
division of scholarly or academic labor can't be understood as having =
this kind
of systemic function. Because, uh, THEY DO. (Not, mind you, =
that
I'm arguing that the humanities are the university's spleen. Just its =
gall. :-)<br>
<br>
To be flexible, I might also say that perhaps there was a time when =
disciplines
were more effective than they are now -- like when people first began to
realize that molecules have physical properties connected to and yet =
separate
from their chemical properties, and that molecules might thus be studied =
both
from a perspective of physics and a perspectitry, and that while people =
who did
such things would absolutely need to talk to each other, since the =
answers of
one shape the questions of the other, there was still a difference =
between
physics and chemistry and no single person could master all the methods =
and
pursue all the questions that arose about molecules across the realms of
knowledge. Now, perhaps, with the "basic" work in these =
fields
very far along, it makes less sense to be disciplinary and more sense to =
be
"interdisciplinary" or, more accurately, *micro*disciplinary =
(master
of neither parent discipline but instead of the tiny subspeciality now =
formed
out of some!<br>
amalgamation of the two, or many). This, by the way, is =
where
activity theory becomes most helpful for systems analysis.<br>
<br>
I go on at such length because inevitably, among the critical theorists =
of our
field, the question of composition's place in the university (or *not* =
in the
university) inevitably devolves to a question of the legitimacy of =
disciplines
and a critique of the notion of centers (without which it is damn =
difficult to
define a discipline) and then the corporate capitalist status quo. =
While
I do not wish to detract from Deb's higher-order questions and focus for =
this
module, there is this undeniable undercurrent that disciplines and =
departments
and centers are BAD THINGS -- which brings into question the fundamental
premises on which Deb's questions are based.<br>
<br>
I would find this critique of disciplinarity, departments, and centers, =
and
thus the structure of the modern university, far more convincing and =
much less
tiresome were it ever levied from a position other than postmodernist =
and
anti-capitalist. Is there any other reason, besides a general =
dislike of
division of labor, a latent wish for pastoralism and organicism, a =
distaste of
anything with a disciplining center, and a dislike of anything smacking =
of
corporate capitalism, that should make us think the current system of =
disciplines
and interdisciplines is broken beyond repair or never worked =
well? <br>
<br>
And if not, then we might just get on with our conversation about *how* =
to be a
successful discipline in the academy, based on the premise that such an =
outcome
is both 1) possible and 2) worthwhile.<br>
<br>
Cheers --<br>
Doug<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Doug Downs<br>
Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric<br>
Writing Program Coordinator<br>
Dept. of English and Literature<br>
Utah Valley State College<br>
800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058<br>
LA 114w<br>
801-863-8572<br>
>>> "Thelin,William" <wthelin@uakron.edu> =
04/11/07
11:33 AM >>><br>
I think this is exactly the point, Kate, although I'm not sure on what =
side of
this debate you are falling. Composition (and compositionists) =
feels such
a need to be accepted as a discipline that it never stops to ask why it =
should
want to be legitimized by the academy. Right now, most =
universities
function under a corporate model that mimicks the worst aspects of
capitalism. Education is a commodity that has little to do with
learning. Students are spending so much money for their degrees =
that they
are in a position to demand high grades for mediocre work. But =
even if we
look back to the past, the disciplinarity that marks the academy was =
flawed at
the outset. There are no tight disciplinary boundaries that =
separate
knowledge. Talking about politics in a composition classroom =
should be as
natural as talking about writing in a composition classroom, just to use =
one
example. But departments fight for turf so they try to =
"own"
the right to teach certain subjects. Noth!<br>
ing could be more absurd. This is not to say that certain =
scholars
are not specialists in areas and should not be consulted as authorities =
in
disputes. I'm talking more on a systemic level. So really, =
in
trying to own writing, composition is trying to ingratiate itself into a =
system
of capitalism and disciplinarity that are at odds with authentic =
learning.<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com on behalf of Kate =
McKinney<br>
Sent: Wed 4 Post--Defining Ownership<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
>What do you think causes the excitement?<br>
><br>
In terms of "socially structured [belief] in ownership" of our
programs and<br>
our pedagogy:<br>
The more we "own," the more we are legitimized. And as =
subversive as
some of<br>
us can be, we (comp instructors, till now institutional grunts) want =
formal<br>
acceptance and legitimacy within the academy--the structure that =
constructs<br>
such ownerships.<br>
<br>
--Kate McKinney<br>
Grad TA, NCSU<br>
<br>
_________________________________________________________________<br>
MSN Messenger: appels gratuits de PC =E0 PC !<br>
<a =
href=3D"http://www.msn.fr/newhotmail/Default.asp?Ath=3Df">http://www.msn.=
fr/newhotmail/Default.asp?Ath=3Df</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Teaching_Composition maillist - =
Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com<br>
<a =
href=3D"http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition">ht=
tp://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition</a><br>
<br>
To unsubscribe, please visit <a
href=3D"http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition">ht=
tp://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition</a>
and update your information.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Teaching_Composition maillist -
Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com<br>
<a =
href=3D"http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition">ht=
tp://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition</a><br>
<br>
To unsubscribe, please visit <a
href=3D"http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition">ht=
tp://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition</a>
and update your information.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C77D24.90837737--