In their article, Cushman and Monberg argue that, “we must adopt a responsible, socially reflexive approach to negotiating our authority in composition research, one that truly facilitates the kinds of boundary/border crossings that begin to reduce social distance” (167). The authors begin by discussing common issues pertaining to authority and representation and then give personal accounts in order to reaffirm the need for more reflexive approaches to daily living and scholarship. While the authors are writing for a scholarly audience, their assertions can be applied to the lives of the general population as well. Isn’t it ironic that I just separated the scholarly audience from the ‘general population’ as if I have the authority to do so?!
Topic of Invention: Advantageous
This article would be advantageous reading for anyone, particularly those involved in active research. One section that really hit home was where the authors are discussing repositioning as a complicated practice because, “those accustomed to the comfortable distance the academy often provides (in physical and intellectual locations) rarely seek to socialize with those outside their class and race” (177). It is ironic that for somebody who is constantly trying to figure out how to get a foot in the door at a university, I never really considered the actual, physical university as part of the barrier that keeps me out. I have always thought of myself as being on this journey with the intellectual/physical university location as my final destination and have never really deconstructed these institutions of scholarship for their authenticity as barriers to achieving my goals. I thought that they were inextricable linked, up until now. This article really changed the way that I see myself in relation to this institution that I have been so starved to become a part of.
In her article, Gail Okawa, “explores a growing awareness of critically conscious learning, teaching, and research” (283). She uses narrative and autobiographical style in order to convey her own research as well as to reinforce narrative and autobiography as useful, authentic, and irreplaceable means of scholarly discourse. While she is clearly addressing a scholarly audience, her style lends to the possibility of reaching a much broader audience.
Topic of Invention: Advantageous
I think that this was some of the most useful and poignant reading that I have done thus far. Okawa’s text was just so accessible. She manages to accomplish the same tasks as authors in ISMLL, but her narrative and autobiographical style really does lend to a deeper understanding of her underlying theory. I really like the possibility that the process of making a personal investment in students can expand our own knowledge as educators and end up being mutually empowering. When I think back to the professors, and people, that have truly impacted my life and empowered me (figuratively and literally), I am left with a tiny unique conglomerate of women who made an investment in me. Women who took the time to learn about who I am and how I write and what I think and where I came from- also (coincidentally?) women that are all still a part of my life and my continuing education beyond their classrooms, office hours, and dinner tables. That is the kind of professor I want to be. I looooved this article. It invigorated that little spark in me that has kept me yearning to be a student, and a professor, for the rest of my days.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Week 10 Blogs
In their article, Cushman and Monberg argue that, “we must adopt a responsible, socially reflexive approach to negotiating our authority in composition research, one that truly facilitates the kinds of boundary/border crossings that begin to reduce social distance” (167). The authors begin by discussing common issues pertaining to authority and representation and then give personal accounts in order to reaffirm the need for more reflexive approaches to daily living and scholarship. While the authors are writing for a scholarly audience, their assertions can be applied to the lives of the general population as well. Isn’t it ironic that I just separated the scholarly audience from the ‘general population’ as if I have the authority to do so?!
Topic of Invention: Advantageous
This article would be advantageous reading for anyone, particularly those involved in active research. One section that really hit home was where the authors are discussing repositioning as a complicated practice because, “those accustomed to the comfortable distance the academy often provides (in physical and intellectual locations) rarely seek to socialize with those outside their class and race” (177). It is ironic that for somebody who is constantly trying to figure out how to get a foot in the door at a university, I never really considered the actual, physical university as part of the barrier that keeps me out. I have always thought of myself as being on this journey with the intellectual/physical university location as my final destination and have never really deconstructed these institutions of scholarship for their authenticity as barriers to achieving my goals. I thought that they were inextricable linked, up until now. This article really changed the way that I see myself in relation to this institution that I have been so starved to become a part of.
In her article, Gail Okawa, “explores a growing awareness of critically conscious learning, teaching, and research” (283). She uses narrative and autobiographical style in order to convey her own research as well as to reinforce narrative and autobiography as useful, authentic, and irreplaceable means of scholarly discourse. While she is clearly addressing a scholarly audience, her style lends to the possibility of reaching a much broader audience.
Topic of Invention: Advantageous
I think that this was some of the most useful and poignant reading that I have done thus far. Okawa’s text was just so accessible. She manages to accomplish the same tasks as authors in ISMLL, but her narrative and autobiographical style really does lend to a deeper understanding of her underlying theory. I really like the possibility that the process of making a personal investment in students can expand our own knowledge as educators and end up being mutually empowering. When I think back to the professors, and people, that have truly impacted my life and empowered me (figuratively and literally), I am left with a tiny unique conglomerate of women who made an investment in me. Women who took the time to learn about who I am and how I write and what I think and where I came from- also (coincidentally?) women that are all still a part of my life and my continuing education beyond their classrooms, office hours, and dinner tables. That is the kind of professor I want to be. I looooved this article. It invigorated that little spark in me that has kept me yearning to be a student, and a professor, for the rest of my days.
Topic of Invention: Advantageous
This article would be advantageous reading for anyone, particularly those involved in active research. One section that really hit home was where the authors are discussing repositioning as a complicated practice because, “those accustomed to the comfortable distance the academy often provides (in physical and intellectual locations) rarely seek to socialize with those outside their class and race” (177). It is ironic that for somebody who is constantly trying to figure out how to get a foot in the door at a university, I never really considered the actual, physical university as part of the barrier that keeps me out. I have always thought of myself as being on this journey with the intellectual/physical university location as my final destination and have never really deconstructed these institutions of scholarship for their authenticity as barriers to achieving my goals. I thought that they were inextricable linked, up until now. This article really changed the way that I see myself in relation to this institution that I have been so starved to become a part of.
In her article, Gail Okawa, “explores a growing awareness of critically conscious learning, teaching, and research” (283). She uses narrative and autobiographical style in order to convey her own research as well as to reinforce narrative and autobiography as useful, authentic, and irreplaceable means of scholarly discourse. While she is clearly addressing a scholarly audience, her style lends to the possibility of reaching a much broader audience.
Topic of Invention: Advantageous
I think that this was some of the most useful and poignant reading that I have done thus far. Okawa’s text was just so accessible. She manages to accomplish the same tasks as authors in ISMLL, but her narrative and autobiographical style really does lend to a deeper understanding of her underlying theory. I really like the possibility that the process of making a personal investment in students can expand our own knowledge as educators and end up being mutually empowering. When I think back to the professors, and people, that have truly impacted my life and empowered me (figuratively and literally), I am left with a tiny unique conglomerate of women who made an investment in me. Women who took the time to learn about who I am and how I write and what I think and where I came from- also (coincidentally?) women that are all still a part of my life and my continuing education beyond their classrooms, office hours, and dinner tables. That is the kind of professor I want to be. I looooved this article. It invigorated that little spark in me that has kept me yearning to be a student, and a professor, for the rest of my days.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Week 9 Blogs
In her text, Feminisms, Genders, Sexualities, Anne Donadey offers what she calls, “a still photograph of objects in motion, some of which may be outside the frame entirely” (226). She outlines the present phase of the ongoing evolution in feminism and sexuality studies without claiming to cover the gamut. She acknowledges her situational location and focuses on, “the self-representation of marginalized groups.” Donadey walks the reader through a variety of approaches to feminism in order to uncover their shared goals which include theorizing the experiences of women, LGBTQ people, people of color, postcolonial people, and women with disabilities, and seeking to shatter the binaries my redefining masculinity, heterosexuality, whiteness, the West, and ability. Donaday is seeking a scholarly audience with likely hopes of sparking new interest and, as a result, new definitions and binaries meant to be shattered.
In his article, David Setiz argues that, “while composition studies often claim to privilege practice, our programs rarely allow these theories to be informed by practice” (66). Seitz uses 3 of his students as examples and parallels conversations that he had outside of class with their in-class responses and writing in order to show that when “students are from working-class backgrounds or are recent immigrants, we can miss out on views from outside middle-class institutions that imply valuable critiques to these theories and their application to the writing process” (65). Seitz is trying to prove that as “critical teachers,” we might better understand our ability or inability to elicit desirable responses both in the classroom and in practice in the every day lives of students. Seitz speaks to his reader almost as a comrade, like we have a common purpose and brotherhood with its foundation in composition theory, practice, and instruction.
Topic of Invention: Similarity/Difference
The most important similarity that I found in the Seitz and Donadey texts is that, in a sense, they both focus on the situatedness of the reader/creator. Both articles seek new definitions and new perspectives in order to get a more true-to-reality view of research and student writing. I really liked Donadey’s section on the duality of memory and history. On one hand, the past will repeat itself if not remembered, but on the other hand, the danger seems to be that the past will repeat itself if remembered too much. It is in this grey area that Seitz’s students appear to be floating. They are stuck in the middle ground between working-class values and out-of-the-box thinking. It is easy to assume that college students are all part of this new movement toward individuality, when in reality, some cling to the traditional binaries outlined by their dominant cultures. This can be seen vividly in the LGBTQ population. While it is easy to lump us all together as deviants, or progressive, or sexually free thinkers, there is an abundance of gays and lesbians who would really prefer to stick to the binary- hetero OR homo. No bi’s. No trans. No grey area. Similar to everything else that we have read, these pieces show how loosely interpreted everything that we read truly needs to be.
In his article, David Setiz argues that, “while composition studies often claim to privilege practice, our programs rarely allow these theories to be informed by practice” (66). Seitz uses 3 of his students as examples and parallels conversations that he had outside of class with their in-class responses and writing in order to show that when “students are from working-class backgrounds or are recent immigrants, we can miss out on views from outside middle-class institutions that imply valuable critiques to these theories and their application to the writing process” (65). Seitz is trying to prove that as “critical teachers,” we might better understand our ability or inability to elicit desirable responses both in the classroom and in practice in the every day lives of students. Seitz speaks to his reader almost as a comrade, like we have a common purpose and brotherhood with its foundation in composition theory, practice, and instruction.
Topic of Invention: Similarity/Difference
The most important similarity that I found in the Seitz and Donadey texts is that, in a sense, they both focus on the situatedness of the reader/creator. Both articles seek new definitions and new perspectives in order to get a more true-to-reality view of research and student writing. I really liked Donadey’s section on the duality of memory and history. On one hand, the past will repeat itself if not remembered, but on the other hand, the danger seems to be that the past will repeat itself if remembered too much. It is in this grey area that Seitz’s students appear to be floating. They are stuck in the middle ground between working-class values and out-of-the-box thinking. It is easy to assume that college students are all part of this new movement toward individuality, when in reality, some cling to the traditional binaries outlined by their dominant cultures. This can be seen vividly in the LGBTQ population. While it is easy to lump us all together as deviants, or progressive, or sexually free thinkers, there is an abundance of gays and lesbians who would really prefer to stick to the binary- hetero OR homo. No bi’s. No trans. No grey area. Similar to everything else that we have read, these pieces show how loosely interpreted everything that we read truly needs to be.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Week 8 Blogs
In Race and Ethnicity, Kenneth Warren attempts to “make an account historically for race in the production of American literary and intellectual life without giving way to an anachronistic tendency to praise or blame historical figures for having anticipated or failed to realize current concerns” (257). The purpose of his text is to lead researchers to read and not condemn writers for the processes that they are a part of, but to try and understand how and why being subject to various contingencies and interrelations shapes their works. In order to get this point across, he gives an account of the last two decades of literary critique and then makes suggestions for looking at these works with a more (or less) critical eye. While he is clearly addressing an academic community, his language is not over-elevated or text-bookish. He reads smoothly like he is speaking to you personally.
Topoi- Past fact/future fact
“A topic of invention in which one refers back to general events in the past or to what we can safely suppose will occur in the future based on the record of the past.” There couldn’t be a more direct correlation between this topic of invention and Warren’s article, as he very specifically dares us to re-read our history with a more open mind in order to prevent that from happening. I really liked his reference to Claudia Tate’s proclamation on the institution of marriage, especially after our conversations last Thursday… perhaps Aristotle was more right than we educated folk like to admit with the whole past fact=future fact idea. The struggle that African Americans fought in order to obtain their civil rights is too often mirrored in the battles being fought by this generation’s “others.” Hopefully the when this history is read, it will be interpreted by the right mind before it is too late for the next generation’s “others.”
In her text, Migrations, Diasporas, and Borders, Susan Stanford Friedman outlines the scope and theory of this new field of literary study. She first gives an overview of the field and then offers concrete definitions and histories of migration, diasporas, and then borders in order to provide the reader with a substantial knowledge base. The purpose of her essay is to lay the foundation and provide a roadmap for further research in this field. This fact makes it apparent that she is addressing a scholarly community with hopes of sparking new interest and bringing new ideas to young minds that might continue to advance her field.
Topoi- Injustice
Well I was on a rampage about gay stuff...so I figured I’d roll with it. I was really moved by Stanford Frieman’s description of desire as a state of lack. I never really thought about it that way. When I think of the word desire, I think of “want,” not lack. She goes on to say that “home is often the perpetual object of desire, a longing that is never fulfilled in the ambiguity of existence caught between a consciousness of roots elsewhere and the realities of routes, of like shaped by movement through different locations that are never quite home.” When I read those words my heart bled for all of the people in my life (present company included) that have condemned themselves (and some by others) to an eternity of shuffling about in this state of soulful torment because they are longing for the acceptance and approval that they knew only as children (never as adults) and, ironically enough, probably never even existed to begin with. That is fucking injustice.
Topoi- Past fact/future fact
“A topic of invention in which one refers back to general events in the past or to what we can safely suppose will occur in the future based on the record of the past.” There couldn’t be a more direct correlation between this topic of invention and Warren’s article, as he very specifically dares us to re-read our history with a more open mind in order to prevent that from happening. I really liked his reference to Claudia Tate’s proclamation on the institution of marriage, especially after our conversations last Thursday… perhaps Aristotle was more right than we educated folk like to admit with the whole past fact=future fact idea. The struggle that African Americans fought in order to obtain their civil rights is too often mirrored in the battles being fought by this generation’s “others.” Hopefully the when this history is read, it will be interpreted by the right mind before it is too late for the next generation’s “others.”
In her text, Migrations, Diasporas, and Borders, Susan Stanford Friedman outlines the scope and theory of this new field of literary study. She first gives an overview of the field and then offers concrete definitions and histories of migration, diasporas, and then borders in order to provide the reader with a substantial knowledge base. The purpose of her essay is to lay the foundation and provide a roadmap for further research in this field. This fact makes it apparent that she is addressing a scholarly community with hopes of sparking new interest and bringing new ideas to young minds that might continue to advance her field.
Topoi- Injustice
Well I was on a rampage about gay stuff...so I figured I’d roll with it. I was really moved by Stanford Frieman’s description of desire as a state of lack. I never really thought about it that way. When I think of the word desire, I think of “want,” not lack. She goes on to say that “home is often the perpetual object of desire, a longing that is never fulfilled in the ambiguity of existence caught between a consciousness of roots elsewhere and the realities of routes, of like shaped by movement through different locations that are never quite home.” When I read those words my heart bled for all of the people in my life (present company included) that have condemned themselves (and some by others) to an eternity of shuffling about in this state of soulful torment because they are longing for the acceptance and approval that they knew only as children (never as adults) and, ironically enough, probably never even existed to begin with. That is fucking injustice.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Week 7 Blogs
Jerome McGann
In this article, Jerome McGann attempts to outline the field and process of interpretation. He begins with an analysis of a Weil quote, and then gives a brief introduction to performative interpretation. McGann concludes his inquiry with Della Volde. In the process, he outlines contemporary theory and structure of the process of interpretation in order to establish interpretation as ‘a game that must be lost.’ McGann is likely trying to reach a scholarly audience comprised of fellow researchers that are familiar with (or frustrated by) interpretations.
I would argue that this article was unworthy as it pertains to this class and relative to the other articles that we have looked at. Not that I am a fan of long, boring, analyses, but I thought that there could have been more information. I don’t know much about the field of interpretation and would have found a little more emphasis on theory and practice to be beneficial. Fortunately, much of what he said mirrored the translation piece so there was little confusion. It is ironic- in essence, I wanted him to justify interpretation as a legitimate field and outline its underpinnings which is exactly what we discussed hated having to do as contributing members in this field of English Studies.
Yuet-Sim D. Chiang
In her article, Yuet-Sim D. Chiang argues for a critical inquiry that not only addresses identity constructs, but also embraces their centeredness, including their intersubjectivities in composition research and practice (151). She walks her reader through her own experiences as researcher, other, insider, outsider, and professor. She examines each of these roles in order to “put the ‘human voice and face’ back into composition theories that have become increasingly highfalutin and removed from our daily realities” (163). She develops an intentionally personal relationship with her audience in order to reaffirm her belief that the center, while important as a separate entity, is equally important as part of the whole.
I found this article to be significantly advantageous for my training as a researcher, but also practically advantageous for my job. I was involved in a discussion at work today about my desire to begin implementing support systems for LGBT students at the middle school level. This is a groundbreaking and highly volatile topic everywhere, but when you throw children and the upper echelons of administration in SAN BERNARDINO in to the mix, it is down right chaos. I found myself having to consider my role as a member of the LGBT community and devise a combat plan to defend my role and my intentions in this process of building supports that are long overdue. Similar to Chiang’s description of the empathy and community that she felt with her students and her research participants, I too look into the faces of these lost little awkward people that have all of these things inside of them that they don’t know how to compartmentalize, and see myself. The only difference is that I was going through that at twenty, and they are going through it at twelve. I think that it is a beautiful thing- but that doesn’t matter because it is reality, and therefore, it is a conversation that desperately needs to be had. While the article gave me a great frame of reference and some important factors to consider, I am not sure that SBCUSD is ready for a gay woman to use her position to push a gay agenda- whether or not the two are even related.
In this article, Jerome McGann attempts to outline the field and process of interpretation. He begins with an analysis of a Weil quote, and then gives a brief introduction to performative interpretation. McGann concludes his inquiry with Della Volde. In the process, he outlines contemporary theory and structure of the process of interpretation in order to establish interpretation as ‘a game that must be lost.’ McGann is likely trying to reach a scholarly audience comprised of fellow researchers that are familiar with (or frustrated by) interpretations.
I would argue that this article was unworthy as it pertains to this class and relative to the other articles that we have looked at. Not that I am a fan of long, boring, analyses, but I thought that there could have been more information. I don’t know much about the field of interpretation and would have found a little more emphasis on theory and practice to be beneficial. Fortunately, much of what he said mirrored the translation piece so there was little confusion. It is ironic- in essence, I wanted him to justify interpretation as a legitimate field and outline its underpinnings which is exactly what we discussed hated having to do as contributing members in this field of English Studies.
Yuet-Sim D. Chiang
In her article, Yuet-Sim D. Chiang argues for a critical inquiry that not only addresses identity constructs, but also embraces their centeredness, including their intersubjectivities in composition research and practice (151). She walks her reader through her own experiences as researcher, other, insider, outsider, and professor. She examines each of these roles in order to “put the ‘human voice and face’ back into composition theories that have become increasingly highfalutin and removed from our daily realities” (163). She develops an intentionally personal relationship with her audience in order to reaffirm her belief that the center, while important as a separate entity, is equally important as part of the whole.
I found this article to be significantly advantageous for my training as a researcher, but also practically advantageous for my job. I was involved in a discussion at work today about my desire to begin implementing support systems for LGBT students at the middle school level. This is a groundbreaking and highly volatile topic everywhere, but when you throw children and the upper echelons of administration in SAN BERNARDINO in to the mix, it is down right chaos. I found myself having to consider my role as a member of the LGBT community and devise a combat plan to defend my role and my intentions in this process of building supports that are long overdue. Similar to Chiang’s description of the empathy and community that she felt with her students and her research participants, I too look into the faces of these lost little awkward people that have all of these things inside of them that they don’t know how to compartmentalize, and see myself. The only difference is that I was going through that at twenty, and they are going through it at twelve. I think that it is a beautiful thing- but that doesn’t matter because it is reality, and therefore, it is a conversation that desperately needs to be had. While the article gave me a great frame of reference and some important factors to consider, I am not sure that SBCUSD is ready for a gay woman to use her position to push a gay agenda- whether or not the two are even related.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Week 6 Blog 2
Topoi- Advantageous
In our discussion yesterday, Dr. Pilinovsky illuminated our reading on “Translation Studies” by bringing her own personal experiences with translation to the table. She also offered wonderful insight into common research dilemmas. Dr. Pilinovsky neatly paralleled the issues surrounding what qualifies as a ‘good translation’ (as addressed in the Venuti article) with her own experience in hunting for original fairy tales. She established camaraderie with the class by personalizing her message and creating an open-forum discussion dynamic as opposed to a lecture dynamic (which I’m sure would have been equally fascinating).
I would argue that the information gathered from Dr. Pilinovsky is advantageous from multiple perspectives. From my personal perspective, the insight that she offered on translation proved advantageous to my general understanding of translation studies, but most useful was her recount of her own quandaries with research. Finding sources for a study on Atlantis has proven to be an arduous task. I would think that these same aspects proved beneficial for my classmates as well. Now thinking on a bigger scale, society and/or academia, it is advantageous for us to understand that there are casualties in any translation and that we often have to compromise literal interpretations (word for word) in order to achieve a greater understanding of authorial intent (spirit for spirit).
In our discussion yesterday, Dr. Pilinovsky illuminated our reading on “Translation Studies” by bringing her own personal experiences with translation to the table. She also offered wonderful insight into common research dilemmas. Dr. Pilinovsky neatly paralleled the issues surrounding what qualifies as a ‘good translation’ (as addressed in the Venuti article) with her own experience in hunting for original fairy tales. She established camaraderie with the class by personalizing her message and creating an open-forum discussion dynamic as opposed to a lecture dynamic (which I’m sure would have been equally fascinating).
I would argue that the information gathered from Dr. Pilinovsky is advantageous from multiple perspectives. From my personal perspective, the insight that she offered on translation proved advantageous to my general understanding of translation studies, but most useful was her recount of her own quandaries with research. Finding sources for a study on Atlantis has proven to be an arduous task. I would think that these same aspects proved beneficial for my classmates as well. Now thinking on a bigger scale, society and/or academia, it is advantageous for us to understand that there are casualties in any translation and that we often have to compromise literal interpretations (word for word) in order to achieve a greater understanding of authorial intent (spirit for spirit).
Monday, May 5, 2008
Week 6 Blog
In "Translation Studies," Venuti outlines the key problems that are faced by practitioners in the field of translation studies. These issues include equivalence and shifts, cultural systems and norms, and ethics and politics. Venuti’s article is broken down into sections focusing on each of these critical elements. He explores the works of prominent scholars in the field in order to provide a roadmap of further research that might take place in order to advance the field (Venuti, 308). He addresses his audience as scholarly kin in an attempt to forge a relationship founded on the appreciation of interdisciplinary research as it pertains to English Studies.
Venuti’s article struck me as posing a question of virtue. The process of trying to define what is virtuous or noble directly mirrors one of the challenges posed in this article: What is accurate/accessible/good translation? Neither argument has a concrete solution. Should good translations be accurate to author intent? True to spirit or word? Not to get too Derrid-ish, but can there even be such a thing as an accurate translation? If everything fluctuates based on how the centre interacts with the periphery and the periphery (society/norms/etc) can never be constant/defined, then what exactly are we looking for? How can we establish a criterion for what is virtuous or for what is an accurate translation? With all of the different factors at play in translation, even in just defining the term, Venuti’s call for an interdisciplinary approach to research seems logical. Human nature creates this need that we have to compartmentalize (or binar-ize) everything we read, see, do, and hear, but to what end? And through what means? Venuti’s directive to begin researching popular cultural mediums like film, advertisements, and video games is to begin again this never-ending process of attempting to attach language to something that we don't even have the capacity to name! I guess that's just what we do...How many other professions can you never really be wrong about anything and make a case for everything in?! I love it.
Venuti’s article struck me as posing a question of virtue. The process of trying to define what is virtuous or noble directly mirrors one of the challenges posed in this article: What is accurate/accessible/good translation? Neither argument has a concrete solution. Should good translations be accurate to author intent? True to spirit or word? Not to get too Derrid-ish, but can there even be such a thing as an accurate translation? If everything fluctuates based on how the centre interacts with the periphery and the periphery (society/norms/etc) can never be constant/defined, then what exactly are we looking for? How can we establish a criterion for what is virtuous or for what is an accurate translation? With all of the different factors at play in translation, even in just defining the term, Venuti’s call for an interdisciplinary approach to research seems logical. Human nature creates this need that we have to compartmentalize (or binar-ize) everything we read, see, do, and hear, but to what end? And through what means? Venuti’s directive to begin researching popular cultural mediums like film, advertisements, and video games is to begin again this never-ending process of attempting to attach language to something that we don't even have the capacity to name! I guess that's just what we do...How many other professions can you never really be wrong about anything and make a case for everything in?! I love it.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Week 5 Blog
Topoi at play- Cause and Effect
In her essay, Language Acquisition and Language Learning, Heidi Byrnes questions what it means to become and be a competent user of a language and, more specifically, of a second foreign language, especially for adult learners (49). She first attempts to answer this question by looking at theoretical approaches relative to their influence on current thinking about language learning. Then, she explores he shift from more formalist, to functionalist, to individually and psycholinguistically driven, and finally to more socially contextualized ways of understanding language, our human capacity for learning and knowing, and describing the relational acts of teaching and learning (49). Her purpose is to relate her findings about the split between language courses and content courses to practice and influence a new wave in collegiate foreign language departments. She establishes a very formal relationship with her audience of scholarly linguists who are putting SLA to practice in the classroom.
Doris Sommer, in her essay Language, Culture, and Society, addresses the issue of globalization as well as posits the benefits aligned with multilingualism. Sommer attacks globalization from a number of different perspectives including an historical approach, a contemporary trend toward diminished self-respect and cultural preservation, and a very personal approach toward the different avenues that may be opened verbally and mentally by the acquisition of a second language or more. Her purpose is to spark a new awareness and understanding of the benefits of multi-language acquisition, particularly in this “single-minded” nation that we live in. With her audience, she establishes a very personal, scholarly brotherhood and pushes her aspirations of infiltrating hearts, minds, and classrooms all over the world.
While the Byrnes article was a little more technical, Sommer delicately balanced her technical jargon with socio-emotional appeal to her readers. Both articles approach language not as how we describe the world we live in, but as what creates the world we live in. While they have much the same aim toward language appreciation, they communicate through very different mediums. Sommer outlines some of the research underlying the ‘choose and lose’ theory. This is where cause and effect come in to play. By choosing to limit ourselves to one language, we deny ourselves the opportunity to reach new emotional and intellectual peaks. First, interestingly enough, it is impossible for any one of us to be truly monolingual because of all of the varieties and styles that fluctuate through our native languages. As a result, we know that we have built in to us the innate capacity to learn other languages. In order to reinforce her assertion that more is better, Sommer cites numerous studies involving the increased intellectual AND emotional capacities of multilingual students. The fact that one of the effects of multi-language acquisition is a better-equipped arsenal for emotional expression really spoke to me on a personal level. In my personal life, similar to Francois Grosjean, I am incapable of effectively communicating on an emotional level in English. I speak a dying Italian dialect, but not well. So I wonder if I acquired a second or third language, I would become more emotionally expressive. After reading this article, my interest is peaked!
In her essay, Language Acquisition and Language Learning, Heidi Byrnes questions what it means to become and be a competent user of a language and, more specifically, of a second foreign language, especially for adult learners (49). She first attempts to answer this question by looking at theoretical approaches relative to their influence on current thinking about language learning. Then, she explores he shift from more formalist, to functionalist, to individually and psycholinguistically driven, and finally to more socially contextualized ways of understanding language, our human capacity for learning and knowing, and describing the relational acts of teaching and learning (49). Her purpose is to relate her findings about the split between language courses and content courses to practice and influence a new wave in collegiate foreign language departments. She establishes a very formal relationship with her audience of scholarly linguists who are putting SLA to practice in the classroom.
Doris Sommer, in her essay Language, Culture, and Society, addresses the issue of globalization as well as posits the benefits aligned with multilingualism. Sommer attacks globalization from a number of different perspectives including an historical approach, a contemporary trend toward diminished self-respect and cultural preservation, and a very personal approach toward the different avenues that may be opened verbally and mentally by the acquisition of a second language or more. Her purpose is to spark a new awareness and understanding of the benefits of multi-language acquisition, particularly in this “single-minded” nation that we live in. With her audience, she establishes a very personal, scholarly brotherhood and pushes her aspirations of infiltrating hearts, minds, and classrooms all over the world.
While the Byrnes article was a little more technical, Sommer delicately balanced her technical jargon with socio-emotional appeal to her readers. Both articles approach language not as how we describe the world we live in, but as what creates the world we live in. While they have much the same aim toward language appreciation, they communicate through very different mediums. Sommer outlines some of the research underlying the ‘choose and lose’ theory. This is where cause and effect come in to play. By choosing to limit ourselves to one language, we deny ourselves the opportunity to reach new emotional and intellectual peaks. First, interestingly enough, it is impossible for any one of us to be truly monolingual because of all of the varieties and styles that fluctuate through our native languages. As a result, we know that we have built in to us the innate capacity to learn other languages. In order to reinforce her assertion that more is better, Sommer cites numerous studies involving the increased intellectual AND emotional capacities of multilingual students. The fact that one of the effects of multi-language acquisition is a better-equipped arsenal for emotional expression really spoke to me on a personal level. In my personal life, similar to Francois Grosjean, I am incapable of effectively communicating on an emotional level in English. I speak a dying Italian dialect, but not well. So I wonder if I acquired a second or third language, I would become more emotionally expressive. After reading this article, my interest is peaked!
Monday, April 21, 2008
Week 4 Blog
Leah S. Marcus. Textual Scholarship.
Marcus uses the phrase ‘textual scholarship’ to refer to the different forms and mediums through which written texts reach readers. In spite of the fact that the article provides an historical account or overview of textual scholarship as a field, Marcus also provides an analysis of textual scholarship as interpretation. She sites particular cases of omissions and additions by authors and editors to texts and provokes a new awareness of the filtered nature of what and who we ‘read.’ Everything is open to interpretation. The question is, whose interpretation?
Referring back to Aristotle’s Topoi, it is advantageous for society (specifically scholarly society) to be aware of the numerous systems of filtration that are at play in every text we encounter. Much authority is given to our canonical texts without consideration for how they may have been manipulated to reflect the intentions of not only the authors and editors, but of the numerous other modes of filtration that exist naturally in any given time or place. This is part of the ‘catch 22’ that Marcus discussed. She said that while we must (as literary scholars) continue strive for objectivity and uniformity when working with texts, we must be aware that these states are truly unattainable. It is for this reason that we must analyze any text that we are working with through a variety of lenses in order to get a ‘fair’ reading- especially since ‘intent’ is impossible to discern. When I think of my own collection of ‘literary texts,’ and I look at some of the ornate covers and millennium editions, I am saddened by the reminder that, “the version of a literary work that command [s] the most respect (and price) among bibliographers and collectors was the last edition or the most elaborate one, not the first” (145). Oops.
Marcus uses the phrase ‘textual scholarship’ to refer to the different forms and mediums through which written texts reach readers. In spite of the fact that the article provides an historical account or overview of textual scholarship as a field, Marcus also provides an analysis of textual scholarship as interpretation. She sites particular cases of omissions and additions by authors and editors to texts and provokes a new awareness of the filtered nature of what and who we ‘read.’ Everything is open to interpretation. The question is, whose interpretation?
Referring back to Aristotle’s Topoi, it is advantageous for society (specifically scholarly society) to be aware of the numerous systems of filtration that are at play in every text we encounter. Much authority is given to our canonical texts without consideration for how they may have been manipulated to reflect the intentions of not only the authors and editors, but of the numerous other modes of filtration that exist naturally in any given time or place. This is part of the ‘catch 22’ that Marcus discussed. She said that while we must (as literary scholars) continue strive for objectivity and uniformity when working with texts, we must be aware that these states are truly unattainable. It is for this reason that we must analyze any text that we are working with through a variety of lenses in order to get a ‘fair’ reading- especially since ‘intent’ is impossible to discern. When I think of my own collection of ‘literary texts,’ and I look at some of the ornate covers and millennium editions, I am saddened by the reminder that, “the version of a literary work that command [s] the most respect (and price) among bibliographers and collectors was the last edition or the most elaborate one, not the first” (145). Oops.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Week 3 Blog
Jarratt and Bernstein.
The Jarrat and Bernstein texts can be analyzed using Aristotle’s “topic of invention,” contraries. It is fascinating to note how literally Aristotle’s definition (A topic of invention in which one considers opposite or incompatible things that are of the same kind) can be applied to this clashing of scholarship and poetry; right down to the style each is written in. Jarratt’s article, which advocates structure and history, is comprised of just that, a technical history. It was difficult to discern her personal agenda because of the thickness of historical/biographical/non-fiction/scientific information. However, in the Bernstein article, his opinion snatches you by the soul and awakens the hints of his passions that reside in the recesses of your psyche.
Each article slightly portrays the most extreme side of its genre- The Rhetorical tradition being monotonous and un-emotional and the Poetic tradition being flowery and hyper-emotional, and without the foundation of reason. Fortunately, at the end of the day we are all fighting the same battle- no matter what style, language, or medium best suits us. Each article paid homage to it's beginnings in antiquity and bolstered a future in technology. When I think about these articles as they pertain to my own life, I wonder what the challenge of maintaining the delicate balance between technical and emotional writing/thinking will mean in my professional development. I worry about this because I have never been any good at creative writing and am not the most emotional person. I am afraid that in my struggle to increase my capacity to write/teach from a scholarly perspective I will lose the capacity for intimacy in my teaching/researching/writing. This is a problem because I want to move my students from the inside out; the same way that I have been moved to study. I know how powerful it is and I cherish the opportunity to be a part of it.
The Jarrat and Bernstein texts can be analyzed using Aristotle’s “topic of invention,” contraries. It is fascinating to note how literally Aristotle’s definition (A topic of invention in which one considers opposite or incompatible things that are of the same kind) can be applied to this clashing of scholarship and poetry; right down to the style each is written in. Jarratt’s article, which advocates structure and history, is comprised of just that, a technical history. It was difficult to discern her personal agenda because of the thickness of historical/biographical/non-fiction/scientific information. However, in the Bernstein article, his opinion snatches you by the soul and awakens the hints of his passions that reside in the recesses of your psyche.
Each article slightly portrays the most extreme side of its genre- The Rhetorical tradition being monotonous and un-emotional and the Poetic tradition being flowery and hyper-emotional, and without the foundation of reason. Fortunately, at the end of the day we are all fighting the same battle- no matter what style, language, or medium best suits us. Each article paid homage to it's beginnings in antiquity and bolstered a future in technology. When I think about these articles as they pertain to my own life, I wonder what the challenge of maintaining the delicate balance between technical and emotional writing/thinking will mean in my professional development. I worry about this because I have never been any good at creative writing and am not the most emotional person. I am afraid that in my struggle to increase my capacity to write/teach from a scholarly perspective I will lose the capacity for intimacy in my teaching/researching/writing. This is a problem because I want to move my students from the inside out; the same way that I have been moved to study. I know how powerful it is and I cherish the opportunity to be a part of it.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
lessismoreintro
I'm Angela.
I'm sarcastic.
I'm on the Literature track.
I like Ibsen.
I plan to research elementary curriculum because I plan to change some things around here...
;)
I'm sarcastic.
I'm on the Literature track.
I like Ibsen.
I plan to research elementary curriculum because I plan to change some things around here...
;)
Monday, April 7, 2008
Week 1 Reading Responses
Bruce Robbins. Epilogue: The Scholar in Society.
Summary:
This article is an exploration of the, “crisis of the humanities.” Basically, as literary scholars, we find ourselves in a precarious situation between trying to change the world and trying to interpret it- all while the majority are trying to keep our steadily decreasingly available adjunct jobs. To make things more complicated, this decision has to be made while constantly having to legitimatize the field from society’s perspective. Robbins asserts that this “state of crisis” that we are in is less a momentary crisis than a persistent structural weakness. From this weakness stems the experience of uncertainty about how committed our society is to the continuing existence of any jobs in departments of Literature. It is this uncertainty, even in a time of relative calm, which leaves literary scholars with the seemingly inherent urge to constantly justify our existence and push research in order to stay on the proverbial cutting edge of culture.
Robbins goes on to talk about our obligations to students of humanities. Part of this battle we share with many other disciplines: we all exist in this unstable relation to the shared object of knowledge which can never truly be possessed anyway and which can only be maintained by continually shattering what we once defined it to be. However, what sets students in the humanities apart from those in other disciplines is their desire for inspiration. As a result, our challenge not only becomes getting them to work, but getting them to believe that what they are studying is significant beyond the classroom. Oftentimes, this challenge is what spurs literary scholars into political action. Robbins goes on to discuss whether politics, in this sense, serves as an appropriate measure for all work in cultural studies.
Robbins continues to look at society and politics, and the way that they impact the lives and classrooms of literary critics, through the lenses of Theodor Adorno, Ian Hunter and Bill Readings. They address the issue of globalization. Readings suggests that culture once defined the work and scope of the humanities but now, in this era of globalization, society ceases to exist as we once knew it. As a result, according to Readings, the university (as an institution) can no longer be based on or responsible to this society that now ceases to exist. In lieu of this society, Readings prefers ‘the community of dissensus,’ which basically fosters diversity while maintaining individuality. The article closes with Robbins’ discussion of constructionism where he makes and defends the suggestion that we should mix relishing in our distinctness from other disciplines with an equally proper and necessary consciousness of the grounds for legitimization that we share with them as scholars. It is essentially this skill that will enable us to reach this continually redefined ‘society’ by perpetually having to reinvent our discipline.
Response:
I thought that it would be interesting to consider the Robbins text using Aristotle’s topoi, The Advantageous/The Disadvantageous. I am confused, however, on the perspective I should be writing from. Am I supposed to categorize what Robbins is saying as advantageous/disadvantageous to society or am I supposed to make a claim about whether or not I think what Robbins is saying is advantageous/disadvantageous to society…so I guess I will touch on all of the above.
It is clear that Robbins is declaring that teachers in the humanities (particularly those in Literature) and the humanities as an entity of its own, are advantageous for society to maintain. In fact, he even states that, “Literature must be valued, saved, and taught (and must not be displaced from the secondary school curriculum, as has been proposed, in favor of reading and writing skills) because, the argument goes, it makes the experience of others available- in short, because it does the work of representation.” The fact that I am in this program is testimony that I agree with this statement. With every ounce of my being I uphold that it is advantageous for our society to maintain literature as part of English canon because, for many students, it is experience. Many students, especially those where I work in San Bernardino, have a very limited range of experiences available to them. Oftentimes, the only experiences that these students are able to have other than those that they are relegated to at school and at home, are those made available to them through literature- which I would say is actually available in the home (as opposed to school) less than 10% of the time.
Another element that I would like to touch on from the Robbins article is the debate between allegiance to politics (changing the world) and teaching (interpreting the world). It does not appear that Robbins chooses a side or declares that one is advantageous while the other is not. I could be completely wrong, but I think that he advocates the middle ground between taking a political stance and teaching subject matter. Robbins states that teachers who are truly successful are those who communicate feelings of urgency, necessity, and relevance relative to subject-matter so that their students can internalize the ‘why’ the subject is important and pertains to them. He says that we need to stop trying to convince our peers that what we are saying is important and start convincing our students. I would imagine that as a professional it gets hard to focus on impacting the lives of your students, especially when you believe that your research can push the field or change the world. This is the grey-area that Robbins is talking about. It is quite a conundrum- use your own research to elicit change and legitimize your job/field, or prepare the minds of the future to recognize and act upon their own realizations of what the next need for change might be. Is there a more noble battle?
UNDER CONSTRUCTION: Feminist Methodology ‘Dilemmas for Graduate Researchers”
Summary
In this article, Shirley Rose and Janice Laur outline some of the typical problems and situations encountered by composition researchers that are committed to a feminist methodology. Some of these problems include defining a research question, choosing a research site, designing a study, negotiating a relationship with participants in the study, and making public the results or outcomes of their research. The very first thing that these women do is situate themselves in relation to their inquiry in order to address the “politics of location.” This keeps them in line with their argument for a feminist methodology that is self-conscious about the researcher’s own motives beliefs, and experiences. By identifying the positions from which they write, they participate in an endless cycle of recreating their positions and commitments. Taking these things into account is particularly important because Rose is the Director of Undergraduate Composition and Laur is the director of the graduate program at Purdue University.
They speak a great deal of their experiences and obligations as key contributors to the lives of their students. Each of their jobs entails complex systems of interconnectivity and obligations to different members of the university faculty, students, alumni, and their greater academic community. They must maintain a delicate balance between pushing an agenda and preparing their students to conduct classroom-based research with their own students. Finally, Rose and Laur outline some key characterizations of feminist methodologies. They describe feminism as more than a way of interpreting the world, but as a way of being in the world. Feminism is unique in this case because the goal is ‘unalienated knowing’ which is prompted by the desire to change the status quo. It is interesting to note that the fact that these things do not solely belong to the feminist perspective is testimony that the feminist agenda has resisted social and cultural oppression by changing institutional practice. The purpose of this article is to examine and expose some of the dilemmas faced by feminist researchers, and as a result, broaden understanding of these challenges and remove some of the obstacles that challenge feminist methodologists in order to promote research that is consistent with their theoretical commitments.
RESPONSE
For this response, I have chosen to compare the Rose Laur text with the Robbins Epilogue. They are very similar in theory, but the Rose and Laur essay takes Robbins' argument a step further by narrowing the scope to feminism. The Robbins text is focused somewhat generally on the need for professionals in the humanities (particularly Literature) to continually re-invent and legitimatize themselves because of the non-tangible desirable outcome of knowledge. Similar to Rose and Laur, he begins with a discussion of the vast obligations of the literary professional and acknowledges the unique nature of the students marching to join the ever-limited ranks. While everything that Robbins asserts in his article can be applied to feminist methodology, Rose and Laur contend that it is a beast all its own. The relative youth of feminist method, and the fact that it has its roots in the desire to change the status quo, make research from this perspective an extremely delicate process.
It is interesting to parallel these articles because while they have many similarities, they have one inherent difference. Robbins questions the relationship between education and the responsibility that educators have to ‘society,’ and maintains that the definition of society is in constant flux or may no longer be extant. Rose and Laur, on the other hand, don’t address this particular obligation even in their lengthy lists of obligations! This is noteworthy because the feminist methodology that they are advocating was birthed by a desire to change the status quo, which in effect, is established and maintained by society. Perhaps this was too much depth for them to go into since they were performing a ‘service’ as opposed to scholarly research, but it was an interesting omission nonetheless. So while both articles touch on the need for literary scholars to continually re-invent reality and challenge norms, the Rose and Laur text neglects to address society as the same villain even though it overtly impacts feminist research.
Summary:
This article is an exploration of the, “crisis of the humanities.” Basically, as literary scholars, we find ourselves in a precarious situation between trying to change the world and trying to interpret it- all while the majority are trying to keep our steadily decreasingly available adjunct jobs. To make things more complicated, this decision has to be made while constantly having to legitimatize the field from society’s perspective. Robbins asserts that this “state of crisis” that we are in is less a momentary crisis than a persistent structural weakness. From this weakness stems the experience of uncertainty about how committed our society is to the continuing existence of any jobs in departments of Literature. It is this uncertainty, even in a time of relative calm, which leaves literary scholars with the seemingly inherent urge to constantly justify our existence and push research in order to stay on the proverbial cutting edge of culture.
Robbins goes on to talk about our obligations to students of humanities. Part of this battle we share with many other disciplines: we all exist in this unstable relation to the shared object of knowledge which can never truly be possessed anyway and which can only be maintained by continually shattering what we once defined it to be. However, what sets students in the humanities apart from those in other disciplines is their desire for inspiration. As a result, our challenge not only becomes getting them to work, but getting them to believe that what they are studying is significant beyond the classroom. Oftentimes, this challenge is what spurs literary scholars into political action. Robbins goes on to discuss whether politics, in this sense, serves as an appropriate measure for all work in cultural studies.
Robbins continues to look at society and politics, and the way that they impact the lives and classrooms of literary critics, through the lenses of Theodor Adorno, Ian Hunter and Bill Readings. They address the issue of globalization. Readings suggests that culture once defined the work and scope of the humanities but now, in this era of globalization, society ceases to exist as we once knew it. As a result, according to Readings, the university (as an institution) can no longer be based on or responsible to this society that now ceases to exist. In lieu of this society, Readings prefers ‘the community of dissensus,’ which basically fosters diversity while maintaining individuality. The article closes with Robbins’ discussion of constructionism where he makes and defends the suggestion that we should mix relishing in our distinctness from other disciplines with an equally proper and necessary consciousness of the grounds for legitimization that we share with them as scholars. It is essentially this skill that will enable us to reach this continually redefined ‘society’ by perpetually having to reinvent our discipline.
Response:
I thought that it would be interesting to consider the Robbins text using Aristotle’s topoi, The Advantageous/The Disadvantageous. I am confused, however, on the perspective I should be writing from. Am I supposed to categorize what Robbins is saying as advantageous/disadvantageous to society or am I supposed to make a claim about whether or not I think what Robbins is saying is advantageous/disadvantageous to society…so I guess I will touch on all of the above.
It is clear that Robbins is declaring that teachers in the humanities (particularly those in Literature) and the humanities as an entity of its own, are advantageous for society to maintain. In fact, he even states that, “Literature must be valued, saved, and taught (and must not be displaced from the secondary school curriculum, as has been proposed, in favor of reading and writing skills) because, the argument goes, it makes the experience of others available- in short, because it does the work of representation.” The fact that I am in this program is testimony that I agree with this statement. With every ounce of my being I uphold that it is advantageous for our society to maintain literature as part of English canon because, for many students, it is experience. Many students, especially those where I work in San Bernardino, have a very limited range of experiences available to them. Oftentimes, the only experiences that these students are able to have other than those that they are relegated to at school and at home, are those made available to them through literature- which I would say is actually available in the home (as opposed to school) less than 10% of the time.
Another element that I would like to touch on from the Robbins article is the debate between allegiance to politics (changing the world) and teaching (interpreting the world). It does not appear that Robbins chooses a side or declares that one is advantageous while the other is not. I could be completely wrong, but I think that he advocates the middle ground between taking a political stance and teaching subject matter. Robbins states that teachers who are truly successful are those who communicate feelings of urgency, necessity, and relevance relative to subject-matter so that their students can internalize the ‘why’ the subject is important and pertains to them. He says that we need to stop trying to convince our peers that what we are saying is important and start convincing our students. I would imagine that as a professional it gets hard to focus on impacting the lives of your students, especially when you believe that your research can push the field or change the world. This is the grey-area that Robbins is talking about. It is quite a conundrum- use your own research to elicit change and legitimize your job/field, or prepare the minds of the future to recognize and act upon their own realizations of what the next need for change might be. Is there a more noble battle?
UNDER CONSTRUCTION: Feminist Methodology ‘Dilemmas for Graduate Researchers”
Summary
In this article, Shirley Rose and Janice Laur outline some of the typical problems and situations encountered by composition researchers that are committed to a feminist methodology. Some of these problems include defining a research question, choosing a research site, designing a study, negotiating a relationship with participants in the study, and making public the results or outcomes of their research. The very first thing that these women do is situate themselves in relation to their inquiry in order to address the “politics of location.” This keeps them in line with their argument for a feminist methodology that is self-conscious about the researcher’s own motives beliefs, and experiences. By identifying the positions from which they write, they participate in an endless cycle of recreating their positions and commitments. Taking these things into account is particularly important because Rose is the Director of Undergraduate Composition and Laur is the director of the graduate program at Purdue University.
They speak a great deal of their experiences and obligations as key contributors to the lives of their students. Each of their jobs entails complex systems of interconnectivity and obligations to different members of the university faculty, students, alumni, and their greater academic community. They must maintain a delicate balance between pushing an agenda and preparing their students to conduct classroom-based research with their own students. Finally, Rose and Laur outline some key characterizations of feminist methodologies. They describe feminism as more than a way of interpreting the world, but as a way of being in the world. Feminism is unique in this case because the goal is ‘unalienated knowing’ which is prompted by the desire to change the status quo. It is interesting to note that the fact that these things do not solely belong to the feminist perspective is testimony that the feminist agenda has resisted social and cultural oppression by changing institutional practice. The purpose of this article is to examine and expose some of the dilemmas faced by feminist researchers, and as a result, broaden understanding of these challenges and remove some of the obstacles that challenge feminist methodologists in order to promote research that is consistent with their theoretical commitments.
RESPONSE
For this response, I have chosen to compare the Rose Laur text with the Robbins Epilogue. They are very similar in theory, but the Rose and Laur essay takes Robbins' argument a step further by narrowing the scope to feminism. The Robbins text is focused somewhat generally on the need for professionals in the humanities (particularly Literature) to continually re-invent and legitimatize themselves because of the non-tangible desirable outcome of knowledge. Similar to Rose and Laur, he begins with a discussion of the vast obligations of the literary professional and acknowledges the unique nature of the students marching to join the ever-limited ranks. While everything that Robbins asserts in his article can be applied to feminist methodology, Rose and Laur contend that it is a beast all its own. The relative youth of feminist method, and the fact that it has its roots in the desire to change the status quo, make research from this perspective an extremely delicate process.
It is interesting to parallel these articles because while they have many similarities, they have one inherent difference. Robbins questions the relationship between education and the responsibility that educators have to ‘society,’ and maintains that the definition of society is in constant flux or may no longer be extant. Rose and Laur, on the other hand, don’t address this particular obligation even in their lengthy lists of obligations! This is noteworthy because the feminist methodology that they are advocating was birthed by a desire to change the status quo, which in effect, is established and maintained by society. Perhaps this was too much depth for them to go into since they were performing a ‘service’ as opposed to scholarly research, but it was an interesting omission nonetheless. So while both articles touch on the need for literary scholars to continually re-invent reality and challenge norms, the Rose and Laur text neglects to address society as the same villain even though it overtly impacts feminist research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
