book review segment….

Hi All,
Herewith, a slice of my book review– I am having a devilish time trying to come up with conf proposal topix…..

Honda, in its earliest days in the US motorcycle market, introduced its products in an ad campaign that quietly suggested, “You meet the nicest people on a Honda.” The approach was absolutely brilliant: it directly sought to dispel the disparaging “biker” stereotype of motorcyclists by extending a fresh invitation to the uninformed to investigate for themselves.
Reading James Berlin’s most enjoyable Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures prompted the recollection. Myself being the uninformed in regard to the history of English studies, I recently finished Robert Scholes’ excellent The Rise and Fall of English, and then followed with Gerald Graff’s erudite Professing Literature. Mr. Berlin’s book rounded out the set, and while he is arguably the “biker” of the three authors in some of his professional convictions, it indeed seems to me that one meets the nicest people in English studies.
Berlin is an unabashed, eminently qualified booster for the study of rhetoric, and its critical importance to education, politics, indeed to life. In the book’s introduction, he announces that he is writing “from the perspective of one firmly situated in the rhetorical branch of the discipline”(xiii). He laments rhetoric’s gradual “marginalization” in curriculum, and in wry tones notes examples of its customary exclusion from current English studies bibliographies, even from Graff’s and Arthur Applebee’s histories of English. In this book, he sets out to give rhetoric its due after its “near century-long suppression”(xv), with a compellingly written dissertation that culminates with his recommendations for a better English studies.
The author begins by considering the “explicit” linkage between rhetoric and poetic, and how dominance has alternated between the two throughout history. Berlin states that English studies traditionally has seen the literary/poetic as “important and central”(3), but relegated rhetoric to the inferior position. This was caused, he says, by the vast economic and social changes that occurred in the 18th and 19th century: the aesthetic experience now came to be re-defined in class terms, and was “isolated …from the political and the scientific”(4). From Raymond Williams’ Marxism and Literature, Berlin draws the class-based detail of how the concept of “literature” was re-defined, how aesthetic was elevated in importance, and the evidence for “general valorization of the subjective over the objective”(6); in Graff’s Professing Literature, he finds confirmation of the “institutionalizing of these dichotomies”(8), effectively relegating the lifeless, meaningless, material world to the language of logic. To further buttress his case, Berlin adduces the empirical findings of Pierre Bordieu, related in Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Bordieu’s admittedly-subversive work correlates the societal aspects of Williams’ and Graff’s writings to the high culture/high class, low culture/lower class binary opposition. Most intriguing is the Frenchman’s discussion of the nineteenth-century-originated “pure gaze”, a class-marker apparently imputed to be as revealing of class-level as the preference of eating solely with the hands.

Possible Conference Topics

Women and the Gendering of Talk, Gossip, and Communication Practices Across Media

Charting Transnational Native American Studies: Aesthetics, Politics, Identity

Nationalism(s) and Cultural Memory in Texts of Childhood

Recent Jewish American Literature and Trauma

Mortified: Representing Women’s Shame

The poetics of Pain: Aesthetics, Ideology, and Representation

 

Book Review Bit

I’d like to preface this by saying I’m less than pleased with the result of my book review.  I just couldn’t get into it and thus, I hate it (but I’m pretty sure the assignment hated me, so there you go).  Anyway, here’s a bit of my book review of the Berlin text:

 

Before diving into his methods and practices for adjusting the field, Berlin takes what seems to be a detour in his “Postmodernism in the Academy” chapter. Berlin’s purpose is to show how the various postmodern theorists and their philosophies can be utilized to “encourage literary criticism rather than a passive acquiescence to things as they are” (61). Berlin proceeds to wander through major postmodern players such as Levi-Strauss, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, giving overviews of their theories. While Berlin finds these explanations of structural and post-structural philosophies necessary to his argument, he unintentionally loses his reader in the process, and thus, his point for the chapter. Wading through the signs, signifiers, and the “differance” becomes a murky and arduous task for anyone not fully versed in postmodernism.

Unlike his previously mentioned precursors, Berlin recognizes the outside forces that impact the field of English studies; he explores the political, economic, and social state of the country. According to Berlin, it is the job of the English department to educate the students and help them become more critical of their own lives and—in turn—the texts they with which they are presented. Berlin writes, “Our business must be to instruct students in signifying practices broadly conceived—to see not only the rhetoric of the institution of schooling, of politics, and of the media, the hermeneutic of film, TV, and popular music” (100). This is an excellent way to ignite interest among English students who might not otherwise be engaged. With Berlin’s method of involving a number of serious issues as well as pop culture, English becomes more than just reading and writing.

 

Conference Paper Ideas

Here’s are some of the ideas that I thought were interesting for a conference paper:

Individuals Shaping the Writing Center- MAWCA This is one the Dr. Lynch-Biniek suggested to the UWC staff and I’d really like to write for this.

Rhetorics of New Media-SWTXPCA Conference

Censorship-Transverse-U of Toronto

Sex, Death and Boredom-Fordham

Class or cooking-it’s a toss up!

I, too, am sorry you are ill, Dr. Mahoney (aka “Cuz”)!  You need to get better fast.  Without class tonight, my daughter is suggesting I should cook dinner.  At this point, I am checking all the pockets of my coats to see if I can come up with enough money for a hot dog or two from Yocco’s the  hot dog king.

Here’s an excerpt from my book review.  (I just emailed the entire review to you a few minutes ago.)

    In his last press conference before leaving office, President George W. Bush remarked:  “…I’m telling you there’s an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is.  That’s the reality of the world.  And I wish him all the very best”  (McKeeby).  It is reasonable to assume that the enemy to which “W” referred was an Al Queda terrorist (and that the person he wished well was President-elect Obama).   Some might argue that the greater threat to the United States in the last decade was not a weakened terroristic group, but the Bush administration’s use (or misuse) of language to promote its policies, especially the war in Iraq.   A Newsweek article entitled “Dunce-Cap Nation” suggests, however, that President Bush was not the only one to blame.    According to this piece, the results of a poll conducted in 2007, four years into the war in Iraq, indicated that forty-one percent of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein’s regime was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, despite a lack of evidence to support this.  The article goes on to enumerate a number of subjects-geography, global affairs, religion-about which the respondents knew little if anything.  The good news was that a solid percentage could name the winner of the most recent American Idol competition; the bad news was that this was a much higher number than could name the chief justice of the Supreme Court (“Dunce-Cap”).

     What, one might ask, should be done about this?  As one of the oldest democracies in history, the United States of America faces some of the most complex issues of its time:  an economic meltdown, war on two fronts, and a crisis in healthcare.  Educating American citizens to deal with these questions appears more important now than ever.   So, to whom should this great responsibility fall?  In Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures, James Berlin passionately argues that it is the role of English studies in colleges and universities to prepare a critical citizenry to participate in democracy.   He asserts:  “In short, education exists to provide intellectual, articulate and responsible citizens who understand their obligation and their right to insist that economic, social, and political power be exerted in the best interests of the community” (55).  It is the English professor in particular, according to Berlin, who will be the catalyst for this change.  “The teacher must thus serve as a transformative intellectual…concerned with improving economic and social conditions in the larger society” (122).  In Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures, Berlin outlines a number of radical reforms which are needed to achieve this goal.

                The first of these is the resuscitation of English studies itself. In his opening sentence, Berlin declares:  “English studies is in crisis” (xi).  And indeed it is.  English studies once considered the king of the college curriculum and the kingmaker of the next generation of the country’s leaders is dying.   In the first two chapters of his book, Berlin traces the development of the English department in the United States and the internal conflicts that beset it, as Gerald Graff in Professing Literature had done.  Like his predecessor, Berlin, too, examines the economic shift in the 19^th century from entrepreneurial to corporate capitalism and the resulting rise of the research university.  Unlike Graff, Berlin wisely takes this perspective one step further and uses it to springboard into a discussion of the results of the post-Fordian economy and postmodernism. In his third chapter, Berlin points out that before 1970 little criticism had been leveled at the college curriculum and the system of electives (50).  Businesses were making money, and colleges were supplying them the managers with which to do so.  With the transformation to a post-Fordian society, the decrease in the number of managerial positions meant a college degree no longer guaranteed employmentand those who were hired, according to their employers, were not considered up to par.  The greatest complaint voiced by company executives was that college graduates were unable to communicate well (51).   Obviously, this was an indictment of the university system as a whole and of English studies in particular.  At this point in the book, Berlin has led the reader to believe that the torchbearers of language, those in English studies, need to change their ways.  But how?

my paper…yippee for the day off

 

The Rise and Fall of English

 

So, I read the title and thought, “Wow! What a downer. Do I really need to read this text for my English Studies course?!” The answer of course is no. I don’t really need to read the book, but rather should and did. My own question becomes a huge question around English as a discipline, “Why should I read this book and how does it apply to my life?” I began reading with the misconception that Robert Scholes would be pointing out to his audience all of the defunct issues in regard to English as a language of study or a disciple, followed by providing the reader with all of the tools and answers; that is not quite the case. The text seems slightly dry at first, a first-hand, elitist-educated, professor’s account of all that is wrong with the system of higher education (of course through his rose-colored looking glass). However, after getting deeper into the text, great questions about the state and shape of something near and dear to my heart were raised with some pretty plausible suggestions as to how we can try to take a few steps in the right direction for the future of English, rather than demolish this educational keystone and start anew.

            After trudging through his biographical web, woven early in this five chapter commentary, the reader finds refreshing perceptions regarding college English courses. A specific account of this is on page 65, “To come back to our own situation, I think we may at present be too concerned with teaching the right ideas in the classroom and not concerned enough with teaching the most effective ways of speaking, listening, reading and writing.” (Scholes, 65) Scholes states on page 18 of his work, “As I understand it, the fall of English is partly the result of cultural shifts that are beyond the power of English departments to change-though not beyond their power of creative response.” (Scholes, 18)  Scholes cries for a reconstruction of English studies to be more appropriately geared to the current time and place. This does not imply that older texts are worthless, but rather, need to be read in a new way and applied to the shifts in one’s culture that are forever taking place. On several occasions, Scholes repeats his theory that in order for students to appreciate age old texts, they must be able to relate these works to their own time and culture and figure out exactly how that text speaks to them and their circumstances.

            Scholes also places a significant responsibility on staff and students in his text; constantly calling upon professors and teachers alike to push for the changes that he recommends later in the book. He also offers, “It means also that we teachers must employ a pedagogical rhetoric that will earn for us the respectful attention of those we are teaching.” (Scholes, 65) Scholes is not blaming any one person or group of people for allowing English to disintegrate, rather he is advising that before the state of this subject becomes anymore dire, changes need to be instituted. I tend to agree with Scholes plan for evading the entire plunge of English Studies as a whole, in an attempt to head off English becoming much like Greek or Latin.

            Scholes’ approach is very clear and concrete. He is earnest in his undertaking. On page 67 he notes, “I am suggesting that we can diminish what I call our hypocriticism by undertaking to do this job as honestly and decently as we can.” (Scholes, 67) This statement clears the air of any possible hidden political agendas as well. His examples and suggestions as to how we can overhaul the English departments seem quite prescriptive and organized, yet allow room for interpretation and adjustment. One perception of Scholes’ that should not be ignored is his adamant stance regarding social structure and its role in one’s education. “I mention our social structure because it is the key to what as become of English as well as to what is becoming of it.” (Scholes, 75)

The book is set up into five chapters, each chapter being immediately followed by an assignment that correlates to the previous chapter. These assignments were both practical and amusing. The assignments helped to shed light on the material covered in the prior chapter, as well as served to drive the point home that change is immediately needed in our system with the animation of real-life experiences. Scholes writing is easy to follow and flows nicely. He is convincing in his claims, most importantly, “…to function as a citizen of these United States one needs to be able to read, interpret, and criticize texts in a wide ranges of modes, genres, and media.” (Scholes, 84) Again in this chapter, Scholes takes on partial responsibility for himself and his peers for the current situation and encourages English instructors to avoid “inherited professionalism or personal preferences” as qualification for certain texts to be taught as literature.

Appreciation is in order for the straight-forwardness of the text and the application of assignments following each chapter, particularly Chapter 4. This assignment comes directly from tried and true practices and is perhaps not the purest test, but a good experiment for how to and where to start to make the necessary changes to the curriculum that Scholes notes has existed seemingly forever. “That English curriculum that came into being around the turn of the nineteenth century is still the English curriculum.” This definitely seems like a problem. Scholes advises, “I do not expect to solve our problems here, only to advance our discussion of them beyond the point of mutual accusations and recriminations.” (Scholes 103) Scholes makes the realization that it will require s constant dialogue from those involved in the study of English to come to some agreement as to how the current issues can be solved. However, he does contribute to this dialogue by the assignment at the end of chapter four, Pacesetter English. I believe that if this approach made it to fruition across the board, there might be more hope for the discipline as a whole. This seems plausible for a number of reasons, especially as his approach is grounded in very similar structure as the current curriculum, mainly requiring some tweaking. I can stand behind an approach that is accompanied by the disclaimer found on page 142, “…it helps to have a curriculum that both students and teachers can believe in, because they can see that it is aimed at helping students to develop better intellectual equipment for the lives they are actually living and will continue to live.” (Scholes, 142) This is perhaps the single best quote from the text to use as armor for those in opposition to a restructuring of the English discipline. Yes, it may be true that Scholes is dreaming. Maybe this change will never happen. Perhaps a better plan is out there or may come along somewhere down the line. The book isn’t a how-to, it is a start. Something that Scholes can claim is that he tried. At least he tried. Too many of us are bogged down in the current system and keep recycling the same old texts, not because they have universal meaning to us and our students alike,  but because they are those same texts that we were taught in school as holding a special place in the literary world. We can’t really explain why…why we teach them…why we love them…why they are important. So, it is time for a change. We need to be experiencing and analyzing and understanding those texts that are vital to our cultural survival and longevity. Scholes made a start.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Scholes, Robert. The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a

     Discipline. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998.

 

Feel better, Dr. Mahoney!

I am just going to post an excerpt from my paper as well. I found this review a bit difficult to write because I have basically accepted the fact that I’m terrible at summarizing. I tried, but I”m not sure how much that counts for anything.

I will be checking out the conference proposals tonight, so I will be blogging about that in the near future.

Scholes Book Review:

In the next chapter, Scholes considers the issue of “truth” within the English discipline. Scholes supports his main claim that “we have become reluctant to make claims of truth about the matters we teach” (39) by analyzing works authored by famous philosophers/theorists such as John Ruskin, Jacques Derrida, Immanuel Kant, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Acknowledging Derrida’s fact that we “ ‘feel bad about ourselves’ ” (39), Scholes highlights reasons for the decline of English and why English teachers need to believe in what they are teaching. He mentions that we need to try to answer the questions of “how we became what we are and what we do” (58). Scholes makes those involved with English think about reasons why they are so attached to the discipline. He makes readers search and analyze the purpose of the English curriculum and question whether or not they are being true to themselves.

In the second assignment titled “Theory in the Classroom,” Scholes uses an example of theoretician Louis Althusser’s experiences in composition and rhetoric to show how teachers must provide their students with instruction on rhetoric that will allow them to express their values and beliefs and gain respect by doing so. Scholes feels as if English teachers are “too concerned with teaching the right ideas in the classroom and not concerned enough with teaching the most effective ways of speaking, listening, reading, and writing” (65). To change this, teachers need to assign texts that will help improve students’ rhetoric so that they can express themselves with purpose and meaning. Yet again, Scholes is determined to change the views of present English teachers in order to improve the discipline.

 

week 11/11

Thanks alot guys… now I cant wish Mahoney to feel better either, cuz you already did it; you stole all my brown-nosing fire!

I found Scholes’s discussion of truth theory to be one of the liveliest sections of the entire book.  Aptly named “No dog would go on living like this,” in this chapter Scholes laments the demise of the concept of truth as a solid structure in the face of rising correspondence and coherence theory.  While he spends perhaps a little too much time re-hashing a literary battle between himself and fellow scholar and philosopher Richard Rorty, which sometimes borders between hurt feelings and academic discussion, his defense is, nevertheless, passionate and sincere.

            “My notion of academic truth, I must respond, is not profound, but neither is it nebulous.  I have already touched upon it.  It resides in words at lower order of abstraction: words like fair, accurate, and comprehensive.”(Scholes 57)  He persists with further implications for his concept of truth in the following passage:

The “love of truth” seems to me the first protocol of teaching, upon which any others we might devise would depend… As a habit of mind, the love of truth is one of the great things we, as teachers, have to offer, but we cannot offer it merely by talking about it; we have to enact it, to embody it in our whole practice as scholars and teachers.  This means being truthful with ourselves about how we came to be where we are, what interests we are serving, and what good we hope to accomplish. (Scholes 57)  

          Truth and the love of truth are essential to Scholes – the truth as a construct must exist if the pursuit of truth is to exist, and such is what defines most of the humanities. As we will soon see, Scholes wants to take this love of truth and seek it in a rigorous way; but before we turn to that proposal we must also examine his views on culture and rhetoric.

There is an excerpt from my paper; the rest will follow via email

Pleasant surprise, considering my day today!

Don’t be fooled, I really hope you get better Dr. Mahoney and I hope everyone else stays well. I was actually looking forward to class tonight! I’m going to include just a section of my book review since it’s about 1600 words and I don’t want to overload everyone. The personal study plan (which I haven’t written yet ) was actually pretty easy to plot out since I am realistically doing this program for myself and not for any specific specialization. I did start reading Ostergaard and I call dibs on section four! I’ve really enjoyed that so far after looking at all of them, so I would prefer to work on that section. Finally, I haven’t even begun to consider a conference proposal. Frankly, the whole thing makes me nervous. I’ll spend a little time today doing that so I might be able to have something to say later this weekend about it. Now, on to my book review!

I’m really concerned about my book review. It hovers somewhere between formal and informal and I can’t decide if I’m comfortable with that or not. I’m a little bit of both, so I guess it’s ok that my paper is a mixture as well!

 

I wonder how many teachers actually consider what they’re offering their students. One thing Scholes has told me I can offer “are the artifices that work, a rhetoric that will enable them to gain the respectful attention of those around them for their feelings, thoughts and values” (65). Making my students eloquent would be a fabulous thing. But how do I do this? Again, Scholes has the answer. He uses Althusser as his launching point: “[w]hat he absorbed and retained was their good rhetorical habits, even as he ultimately rejected their values” (65). In other words, it’s not what I teach, but how I teach. I can’t make my students lovers of English, but I can let them see my passion for the written word and let them know that it’s okay to not like English, but they shouldn’t be afraid of it either. We spend too much time covering material and not enough working students through the process of reading to take away the mystique, which we guard so jealously.

            Another consideration I had with Scholes was my purpose as a teacher. Why am I here? Scholes tells us that “[w]hat I mean, then, by becoming an English teacher, includes a sense of one’s own limitations, an awareness of how deep the sea of English is and how shallow and frail one’s boat” (70), The depth of the sea is one of the things I hope to diminish, at least in my mind, by obtaining my master’s degree, which will allow me to add extra support to my boat as well as my students’ boats. From there they can start to work with English in respect to their own cultures. Scholes mentions two questions to consider: “…how can we put students in touch with a usable cultural past. The other [question] is how we can help students attain an active relationship with their cultural present” (104). Finally, I have to remember that “[m]aterial ‘covered’ in classrooms and not incorporated into the communicative lives of students simply fades away” (149). With testing requirements, I often feel the pressure to cover the material, but that’s not the best way to teach my students and be a purposeful teacher.

Book Review teaser

Dr. Mahoney,

Hard to follow up the two preceding posts but get healthy (and keep your family healthy) so we can continue arguing about what English is in class. Below is an excerpt of my review on Scholes. The entirety of it is coming your way in email. Take care, all.

 

The basis of Scholes’ argument takes us back to the 1700’s, when backbones of university programs like Greek, Latin, and rhetoric were replaced or lost priority. These changes are evident in students’ readings on page twelve. “The concept of belles letters, as developed in the late eighteenth century, served then as a transition from an older view of literature as including all kinds of written works worthy of study, to a different view that led to a curriculum dominated by Romantic notions of genius and imagination…” In the late 1760’s we saw courses such as grammar, language, and composition spearhead English departments’ focuses. Students who were formerly required to read Socrates and Plato were putting pencils to paper on a more regular basis; however, the idea of more grammar and composition was not what we would envision now. These students were writing solely for the purpose of oral delivery, with very little emphasis on sentence structure, grammar, punctuation, etc.

A whole day off? Think of what I could accomplish (but won’t)

Man, what a suck up Lori is. Well, I won’t try to outdo her (although I hope you feel extra better) but I will add my two cents (which doesn’t really make sense because I’m posting on a separate related topic but I mean, really, where else could that sentence have gone). Anyway, I am also taking some extra time to get intimate with Berlin (before you make a sex joke, remember that he’s dead) before I hand in my book review and I’m still in the middle of my personal study plan, so I guess, I’ve really got nothing to contribute in any way (which those who know me are used to by now). I plan to have them both finished over the weekend so I’ll post them upon completion.

As far as the conference proposal is concerned are we supposed to use an existing work or something we intend to write? I believe that Dr. Chernekoff  intends to have her Rhetoric class present the dialogues we wrote as our midterm examination at the Bethlehem Conference so I may have to look for other venues (I’ve never been to Alaska, I wonder if it’s nice. And on that note did you know they have street gangs in Alaska? Like, real street gangs. I’m talking the Crips). If we have the option to present a work we’ve already “completed” I think I might try to submit the paper I wrote for Dr. Forsyth’s Seminar on Literary Criticism (I know, I know but I’m getting mileage out of that fucker) simply because I intend to edit it for use in grad. apps. and later as part of my portfolio project. If we need something new, well, I’m not really sure what I’d like to do. But I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it.

On that note, I think I’ll bring this to a close. Sorry, I have nothing to share but I will get it up here as soon as I can. I’ll check back later for any updates. Dr. Mahoney, I’ll get you updated copies of the copious amounts of work I owe you (letter of intent, PhD proposal, course proposal for Spring). I hope you feel better and I hope everyone else is well. Take care

P.S.

I don’t know why some of my previous post came up missing, however if you just highlight the area that’s missing it then shows up. Weird!

Class stuff for 11/11

I hope you’re feeling better Dr. Mahoney!

The links below take you to both my book review and my personal study plan.

BOOK REVIEW

PERSONAL STUDY PLAN

I haven’t decided if I really like where my book review is at right now. I’m sitting in the middle between 1,000-2,000 words and I feel like I need to expand, but I don’t want to expand too much. I just feel like it’s not thorough enough and I think I’m too informal in some areas.  I’ve looked at some others on enculturation – and I just can’t get a feel for a set-up that fits my style. I decided to follow one of the book reviews handed out in class, but like I said I might do some tweaking on it for next week (Since we Berliners have that extra week, right…. right?)

As for my conference proposal idea, I’ve been mulling over different ideas in my head. I really want to write for the Bethlehem conference. I was thinking maybe writing about societal expectations of Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter or injustice surrounding Frankenstein’s monster in Frankenstein. That seems to normal though. I’d love to work out of the box and do something with film. Maybe I could address the social commentary in 28 Day Later, or even better – in the video game Bioshock (which rocks my world btw).

Finally, I just want to say that writing the personal study plan proved to be more difficult that I originally thought it would be. The good thing about it was that it forces me to plot a course for my future where otherwise I would have just remained blissfully ignorant!

Okay that’s it for me. Get well soon Dr. Mahoney, and see the rest of you next week-

Lori

sick, sick, sick

Hello all English Study-ers. I’ve got good or bad news depending on your perspective. I am going to be out sick tomorrow. I was out sick today and because I am paranoid of giving my one-year old son the dreaded piggie flu, I went to the doctor today. No piggie flu, but I do have acute bronchitis. Yuk. So, tomorrow is going to be a let-the-antibiotics-do-their-work day.

The bad news is that tomorrow night was supposed to be the night when we focused on your texts and several of the course projects. And we were to set up groups tomorrow. So, here’s what I want to do in the place of class.

1. either post your book review to the blog or post a piece of your review to the blog for discussion. If you feel uncomfortable posting the entire thing in a blog post, you can post part of it then send me a copy of it via email. (you can also post the file directly to the blog, which would be the best solution in my book, but I am not sure how many people are comfortable enough with the technology to do so).

2. post (separately) ideas you are having for your conference paper proposal.

3. post any questions, concerns, etc. to the blog.

4. I will respond on the blog. I will also post a list of the units for next week’s reading. If you recall, we will organize into groups and each group will be presenting on one part of the book. When I post the list, make a comment to that post with any preferences you have. I will try to give each person their preference, but that may or may not work out perfectly.

I will check in periodically tomorrow. I will also post this email to the blog.

Till then, Mahoney

Dolphins 3, Porpoises 0

Communication or stimuli?

(Or too many episodes of Walker, Texas Ranger?)

Check out the article: Mysterious Porpoise Deaths Blamed On Berserk Dolphins

 

 

upcoming conference in alaska…any adventurous types?

Janice Chernekoff…rrrrr…I mean DR. Chernekoff …sent this my way today.  Might be of interest to some of you.  Below is the email from a conference organizer.  Follow the link for a PDF of the Conference CFP:

________________________________________
From: Joseph Christian Kurber [asjck38@uaa.alaska.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 6:50 PM
To: pacrim2010@gmail.com
Subject: 2010 Pacific Rim Conference Call for Papers

Dear University English Department,

We’re pleased to invite all English graduate scholars in your department to the 15th annual Pacific Rim Conference on Literature and Rhetoric, hosted by the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA).

In 1995, several UAA graduate students and faculty from the Department of English started the conference as a forum in which to present their work and ideas to peers, faculty, visiting scholars, and the wider Alaskan community. Each year the conference organizers choose keynote speakers from Alaska, the Continental U.S., and Canada to address areas of interest for English academics and students, as well as those in related disciplines. The theme of this year’s conference is the blending and evolving hybridization of history, language, identity, and culture in literature, rhetoric, and technology.

Pacific Rim offers a welcoming venue in which students can experience a nationally recognized conference in the unique, beautiful setting of Alaska.

Attached you will find the conference’s 2010 Call for Papers. Please contact us at pacrim2010@gmail.com if you have any questions, comments, or would like to submit a paper. We look forward to hearing from you, and we thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Joseph Kurber,
University of Alaska Anchorage,
M.A. of English, Graduate Student

Here is the CFP: 2010 Pacific Rim Conference CFP

Democratic classroom

One sentence on page 110 in Berlin brought me to a crossroads as to which path I’d like to take as an English instructor. Berlin notes starting on page 109 that, “For democracy to function citizens must actively engage in public debate, applying reading and writing practices in the service of articulating their positions and the ir critiques of the position of others.”

This reminds me a bit of Pacesetter English, which I championed a few weeks ago. In this instance I’d kill to take a room of high school seniors and introduce them to  a watered down debate class. There would be varying topics from which the students could choose, they would choose a partner, and I would moderate discussions on whatever the topic is. As moderator I would stress the importance of criticizing ideas instead of people, finding credible sources to support your position, and delivering your  argument in a persuasive manner. It would be my hope that students at the end of the year would be fully prepared for such engagements in the college classroom and beyond.

On the other hand, I am reminded that students who struggle in pre algebra will also struggle in algebra 1 and algebra 2. In this case I see myself having a significant impact at the middle school level. Students who cannot differentiate between nouns and adverbs, run on sentences and prepositions, and conjunctions will struggle writing a research paper in high school. Chances are the student will have no problem formulating ideas and gathering data, but struggles will ensue when they need to be put on paper. Given my strong grammatical background and desire for preparing students for the next level, I find myself torn. Would I want to focus my energy on building a literature and grammatical foundation or prepare older students for higher education?

 

blown out of the water

 

Berlin has exposed and called into question many conflicting ideologies and contradictions about positionality, aesthetics, class, race, and gender as they relate to the traditional English curriculum in its privileging of the study of canonical literature /poetics over rhetoric.  In the second half of Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures he combines postmodernist theories of language and subject formation with heuristics based on his conception of a social-epistemic rhetoric which “is self-reflexive, acknowledging its own rhetoricity, its own discursive constitution and limitations.  This means that it does not deny its inescapable ideological predispositions, its politically situated condition” (8).

By employing investigative methods that expose the hidden ideologies in all texts and teaching students how to recognize the many levels of signification that contribute to their own subject formation within social, historical, political, and economic contexts, he begins to give meaning to what it means to be an informed citizen.  Without the skills afforded them through Berlin’s model of critical literacy, students will not delve deep enough into the layers of contradictory meaning that reside in all cultural artifacts nor will they have the background in theory and history that will enable them to become agents of rhetoricity capable of deconstructing and reformulating the socio-economic concerns they will face when they enter the workplace.

As I read the second half of this book so many contradictory aspects of my own education began to make sense to me.  If I could start all over as an undergraduate following Berlin’s lower level and upper level courses, along with the programs of study proposed by English department heads at Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburg, and SUNY Albany I would do it in an instant.  I started remembering how frustrated I felt most of the time writing papers from a new critical perspective that would not permit any historical or social contexts as part of an analysis.  English studies seemed ultimately irrelevant and could not begin to satisfy my need to be of use, as Marge Piercy says, during my lifetime.  When I took a class in critical pedagogy and first read Friere, I thought I had found my calling.  Now I discover Berlin and wow!  I’m blown out of the water.

 

 

Once again, Berlin seemed to top Scholes in that his suggestions for his two possible courses seemed to be well-thought out and were explained in a much more elaborate, understandable way. Additionally, Berlin’s thought process was again much easier to follow compared to Graff and Scholes.  I felt that Graff and Scholes were trying to take on too much in their books, and, as a result, they lost the reader somewhere amongst their scattered thoughts and ideas.  Berlin, on the other hand, does tell the story of English, but he then decides to focus on the idea that one of the main purposes of the English classroom and of English studies needs to be the creation of students who can be active participants in a democratic society.  These students must be able to read and understand the world, evaluate the ideas and the credibility of others’ words, and be able to participate in civic discourse by being able to express themselves clearly in both reading and writing.  I found the end of Berlin easy to follow because he stayed with this idea, first discussing the theory behind this idea (Social-epistemic).  He went over the characteristics of a democratic classroom and then gave two models (and he stressed that they were models only) of what a democratic classroom would look like in practice. I liked that he didn’t try to take on every problem that English has, but instead, he focused on something that makes complete sense: establishing our value to our “non-English” customers.  Getting a handle on how to create these democratically adept students is the first step in securing the place of English studies in academia.

Although both courses outlined were meant to be college-level courses, I believe that this “training” of students could begin at the high school level on a smaller scale.  For instance, a unit on Media Studies could be done in any English class at any grade level (or, it could even build yearly).  Students could examine advertisements, commercials, newspapers, news channels, magazines, and internet sources.  They could definitely be taught to at least consider the power of words and images in our world and be able to decipher the credible from the unreliable sources.  They could be taught to recognize the advertisements that are targeting them specifically, etc.  They could read different accounts of world events and understand what bias truly means and how to identify it. I guess what I am saying is that even at the high school level, they should be taught to begin “reading the world.”  They should understand the power of words and language. Overall, I felt that Berlin had some really good ideas that should be taken seriously, be considered, and, hopefully, put into action.

Compressed Time

Berlin responds to Graff’s institutional history through treating it as a master narrative where he fills the gaps with the history of rhetoric. Rhetoric, he claims, had been “censured” (28) by English departments and its history ignored in Graff. Berlin’s  main concern is to teach critical literacy through cultural studies and rhetoric. I like that he theorizes about the elimination of hierarchy within the English studies disciplines. His theories, at times, are too global, and I have to really look at what college-level classroom he is applying his theories. In his own process analysis of his classrooms, the narratives work well in explaining teaching scenarios–I just don’t agree with his course selections.

As you know, community college, freshmen composition is a great place to center a classroom in cultural studies. However, I’m not sure most of them see themselves as “political.” This time last year, I couldn’t get my students to shut up about the presidential election. Yet, ask them about the Health Care debate, and their response is it is “overwhelming.” So I pulled out the Berlin term of “overdetermined” which I found in his quote, “The guide of provisional conceptions of larger narratives within a context of overdetermined differences always remains paramount” (119) Okay, what is “overdetermined”? The term comes from Freud, and I am probably oversimplifying it. It  is when what appears to be a single affect (healthcare  system needs reform) is determined by a gathering of causes over time, any of which alone might be enough but surely all of these causes have had an impact and are interdetermined too. In other words it is so complex that it appears a mess.  Okay, I tell my students, it is my job to teach you to “break it down” through teaching you to interrogate these “issues.” Iraq War. Okay, Global Warming. Okay, Human Trafficking. All these are global in idea and global problems that will indirectly if not directly affect the individual.  And, I am asking them “What is your position on this…?” And then I think about his Rosanne vs. Family Ties lesson, and yes, my students could relate, but am I spoon-feeding them? Could I get them to “critical literacy” through imaginative works because this Health Care discussion is just TOO HARD to facilitate (without me becoming pedantic, which would DEFEAT my purpose)? My thoughts are this: the economic reality of a long-lasting war, inadequate healthcare, undocumented workers, and high unemployment really seem too pressing on cultural changes to work through sitcoms. Isn’t the time now that they should be interrogating these issues? And, then I think about the 1996 date, and realize that the largest economic expansion was occurring and perhaps we could afford looking at television sitcom to mediate their experience.

Berlin quotes Smith who use Bartholomae and Petroskycourse design: “[P]ushing against habitual ways of thinking, learning to examine an issue from different angles, rejecting quick conclusions, seeing the power of understanding that comes from repeated effort, and feeling the pleasure writers take when they find their own place int he context of others whose work they admire” (166). gorgeous writing. gorgeous hope. Now, I would like to present these ideas but that takes some serious time as students dialogue these difference (Remember, I have two and one half hours with students a week.) In a democratic classroom–all get a hearing–and well, yes, we have rules, but not enough time to fairly hear as well as move into teaching writing. So I offer online submissions (more work for me) My classroom time is split between looking at their language with looking at the language of others. My other issue with making this happen in a freshmen composition class come in Berlin’s observation of Pitt’s then-forming English Studies program. He critiques, “It’s attention to multiple perspectives is conspicuously lacking in mention of the political conflict…”(169).  Although my students are ready to argue about the Iraq war and “stupid Bush” because it has been a part of the public discourse for so long, they are not ready to discuss health care. To be honest, I couldn’t even control the Iraq and Afganistan discourse in my classroom and shut it down. THe pathos were tooo high.  So we are debating health care on Friday, and to their defense, weeding through 190 pages isn’t “entertaining.”  (yes, I haven’t seen too many blockbuster films on healthcare lately). However, healthcare has a history filled with agendas, and I am attempting to show them how they are on somebody’s agenda rather than writing their own. Health care only seems to matter if one has a sick child or chronic illness. Yesterday on C-Span they featured one-minute arguments that I could use to teach rhetoric as it was traditionally used in a public forum. I like this “one-minute” so it is manageble in my classroom time. They act as little vignettes into argument.  What I like about Berlin is his use of Frier’s work in the classroom and his arguements for empowering the students. Berlin writes, “Without language to name our experience, we inevitably become instruments of the language of others” (110). I guess that is what I took away from college, especially as a non-trad, that what I had learned through experience or felt intuitively had a “name” and once I could name it, all those ideas were resorted in my memory. I felt, as Berlin posits, that understanding language and how to use it gave me agency. If I can pass this onto my students in the compressed time of 2.5 hours a week, or as I have said before, at least plant the idea that would make me feel like I was making a difference.