« Just how clueless can one blogger be? | Main | File sharing »
March 11, 2005
Restored post: Self-antifoundationalism
Just before I hit the autodestruct button on my blog last night, I put up a post that Samantha and Donna (and perhaps others) wanted to respond to. It's a post that I'd like to continue the conversation on, so here it is again—and in this restored version, people can comment on it:
Samantha emailed me her response:In class today E made the mistake of remarking on the elision of African Americans in histories of composition. Hence my class was treated to a fine example of just how antifoundationalist I am: I don't even regard my own syllabus as sacrosanct. (And what more sacred artifact could a teacher possibly worship?) So, pushed over the precipice by E, I am succumbing to the temptation to lead the entire class into the intellectual morass in which I find myself: trying to contextualize the rise of composition in the socioeconomic conditions of the U.S. We're going to read Nell Irvin Painter, damn it. The labor history gets a little dry but is well worth the effort. And the juxtaposition of that raced labor history with the rise of composition is (from my perspective, anyhow) kinetic. Maybe one of my Esteemed Grad Students will decide to wade through my intellectual morass and do some serious scholarly inquiry into the question. (The dear hope of every grad school teacher, no doubt. But hey‚ C has taken up the historicizing of Porter Perrin, so lightning could strike again!)
It sounds like you need the book project that I recently finished. Now if you can just hold off until I can get it published everything will be good. My project looks at histories of writing instruction for AAs from the beginning of HBCUs to present. I think it's a great book, but I'm a little biased. That's worse than saying "My mother says I'm cute"!Here's Donna's response—though hilariously, her platform won't let me respond to it! So I'll respond here, to both Donna and Samantha: This is a question that completely energizes me (and Samantha, I can't wait to read your book; it sounds wonderful). Answering it completely overwhelms me. It requires more knowledge of U.S. social history from the period than I'm able to undertake solo, even though my partner is an historian. I'm thinking it's a project that requires some collaborative effort—between several compositionists, in a grad seminar, or something along that line. I'll unquestionably continue to noodle with it, and it's probably a good idea for me to present an updated version of it at next year's C's. But I doubt that I'll single-handedly be able to bring it to enough closure that it will become a solo-authored book. It needs to be, though. The erasure of race in the causal histories of comp studies is, in Certeau's terms, not an innocent one. As you can see when I juxtapose my scanty social history of U.S. race, ethnic, and class relations with my more extensive knowledge of comp history, I think there's quite a lot going on here. At the very least, it is intriguing. And I suspect that one might eventually be able to argue convincingly that the rise of comp studies is deeply implicated in those race, ethnic, and class relations, far beyond the obligatory nods to the Morrill Acts. Being able to stand behind that claim will, however, require a lot more research.
Posted by senioritis at March 11, 2005 12:09 PM
Comments
I guess my blog was mad at your blog.
The first chapter of my diss, which is now no longer a chapter of the renovated book, dealt with A S Hill's and Fred Newton Scott's mutual admiration for Herbert Spencer's _Philosophy of Style_. (Which is itself indebted not only to racialized discourse but also the newly emerging ideas of division of labor coming from the inventor of the first computer--Charles Babbage.) Both Miriam Brody and Kathryn Flannery mention the historical connection between Spencer and these (usually mutually exclusive) "fathers" of comp. But, to my mind, no one has really pointed out the racialism that gets passed on via Spencer: a racialism attached to theories of the "Anglo Saxon," that gets expressed in Scott's textbooks (in the form of innocent writing exercises that perpetuate racial stereotypes and the "science" of racialism).
So the forgotten vector of influence that comes by way of Spencer--social Darwinism and all--seems to be yet one more important symptom to examine.
This is really exciting work: even if too much for one person, to crack open the door/doors seems crucial.
Posted by: Donna at March 11, 2005 10:58 PM
I completely agree. Perhaps the reason the project seems so not-doable, so huge, is that it is so not done. I'll say to you what you said to me: I had no idea you were working on this, and I think it is completely fascinating. Having read Brody and Flannery, I too have been very curious about the Spencer-to-Scott connection and have collected their books at old-books stores but haven't taken it up myself. Any chance you'd be willing to share that diss chapter?
Posted by: senioritis at March 12, 2005 06:35 AM
I was thinking I would probably see you at Cs and could chat about this, but I think I'm gleaning that you aren't going to be at Cs--is that right? So I'll say that I would be happy to share some pieces of that chapter, but the chapter as a whole is something of a mess (which is one reason why it's no longer in the book). I presented two pieces at Cs at various times, so I could send those (as long as I can find them, and as long as you're interested).
Posted by: Donna at March 14, 2005 09:23 PM
Yes, I'm skipping Cs this year for health issues (or just because I have terrible judgment—I'm not sure which). So I won't get to see you or anybody else there! I'd love to read your Cs papers, please.
Posted by: senioritis at March 16, 2005 05:04 AM