Lately I've been considering a change in specialization to rhetoric and composition. I'm not exactly sure what my specialization was before – Ecocriticism? SF? Posthumanism? None of these seem like especially attractive or coherent sub-fields within the English department. My work with sustainability at FGCU was less concerned with “ecocritical” concerns (as they might constitute an academic discourse) and more about institutional and educational practice. SF is problematic as it's not often recognized as "literature." It also doesn't have the institutional legitimacy of other bodies of cultural texts, such as nineteenth or twentieth-century British literature, for example. In other words, there isn't a clear and secure place for the study and teaching of SF within the English Department, and it would seem difficult to make a career as a scholar of SF. Posthumanism, as a developing sub-field within critical theory, is likewise on the margins of common professional practice, which isn't surprising given it's emergent, inchoate, and contested nature as a theoretical discourse. I’ve always felt as if I’ve been torn in a number of intellectual directions.
I feel as if I'm looking for a body of knowledge or a discourse, an area of sudy, through which to legitimize and bring together my intellectual interests. I acknowledge that this is problematic, this desire for legitimacy and coherence, but it seems like an unavoidable necessity as an academic Subject first, and a posthuman Subject second. Furthermore, without being too much of a mercenary, I would like to think the learning and intellectual output that I undertake in graduate school will result in a job; the theorization, teaching, and practice of writing seem to have a more definite place within the university than the theorization and study of SF or posthumanism (for their own sake).
Part of what sparks my interest in rhetoric and composition, however, is that it seems like my theoretical and literary interests could be accommodated within the discourse of rhetoric and composition. For example, SF has its own rhetoric. As writing, part of what SF does it ask us to reflect on the techno-human relationship and its future possibilities (including possible configurations of the trans and posthuman). SF defamiliarizes aspects of science and technology as a way of confronting us with the need to consider what we value and in what ethical regard we should view techno-scientific development. SF makes arguments. SF mediates between techno-culture and popular culture. SF also demands of its readers a certain "scientific literacy," and I would like to think more about the role of SF in educating, or miseducating, the public about the consequences of technological and scientific advance.
I like the prospect of re-engaging with pedagogy, as well. How does SF posthumanism connect with teaching? Most of the courses that I have taught are in rhetoric and composition – and, not having earned a fellowship, it’s likely I’ll be teaching a lot more for the UWP. Thus, it only makes sense to take advantage of the experience teaching rhetoric and writing, to connect it more fully with my scholarly interests.
We'll talk about this in an hour or so, but I figure writing my thoughts out first will help our discussion to become more focused.
ReplyDeleteFirst, as Sid will tell you, the broad 'field' of rhetoric and composition does not have to necessarily relate directly to pedagogical practices. As you have probably seen, Sid is constantly discussing "writing" more in the sense of trace or inscription a la Derrida than writing in the narrow sense (and as 'visual rhetoric').
Of course, this does not take into account his extensive work and interest in technical communication. My own interest in rhet/comp came partly from Raul's class and partly from teaching -- and enjoying that teaching -- technical communication. Despite my thorough enjoyment with literature, I have never been much for one particular period or geographical territory -- or genre for that matter. My tech comm endeavors have taken a back seat to my research interest in the intersection of visual rhetoric, media studies, contemporary art, and theory. I would say that my experience in Greg's class plus Visual rhetoric class with Sid was what made me so fascinated with this. Initially, I wanted to find a way to talk about technical communication's relevance to contemporary art groups, but the tech comm context fell by the wayside as we got into Posthumanism.
What I mean to say by this is that it seems like rhet/comp becomes a catchall term for anything outside the study of literature, film, or "pop culture' as a text. But I feel like there are almost realms that fold into each other (and these will all be easily deconstructed by anyone knowing more about this than I do)
1.) Pedagogy/First Year writing
2.) Digital Humanities (I still don't quite understand what this is)
3.) 'New' Media
4.) Technical/Professional Communication
I don't think I can easily construct a genus/species relationship for any one of these terms nor do I think that this list exhausts focuses.
I guess my point is that when I say I specialize in "rhetoric and composition" I feel like I can't even explain what I mean by that. The specialization almost has to be more definitive than that. . .
Let's not even mention "video game studies" -- Where is that in the conversation? Jordan, for instance, is working on video games almost as a 'text' -- Kyle is working on video games as an opening onto theoretical discourse -- Melissa has worked on a video game in terms of visual rhetoric in her thesis.