(No part of this reinterview may be published elsewhere without written permission from victor j. vitanza and
lynda haas.) --Full Copyright notice at end of each file, starting with haas1 file.
The PreText Conversations held a Re/In/View with Lynda Haas, beginning July, 1997. The subject of the reinvw is/was her article
"The Daughter's Seduction; or, Writing with the Rhetors,"
forthcoming in PRE/TEXT 15: 3-4.
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:09:50 -0400 I'm sure no comp class has had any effect whatsoever on anyone at ICI. Now sloppy sex, on the other hand, there's an idea we can get behind. ;) lynda
A proposition: Whether or not academic discourse has a direct political effect or not is, in part, a measure of the relationship between the "academic" the "pedagogical," the "journalistic," and the "popular." ("Political effect" is a change in discourse). One hurried example from Richard Feynman: Imagine that there is something called "physics." Imagine that in order to show the relationship between its axioms, physics becomes more and more dependent on mathematics--so much so that is is difficult, if not impossible, to teach the relationship among these axioms without mathematics. I would call this type of physics both "academic" and "pedagogical." But not every one is able to grasp the mathematics, so popular science books emerge (written principally by journalists with some training in academic science). There is also something called "science ficiton" which is informed by science, and there is something called "fantasy" which fulfills the promise of a future without mathematics, even if that "future" is in the "past." Teachers of physics become very worried that students are not getting the education they need in science because they are scared by the math. For a time, there is a movement called the "New Math" which attempts to reduce all mathematical relations to the manipulation of objects and groups of objects. The "New Math" is a failure (as Russell and Whitehead would have predicted), so teachers bring science fiction into the classroom to get students excited about physics. _____So, what does Feynman's little story about physics tell us about rhet/comp? As the discourses of instruction become more like the discourses of investigation, a popular market for what we do will form. Academic discourse (instruction/investigation) will then be asked to respond to the evidentiary constraints of the popular. Why? Knowledge has to mean something. This is a simple little story, but it is, I think, the little story of Euro-centric disciplinarity. We might add to Foucault's *Order* the following: the separation of medievalism from medieval studies (via the dependence of medieval studies on philology), the Annales School's interest in texts/source books for history classes/the history book club. _______And for rhet/comp? There are, I think, a number of interesting threads to follow or disciplinary moments to map: . . .for example, the acceptance by many in the field that philological training is not necessary for those wishing to do histories of rhetoric. ________So, does this acceptance collapse the instructional and the investigatory into the journalistic? ---Are textbooks rhet/comps' journalism? ______Does the use of ethnography as both a mode of investigation and a mode of instruction leave some portion of journalism's space untouched by our inquiries? (see, for example, Chiseri-Strater and Sunstein's *FieldWorking: Reading and Writing Research*) Here's to an interesting discussion so far! David Metzger
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Haas, Lynda G. (EXCH) wrote:
"get behind"! an idea! yes, yes, yes!
metaleptically, vv
Susan Miller said:
As much as I would like to believe in the relevance of academic discourse
to the "real world," I do think there is a simpler way to explain those
phenomena Susan points out.
Quite simply, the "real world" no longer believes that the "academic world"
is a world set apart from the regular day-to-day tussle of the capitalist
marketplace. In the current "real world" marketplace, NO ONE has job
security. Union members started finding that out in the late seventies and
early eighties. In the nineties, middle-level managers began learning that
they, too, are expendable. One could even go so far as to say that lately
those who thought they were members of the bourgeoisie, have learned that
they, too, like the "blue collar" workers they supervised, are proletariats.
It seems to me that the attack on tenure via "temporary" appointments is
simply an extension of the same "movement" (or, perhaps, "post-cold-war"
discovery): academics are proletariats as well. As such, we are no more
entitled to job security than any of our "working class" peers.
I suspect that any overt attack on what actually is said via academic
discourse and/or in the name of the university is merely an emotional appeal
(in the old-time rhetorical sense) to the working class that could be
translated as: "they talk nonsense, but they think they're better than you,
even though you pay their salaries."
Some 40 years ago, Richard Weaver made a similar observation concerning the
discourse of social science, i.e., that the expression of soical science is
affected by a caste spirit, which leads him to the discovery of a paradox:
" The fact that social scientists are, in general, dedicated to the removal
of caste, or at least to a refutation of caste presumptions, unfortunately
does not prevent their becoming a caste. Circumstances exist all the while
to make them an *elite*."
The problem now, however, is that, no matter how much those who believe in
the power of (academic) discourse may be said to be likewise bound to this
paradox, it is difficult to get around the fact that the rest of the "real
world" places neither the same amount of emphasis on the power of language,
nor does it place emphasis on language in quite the same way as academics
do. So as much as circumstances would make us appear to be "elite" in terms
of language usage (and surely I don't have to cite from the plethora of
complaints concerning our students and their apparent lacks of facility with
language (especially academic discourse) to support that such elitist
attitudes exist), "language usage" is simply not a category by which the
"real world" measures the value and/or threat of "workers" to the rest of
society.
lWhy?nda wites it plain:
There are two things I want to say while waiting for a third:
1. *academic discourse is for academics not for the rest of the world.*
Unless one would use academic discourse to be a comedian! I would never
engage, unless prompted to, in academic discourse with nonacademics. I
spend a lot of time with nonacademics and we generally do not have problems
communcating once they see I can speak with them and share many of the same
values and can make fun at what I do.
Basically, I have built my career on attacking and making phun of the
conventions of academic discourse and all things academic (programs,
convention papers, journals, etc.). So you see ... I need academic
discourse! It has much value for me.
This first point bores me, so I will move on to ...
2. *soceity is [should be] a function of education.*
Sometimes, questions drive me up the wall. I really do not like questions
and will work and play hard, in many cases, to open them up, turn them
every which way, casuistically stretch them, etc., so as to Xpose them.
My sense is ... that your ... no, the people's question ... is twisted
around in such a way that the answer to your question concerning *value* is
... there ain't much good in academic writing, except for a lot of silly
economic reasons that I will not go into, for I want to put a different
twist on your--the world's--question.
If we look at this commonplace question that you ask, we can see that it is
predicated ... am I being academic and plain enough in saying all this in
this manner!! ... it is predicated on the assumption that *education and
writing and criticism, etc., are a function of society* ... and these
'things' ... more often than not ... are dictated by society!
However, for us ... some of us ... to answer your question, we would have
to assume the reverse (I like to turn things around or upside down and
have a look at them, etc.), which is that *society (-ties) are a function
of education and writing and criticism, etc.* (Please, for a second, set
aside what gasps you might be making right now, given the fact that I have
made this forever stupid statement!)
When Susan made her reference to Linda (Brodkey), Susan was giving us an
excellent example of an event (the UTX, Austin event) that at that time and
still today raises the *question of function* for us. The struggle is an
ancient one. It is not simply an event in the 5th century Athenian world.
Nor is it simply an event in the 1960s. It's historical, to be sure, but it
is also constant in human interactions. (In a postmodern world, of course,
it can be said that all is a *function* [in a slightly different sense of
the word] and there ain't anything else.)
The provisional issue for me is to subvert the status quo, that is, to stir
it up and around several times and so as to see what had fallen to the
bottom or got lost from view. In my saying this, I have said what has been
said many times, but gets lost and, when remembered, is not liked or
appreciated very much. It's an old(e) issue and a dangerous one. It does
assume, or at least it has assumed, that the stirring in some way or other
is liberating in some serious, real way. Some enlightenment, modernist way.
I don't think so any more. (You can stop gasping now!) If not, then, does
the "not" suggest that academics (-icks) have no value in the social
economy? Many might think so, but then again, they are judging on the basis
of 'our' being a function of them and our value should be determined by
their notions of value. I remain as much a nostalgic modernists in that I
will fight against 'their notions of value' while I will continue to fight
and struggle against academics's notions of value. Placing 'value' in
question, by a person who hates questions, interrogating, is the way to
go. But ...
It's a dangerous game.
At best, I would 'hope' that the struggle between the two (society and
academics, town and gown) will continue until both realize that, as I said
earlier, neither is of any value whatsoever, and especially neither is dictating to or influencing the other. Perhaps at that time ... with an
'accomplished nihilism' at hand ... yea, now what the fork does that
phrase mean!? ... vv's done gone academik on us, etc. ... with an
accomplished nihilism at hand, we can get to the most dangerous, but
necessary issues of revaluing value. Which is what I am most 'interested'
in.
It's an old(e) issue (your question raises) and a dangerous one.
Given the way that many human being are, all that is necessary to get
yourself killed is to wear glasses in public or even in private. Glasses
... the sign of the educated, the intellectuals, academics, etc. The
Killing Fields are not that far away. But notice how this last example
might strike a sentimental tone! perhaps in the ears or eyes of some
readers....
How can or could one justify (part of your question, justification) such
an allusion of an example ... today?
rotciv
What good is academic discourse?
Well, I was going to sit on my hands until I finished reading Lynda's
article (it's been enjoyable to read and read about so far, though I'm
teaching two classes right now, so have been a bit of a busy camper
lately...), but I wanted to toss in (off?) two quick answers:
First off, this question is why (in part, at least) I see myself as a
full-time teacher and part-time philosopher, theorist, scholar, creator of
academic discourse. It's also one of the reasons why I'm quite pleased to
be involved in comp/rhet: I cannot think of another academic discipline in
which the scholarship is so connected to the practice (and praxis) of
teaching writing to students at all levels. After all, teaching is the
explicit reasons behind Covino's, Neel's, and Jarratt's scholarly
activities, and (though I'm not done reading it yet) I think it's clear
it's the reason behind Haas' article that we're discussing. In other
words, part of the answer to the question about the "good" of academic
discourse is it perpetuates (sp?) and supports the "good" academic practice
of teaching. And when I bring it back to that level to non-academic types,
even the most right-wing, "cut off all the funding and sort 'em out later"
Oregonian usually admits that it is important to foster good teaching at
the college level. They still don't want to fund it (Oregonians aren't
into supporting programs that benefit the public in general), but I think
that part of the reason is because we academic scholars/teachers haven't
done a good enough job at convincing the public of the importance of the
connection between the sort of discourses we have here and in journals,
books, conferences, etc., and our teaching.
The second answer to to the question for me is "compared to what?"
I finished my master's degree (actually, my MFA in fiction writing) when I
was 24, and I decided I needed to get a taste of this mythical place I kept
hearing about, the "real world" (usually in phrases preceeded with a deep
sigh, "wait until you get in the _real world_"). So I was an office temp
in Richmond, VA, and then a PR rep for a large state agency that dealt with
student loans for about 3 years. For PR job, I did a lot of research and
writing about the complex rules and regulations that govern who can and
can't borrow money to go to college, how much they can get, etc. I wrote a
newsletter that informed schools and banks about these rules and other
issues in the student loan biz. I did desktop-publishing for all sorts of
different things, went to lots of meetings, met lots of people. I had a
felt-lined cube just like Dilbert, I showed up by 8 and left by 5 with an
hour lunch, I was expected to wear a tie, and I had numerous conversations
with my fellow office workers about the same topics: TV, movies, home
decor, food, and vacations, occassionally children and spouses. In other
words, even though it was a state job, I think I was pretty much indeed in
the "real world."
I was bored silly.
Only a few people I worked with really seemed to care about what it was
they did; rather, what they cared about were the things they talked about:
TV, movies, home decor, food, and vacations, occasionally children and
spouses. The things I wrote were unreadable and boring, and much of my
time (and I think many of my colleagues) was spent sitting around waiting
for 5 o'clock. Now, I realize that not all of the "real world" of 9 to 5
sorta office work is like this and I don't rule out the possibility of
someday once again working in a non-academic setting (never say never, as
the saying goes). But for me, the sort of practices and discourses
associated with the non-academic "real world" are by and large irrelevant.
I'm happy there are people who do these things, just as I am happy that
there are people who actually like the idea of selling insurance or being
lawyers. But I'm also happy that I don't do these things. I'm quite
pleased to be an overworked and underpaid college professor, to teach and
to write, because it's what I like to do and because I think it allows my
existance to mean more to me and others than it would if I were still
pushing papers is some office.
So, when someone seriously asks me the question about the relevance of
discourse practices, I usually begin with the first part of this-- it's
tied to my teaching-- and then follow up with the second part of this-- the
"real world" didn't seem very "relevant" to me. Why is it relevant to you?
--Steve
Although town and gown is an old issue, I'm not certain that it's
quite as old as Victor suggests. Certainly, the question of whether
or not teachers should be paid is a concern that cuts across many
historical moments--from Plato's "ten cents a dance" critique to
Adam Smith's fear that teachers would become "bone idle" if they were
given rank and privilege. But the promise of "universal-well-not-
really-education" is a modern dream involving the condemnation of
religious culture as anti-social and the necessity for "popular
science" as well as the separation of the discourse of philosophy and
the discourse of science. Smith predicts this in *The Wealth of
Nations*: "The first of those remedies (for anti-social religious
practices) is the study of science and philosophy, which the state
might render almost universal among ALL PEOPLE of middling or more
than middling rank and fortune; not by giving salaries to teachers in
order to make them negligent and idle, but by insituting some sort of
probation, even in the higher and more difficult sciences, to be
undergone by every person before HE be received as a candidate for
any honoourable office of trust or profit. If the state imposed
upon this order of men the necessity of learning, it would have no
occasion to give itself any trouble about providing them with proper
teachers. They would soon find better teachers for themselves than
any whom the state could provide for them. Science is the great
antitdote to the poison of enthusiasm and supersittion; and where all
the superior ranks of people were secured from it, the inferior ranks
could not be much exposed to it."
______This isn't to say that town and gown isn't an old
issue. But is it possible that, by focusing on the classical, a person
might fail to address the politics of classicism (one form of which
is capitalism)? Would this failure be "academic"?
David
my collig writes:
VVho cares how olde it is? It's all virtual anyway! If I were to buy a car
in order to go to town where-ing my cap and gown, I might care how olde
the car is.
VVhen I went to Warsaw, I was told that everything that we were looking at
was as olde as its post-war reconstruction. As far as I know Warsaw is an
annex of Disney Corporation.
I asked, before my post, my son Roman (who is 3years old) how old the town
and gown conflict was (Roman watches a lot of public television, i.e.,
pbs) and he thought a while and said. . . "The T&G conflict is as olde, if
not older, than Barney and BabyBop!"
But, as I said, I think that there is hope for we-a-cad-emicks. My wife
showed me a newspaper story the other day about a retirement home strickly
for academics. It's attached to UofAZ. Perhaps 'we' should all retire
there and continue what we do do best!?
rotcivvie
Let me second and third and fourth VV's response to Metzger's longish
post:
Who cares that . . .although town and gown is an old issue, I'm not
certain that it's quite as old as Victor suggests?
Who cares that. . .certainly, the question of whether
or not teachers should be paid is a concern that cuts across many
historical moments--from Plato's "ten cents a dance" critique to
Adam Smith's fear that teachers would become "bone idle" if they were
given rank and privilege?
Who cares that the promise of "universal-well-not-
really-education" is a modern dream involving the condemnation of
religious culture as anti-social and the necessity for "popular
science" as well as the separation of the discourse of philosophy and
the discourse of science?
Who cares that Smith predicts this in *The Wealth of
Nations*?
Who cares that "The first of those remedies (for anti-social religious
practices) is the study of science and philosophy, which the state
might render almost universal among ALL PEOPLE of middling or more
than middling rank and fortune; not by giving salaries to teachers in
order to make them negligent and idle, but by insituting some sort of
probation, even in the higher and more difficult sciences, to be
undergone by every person before HE be received as a candidate for
any honoourable office of trust or profit. If the state imposed
upon this order of men the necessity of learning, it would have no
occasion to give itself any trouble about providing them with proper
teachers. They would soon find better teachers for themselves than
any whom the state could provide for them. Science is the great
antitdote to the poison of enthusiasm and supersittion; and where all
the superior ranks of people were secured from it, the inferior ranks
could not be much exposed to it"?
Who cares that. . . it may be possible that, by focusing on the
classical, a person might fail to address the politics of classicism
(one form of which is capitalism)?
Who cares that. . . this failure be "academic"?
PShaw said:
The problem now, however, is that, no matter how much those who believe in
the power of (academic) discourse may be said to be likewise bound to this
paradox, it is difficult to get around the fact that the rest of the "real
world" places neither the same amount of emphasis on the power of language,
nor does it place emphasis on language in quite the same way as academics
do.
and then said:
"language usage" is simply not a category by which the
"real world" measures the value and/or threat of "workers" to the rest of
society.
And as a rhetorician, I find such statements fascinating. With the obscene
amount of advertising cramming every available time/space, with the obsessive
amounts of lawsuits and litigations, with the ridiculous amount of time I
spend xeroxing and filing information, with the absurd number of hours we
spend in this new cyber-(hyper?)reality, with the careful but determined
elimination of my rights as a worker in a work place to protected speech,
with inflationary demands on educational background qualifications of
workers, I don't think these PShaw's assertions can hold up to scrutiny.
Perhaps, also as a rhetorician, one can discern the presence and value of
certain forms of language uses over another, and note the contexts in which
these forms (styles) take place. In which case, perhaps what PShaw means is
that a particular kind of academic (theory) speech/composition doesn't find
entry into corporations, media, factories, etc.? But isn't this different
from saying "real world places neither the *same amount* of emphasis on the
power of language, nor does it place emphasis on language *in quite the same
way* as academics do"?
-TheVoidBoy
Rule number 2, VV, is "never wear glasses during sex, sloppy or
otherwise."
Rule number 3 is "rule 2 is one of the most valuable things people learn
in college and it has nothing to do with rhetoric, pedagogy, or
communications (at least theoretically)."
And rule number 4 is "always park in the shade." (again, no relevance,
but extremely useful advice. thank you, Carl H.)
I suspect that another aspect of Lynda's discomfort is the apparent
absence of a connection between what we read and write about in
composition and action. Many people have written about this absence so
I don't think I really need to summarize the discussion. If you teach
differently that's a kind of action, sure, but as RC people do we really
make/take an appropriate kind of public action when we carry out our
activities so far, far away from "typical" language communities (town!).
That's one of the critical differences between the production and
analysis of language in the corporation and that going on in academe.
In the corporate world, you are closer to the action, and you must be
more attentive to information you have about your audiences. Your
language is either 1. part of an on-going debate or 2. filed. Old
language (reports, etc.) goes away to make room for new, because our
action seems to maintain our place in the market. (exactly whose
action is doing the maintenance isn't always exactly clear.)
Now you can read the above paragraph and say "that's exactly like
academe." Response: No, it isn't. At least not in the US. We rarely
have opportunities to act out our debates and the results of those
debates outside of our academic relationships. The ripple theory
doesn't hold water (ahem) particularly in light of events like that at
UT. In fact, the UT affair seems now like a lost opportunity for
compositionists to act by using the press attention (and all our
so-called advanced rhetorical know-how) to grow consensus for certain
kinds of critical pedagogy and critical literacy. (People have died for
critical literacy--it's just so like us to even use the UT affair as an
example of "bad stuff that could happen.")
What I'm saying is that academic discourse has its place--we must build
theory, debate with one another, refine ideas continually. "Ideas are
the best thing going." (to badly quote David Lynch) But if those ideas
aren't coupled with action, they are merely "academic." Maybe this is
something like what's bugging Lynda. Maybe she'll slap some antiquity
around it for us.
Rule number 1 is "never use those supposed-to-clever rhetorical tricks
like leaving the most important rule to the end. It really pisses
people off. "
L
|
(Copyright. 1997. PRE/TEXT. Victor J. Vitanza, the Publisher/Editor, and Lynda Haas, the author. All rights reserved. Anyone should feel free, however, to link to this page for educational purposes, but do not publish otherwise in part or whole without prior written consent from copyright holders. You may also establish a link to this or any REINVW discussion.)
To Part 6, Haas Reinvw
To Part 1, Haas Reinvw
To Part 2, Haas Reinvw
To Part 3, Haas Reinvw
To Part 4, Haas Reinvw,
To REINVW Archives
To PRE/TEXT List