Readings III

In the Cushman and Monberg article, the authors argue for people to understand that authority is something that is negotiated and renegotiated in different social contexts, that it is not something that simple arises because a speaker happens to be from (or is perceived to be from) a dominant class or culture. The authors posit that authority is "actively negotiated" through "reflexive identification" and social positioning and repositioning. In other words, say the authors, instead of speakers assuming or asserting their right to authority, they must examine their identity against the identities of those with whom they engage in conversation, and speakers must discover how they fit in with the differences rather than attempt to erase different and promote Othering. Positioning and repositioning oneself in society within contexts and conversations is an active pursuit because social identity is a very complex thing--a multi-layered and multi-dimensional thing where not all sides show at once; speakers must understand this in order to be able to actively construct and reconstruct their negotiated authority.
This article compares nicely with the Vandenberg article; Vandenberg argues that research and teaching are basically mutually exclusive activity, that a person who does one cannot do the other. This was such an interesting read because it seems to be such a catch 22: the newer writing teachers are hired and promised the means to advance their careers through research and publication, but, because they must teach, they are unable to devote much time to conducting research, let alone publication, and so they do not advance; the writing teachers do not attain power in academia. Meanwhile, the permanent faculty, who do not have to teach because they have the newer teachers to do it for them, are able to conduct research, and publish, and thus maintain their power. There is no negotiating of power; the newer teachers accept their positions and their duties despite the fact that they cannot really get ahead. And, if teachers get the opportunity to research and publish, they are, in effect, condoning the practice of advancing at the expense of those without power. Where I think the articles intersect is that socially, as Vandenberg says, this hierarchical set-up and behavior in academia are condoned. What needs to happen is that those in academia with power need to engage in reflexive identification, so they can see where they differ with new academics and non-academics, and be able to cooperate more effectively without the Othering. I have no idea how this might come about, but I do see the connection between the articles' arguments.

Robbins, Rose and Lauer

Robbins’ The Scholar in Society

Robbins was pretty redundant and paranoid-sounding to me—dismal, Malthusian-like social descriptors of teachers of humanities having to legitimize themselves and their value and relevance in society; he said a lot about the contrasting and overlapping between the aesthetic, social, cultural, and rhetorical. I did appreciate his stating, “Students in humanities demand, quite rightly, to be inspired. They want a demonstration that the mountain of material before them is …worth studying because it is significant (317). I do firmly believe this for students of all ages: my eighth graders need to be shown the significance and the value of the texts we study before they will engage in any critical reading, just as undergraduates need to know the relevance and significance of their liberal arts education, specifically in the humanities, before they will begin to critically read without reluctance and resistance.
Robbins goes on to say, “Teachers stand up for something they believe, attesting by their investment of time, energy, and emotion that to them, personally, the subject matter matters” (317). I agree with this statement as well, but that teachers need to go beyond expressing, however emphatically, that they love their discipline; teachers need to show how and why their discipline is significant so their students can see the discipline does matter in society, and does have real-world relevance to people in society, not just to teachers and students of that specific discipline.

Rose’s and Lauer’s Feminist Methodology Dilemmas for Graduate Researchers

In the Rose and Lauer article, the authors discuss problems for using feminist methodology in conducting composition research. I really appreciated their defining of their own positions and how their problems with employing a feminist methodology were consistent with the overall argument of their essay (139). At first, I was not sure where they were going with it, but as I read on, I could see the significance of their positions, and then when the authors explicitly announced their reasoning for including their elaborations, I understood even more clearly. Another thing I appreciated was their Reinhartz description of feminist methodologies (140-1) and how to use those methodologies across disciplines in order to achieve the goal of feminist research, which is “ ‘unalienated knowledge’ ” (141). This point about unalienated knowledge reminded me of the Robbins article, and what I think is an overlap between the two articles, that Robbins was arguing for humanists to defend their value and relevance across society and across disciplines for the sake of society’s knowing the significance and relevance of humanities and how it is intertwined with politics, culture, and aesthetics, and that Rose and Lauer argue for similar affirmation of feminist methodologies in composition research.

Introductions ENG 609

My name is Kathryn. I am a graduate and single-subject credential student at CSUSB. I have been teaching secondary English since 2001, and recently decided to get a credential. I'm unhappy with the credential program; in fact, thoroughly disgusted is a better way to put it. Currently I teach eighth grade English in Rialto Unified School District. I am really enjoying this group of students, but I would rather be teaching high school English. I am looking into that for the next school year. And, I have been a graduate student since 2002; once I complete my MA, I plan to pursue a Ph.D in English, as well.  Then, I will be "Dr. Cure." Isn't that awesome? I am not sure why I have made graduate school a long term plan, because I finished my undergraduate work--a BA, English, minor, film, minor, economics--in just three years. First graduating class of the century! Anyway...

I live in Rancho Cucamonga with my fiance, Sam, and our three furry kitty-children.  We are child-free for now but we would like a family in the future. We love to write: he is into screenwriting and webisodic series while I am into short stories and one novel that I think I will finish next year (it's six years in the making, but it's close to done). I love to read; it's like a little movie in my mind that plays out as I go through the story, and I have to mark up all texts, even my own personal leisure-reads. My other passions are modeling and singing--I just love to be in front of the camera, and I would like to get back into singing more regularly, too.

As far as research goes, I am interested in American literature, gender and identity. Specifically, twentieth century Southern authors like Faulkner and his Caddies and Quentins.  I am not sure why I have this particular interest; I have just always been drawn to Faulkner. I am not very focused, but I trust I will become more focused as the quarter unfolds.

Pleased to meet everyone; I am sorry I am a little late in posting, but I had surgery last Tuesday. I will not say I am under the influence of Vicodin; I will save that disclaimer for later. Thank you for reading.