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.