Yancey discusses the declining of the English departments around the country, and in my understanding, she meant that as a negative. Why then, do you think, she proposes that the future of composition involve teaching students "real world" applications of genres, and transferring mediums, all of which sound more like a media or communications class than an English class? Does she suppose we get rid of English all together, that composition move to a communications department, or that English just continue to evolve and adapt to this new meaning?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Kelsey,
DeleteI took Yauncey to be making the point that she felt English departments needed to teach real world applications of genres in order to stay relevant and to keep the larger world from thinking of English folk as obsolete. I personally feel that English-minded people would largely be responsible for preserving the conventions of writing even if English departments were to be absorbed into departments that were thought of as more worthwhile or valuable. Perhaps Digital Humanities might be the future of English departments, but I personally think we'll all be long dead before that ends up being the case.
Your question about Royster is something I was thinking while reading the piece. The anecdotes and examples were so relatable but couched in jargon heavy analysis. I think this was done very purposefully, and hints of this can be seen in quotes such as: "turning the light back on to myself … is the compelling reality that many communities in our nation need to be taken seriously" (615). She also alludes to "professional and personal integrity" on the same page while still maintaining the existence and importance of varying subject positions.
ReplyDeleteKelsey,
ReplyDeleteI really like that you point out the way that Royster's jargon is so intensely academic while she is clearly advocating against that very "voice" or mode of communication. I think you're really onto something that I hadn't considered. I think she could be doing it for a few reasons: 1) to speak to "her audience" and be aware of the rhetorical situation as outlined by Bitzer 2) to call out the problems of the system by using the system itself. Admittedly, I found this article very hard to follow, and I would wager to an extent that that is certainly her intent. I think what she also poses is the question of hierarchy, like, what's more important? The standards of "audience" and "situation" or the ability to broadly communicate an idea in the vernacular?
Hi Kelsey
ReplyDeleteI believe Royster's text is more theoretical than anything and she proposes a call for action to re-think theory, which in my opinion would justify her choice for a heavy jargon text.
Concerning Yancey, I believe that multi-modal courses and perspective in academia has become more and more common, so I do not think she meant to suggest getting rid of English all together, but walk towards multi-modality and inter-disciplinary courses.
Hi Kelsey,
ReplyDeleteI believe that Yancey's call to action was not to reorganize English departments elsewhere or to get rid of them but to understand the importance of how we can impact writing across contexts and move towards not only acknowledging but embracing these new genres so the field can champion its direction.