Reflecting on the various readings we have had thus far, it appears to me that English is suffering from quite the identity crisis. The reflections in my last blog post led me to the conclusion of English as a varied, ever evolving subject with a long path still yet to be much travelled. Our newest readings have further convinced me of this, but also have given way to some new insights into the complexity of the study of composition as a serious scholarly field. I, once again, turn to an essay by Janice M Lauer that led me to these intriguing insights; with some key points coming from the first chapter of the book A Teaching Subject by Joseph Harris.
After reading Lauer’s essay, “The Feminization of Rhetoric and Composition Studies?”, I contemplated essentially the same questions as that of the essay – What does that mean, and has it happened? This lead me to asking myself – Have I considered composition, or English in general to be a feminine subject? Well, my last post seemed to convey a sense of it being an often changing subject that covers a wide range of information, and to me it has always been a very personal effort that very much releases “unexplored resources and transformative powers” (Lauer 546). Those are some of the very “feminine traits” Lauer herself uses in the essay (546). However, I have also grown up with the idea instilled in me that science was a male dominated world. The information Lauer provides about the development of English as a “scholarly field” that was striving to be recognized as a “science” through the efforts of those, who were mostly male, also leads me to see the series of battles that have gone on throughout the composition community. Arguments, debates, and those striving for recognition or to be in the spotlight are all traits I, personally, would ascribe as masculine. I am left unable to decide if English would prefer pink or blue.
The chapter by Joseph Harris did not do much to lead me to a conclusion about the sex of composition or English studies. The five “key words” that Harris lays out in the foreword of his book immediately made me think once again of conflicting sexes (ix). Growth and community seem to me undoubtedly feminine, which with the traits outlined in her essay and the brief but decisive discussion of a “fecund” influence in scholarship I believe Lauer would agree (545). Yet, Harris also list process, a word to me that lends to the scientific and scholarly research involved in the field. Voice, to me could go either way, though I am reminded that those who most vehemently sought to have their ideas expressed as the ideal conclusions of the Dartmouth Seminar were all male (1). Error, the fifth word Harris focuses on, I would also ascribe as a somewhat masculine trait, jokingly and in seriousness as the scientific approach to English in regards to grammar and structure. As well as the many conflicts and arguments Harris discusses as happening between scholars at various seminars. However, I learned all these scientific rules of English throughout grade school via a pedagogy known as The Shurley Method. Perhaps it is the name or just the images of all my female teachers having us break down each sentence word by word labeling each part of speech that leaves an indelible impression on my mind and a feminized feel to the idea of error in English.
So it seems I still struggle to see if I identify English as a concrete and masculine field, or as more complex and feminized one. What I am coming more and more to identify English as seems to be a hermaphrodite of many different subject fields falling under one umbrella and connecting with us via two of our most important tools- language and knowledge.
Harris, Joseph. “Growth.” A Teaching Subject, 1-22.
Lauer, Janice. “The Feminization of Rhetoric and Composition.” Handout. 520-533.
No comments:
Post a Comment