From my Nov. 9, 2006 presentation on constructed universals

“In English studies, we all strive to promote critical consciousness, but what we mean by critical consciousness and how we strive toward fostering it varies considerably from scholar to scholar. We use our concentrations to categorize ourselves, to tag ourselves, to align ourselves ideologically, but our concentrations never fully define us, our convictions, or our rabbit holes. Even our favorite theorists, those professors whom we are most likely to want to be Xerox copies of, can never fully represent us. We are fragmented and our representatives–our favorite theorists, concentrations, theories, methodologies, and ideals–can never be substitutes for ourselves. No one will speak for us without mediation; we must speak for ourselves.”

 

For scholars who can’t afford to get sick

It’s day 5 of my cold—and I’ve just started to utilize the search engine to restore my health.

Why is the search engine so important in resolving health issues?

WebMd can only do so much; it’s the default website I go to when I have a health concern or question. But, as this cold has made me realize, I don’t take the research approach to treating or preventing disease. Which approach do I take?

I rely on past experience and on word-of-mouth advice; this, in itself, does not prove to be an entirely bad idea. After all, I have gotten over bad colds before–and that usually has to do with my taking someone else’s experiential advice (medications are not fail-proof, after all). But medicine is theoretical; it is not an exact science. And as much as we might like to deny it, medical knowledge is not much more advanced than our knowledge of nutrition–which proves to be a problem when you’re not having a good physiological moment.

But after having a cold for a few days, I’ve discovered that I’m pretty eager to become a researcher—even if I am researching outside of an area of expertise. I’ve used my research skills to analyze the problem, look for a cure, and find ways to change my health habits so that I can prevent this from happening again.

Here’s my self diagnosis:

*I’ve had persistent allergies throughout the summer, but I haven’t done too much to alleviate them. That’s my first mistake. I also didn’t realize that I could alleviate them by changing my dietary habits.

*Because I eat a lot of dairy, I was aggravating my sinuses. I also stayed away from fruit this summer because I didn’t want to be attacked by various insects. I stayed away from spicy foods because it irritates my skin. (Note: I love spicy food).

*I was under a lot of unexpected stress during the month of July (not my fault; it was circumstantial).

*All of this led to my cold. Everyone tells you about the” no dairy” rule. But what’s less well known is the “eat a lot of fruit” rule and the “eat a lot of spicy food” rule. Why do that?

*It all comes down to the pH scale. The pH scale goes from 0-14. O=completely acidic, 7=neutral, 14=basic. Our bodies prefer an overall pH of 7. Therefore, water (which is neutral) is a very good choice. But when our bodies have a lot of acid or a lot of base, water isn’t necessarily the best cure.

*Why do spicy foods help to alleviate a cold? Because they’re so acidic and our bodies are very basic when we have colds. Spicy foods drain sinuses.

*The lesson? When my allergies kick up, I’ll eat spicier food and vice versa. It does seem that it’s a matter of balancing the food I eat, but not just from a five food groups perspective. We are, after all, chemical beings. Perhaps those 40 credits of science courses aren’t completely going to waste.

 

“What’s Next??”

In the frosh composition course I’m teaching this summer, I’ve been letting my students get to know the history of composition. We’ve been talking about literacy practices and education, particularly how certain discourses are privileged over others; of course, because composition is the “gatekeeping” profession, I wanted to make my students aware of the historicity of beliefs and practices in the composition classroom.

The timeline:

*Pre-Gutenberg Printing Press

*Immediately After Gutenberg Press

*The birth of the composition class

*Static Abstractions

*Berlin’s article on rhetoric and ideology in the composition classroom

I breezed through the early days of education into the early 19th century. But I spent a little bit of time discussing (in general) different strains of thought in composition—in particular time eras—and how that created certain (familiar-to-them) practices. They found this part of my lecture quite interesting (and amusing—particularly when I talked about 1980s ideas about computers and writing).

But I wasn’t prepared for one question at the end of my explanation of Berlin’s rhetorics:

“What’s next?”

The question was genuine and asked quite eagerly. I was somewhat dumbfounded. Of course, there is always what is next. But what will that next rhetoric be that shapes composition? We are very much still in the social-epistemic. That isn’t to say that we’ve left previous rhetorics behind. But what is beyond the social-epistemic? I had to admit that I didn’t know: perhaps I hadn’t read the right book just yet.

Perhaps that’s what excites me so much about working in comp/rhet: I don’t know the answers and I don’t know what’s coming next. But just to know that the rules are always arbitrary is exhilarating.

Did I mention that my students are quite amazing this semester?