Scatterings on Comp Histories: Where are we going, Where have we been?

I have a lot going through my head tonight, and I know I won't get this into one single blog post. First off, the whole weekend was interrupted wireless service. Our router went out, so I haven't had a chance to blog since Friday. I must admit, that I've missed it! So I'm catching up now!

Tonight I've been reading blog posts from the 601 class, and I'll try to work on some gleanings plus some thoughts I've had as I've worked on this week's readings.

First, I've been thinking about the question I posted last week: "Why Harvard?" That question has been turned around in my mind to "Why not Howard University? Why not Oberlin? Why not the female academies that Holbrook might call our attention to" Well, the answer might be that Harvard is the "oldest" and most "prestigious" institution, they had the Boylston Chair of Rhetoric, and they had the long and illustrious history of testing/placing people into freshman English. Harvard is the "trendsetter," and other institutons follow suit. But Royster and Williams raise doubts about that. Were HBCUs imitating Harvard? Were co-educational institutions like Oberlin imitating Harvard? Maybe in some ways, but probably not as much as one might think, given the "Harvard-centric" model of our composition histories These instituions had specific missions tied to their student populations, to their pursuit of certain models of education, and to their affiliations with particular kinds of civic literacies. So we have a serious "primacy" flaw (to paraphrase Royster and Williams) in many of our composition and rhetoric histories.


Trish asked about Berlin's characterization of University of Denver, and I'd like to talk more about that. How to account for the history of a program in a few pages in a larger history without resorting to a quick sketch model that will simplify the complexity of a program? Trish's questions also made me think about the role of extra-institutional history in relation to institutional histories? How have our histories of the field portrayed a deep understanding (or not) of outside forces impinging upon the academy?

Also, what about Tanya' s question, paraphrased: "What has really changed?" Are we stuck in the overwork, underpay, lack of respect version of the field? What about the double-meaning of feminization? How far have we really come? I think that's an important question because in some ways, we've come really far--this Ph.D. program and your/our presence in it is proof of that. But then there are the teaching conditions of the majority of many writing faculty who work off the tenure-track. We need to account for that in relation to any sort of progress narrative of the field.

Immy asked an interesting question in her blog about the end of Royster and Williams, essay, and I'd like us to pursue that further in class.

I liked Laurie's question about Berlin writing 1985-2006.? What would he say about that period? How would he build on his categories at the end of the book or would he have exploded them? Stewart faintly criticized Berlin in the preface to _Rhetoric and Reality_ for putting things in boxes. What "boxes" would we create to characterize 1985-2006? Would we resist the primacy that Williams and Royster decry?

I've got more to say, but I have to put a four year old to bed. I'll log on again because I'd like to say more about the blog posts and about our readings. See ya!