[Previous entry: "Daily"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Sunday Mix"]

09/11/2004 Archived Entry: "CCCC"

More CCCC
Let's get this thread started!
To follow the interesting thoughts put out there by Collin and Jenny:
Since I'm now in a position of griping, my words should be taken with the caveat that I am only now experiencing rejection and thus acting like a cry baby. But still, these two posts point out a lot of what is wrong with the current system in comp’s largest and best conference.
The idea of multi-SIGs/areas you propose to (Jenny’s idea) does sound attractive. But so do multi-submissions if you can submit both a proposal and/or something else...this year I could have participated in a tribute to my diss director but turned it down to propose a panel. The panel is rejected. The tribute I don't know about yet, but if accepted, I cannot participate now.

And there's possibly a little more to all of this that more closely resembles Collin's position. Ideology. While the field as a whole is reluctant to admit it (see WPA-L) there are solid ideological positions rooted in composition studies regarding what's worth discussing (see the Jenny link and mockery on earlier comments on her blog), and who gets to speak. My feeling lately is that dissenting/alternative viewpoints are quickly being dismissed, ignored, or not given space. We are supposed to agree that argument is good, that "critical thinking" is good, that the modes have vanished, that teaching documentation is correct, that writing instruction has a responsibility to prepare students for a real world, that that that....and if you come out and challenge a lot of this stuff, the reception is cold. Understandable. But not acceptable.

Take this year's CCCC theme: access. I winced at it when I first saw it because it brings up a number of clichés and trite ideas, most of which cannot be solved or solved quickly (Computers! No way. Our students don't have access! Working class people don't have access! People of color don't have access!). There is truth in each statement. But little exist which is solving any of these problems - and regarding technology, access is always an issue. It cannot be solved.

We proposed a way of looking at the idea that didn’t match any of the clichés of radical pedagogy or critical pedagogy, and we were rejected. There’s no way to pinpoint why we were rejected, but I’ll make the assumption that ideological difference played a role; we didn’t want to follow the line regarding access (a student’s right to their own language/open admissions/etc) and that didn’t mesh.

The same holds true for changing the structure of the convention. It probably won’t change. Composition is struggling still to recognize how or why it needs to change the structure of writing to fit better with new media. How is it going to adjust for a growing body of teachers who are quite different in viewpoints, a younger group of teachers who are dissatisfied with the status quo, a format which is too dependent on too many people delivering papers at once, etc. The only way I can imagine change occurring is for those of us who represent the younger voices to be more active in NCTE/CCCC. But, then, we will become the party line eventually and our ideas will become the unreasonable blockages to new work…Of course. But at least then change will be a part of the field’s structure. I’m starting to feel that change is not welcome. We’ve seen significant changes in the ‘60s, ‘70s, ‘80s regarding a number of ideas that are now status quo. Maybe we need to change the convention finally too.

Posted by John @ 09/13/2004 09:46 PM EST

Jenny is a very smart girl. I expect great things from her in the future.

Posted by Edward Hatfield @ 09/11/2004 02:53 PM EST