Thursday, June 30, 2005
Carnival III
The Carnival is kicking into serious gear. Collin, Jenny, and Robert add to the mix (but you have to read the comments too to get what Bradley-who-will-not-blog adds as well.
I'll riff a little on Collin's issue with Fulkerson and place (Comp-landia, Comp-lumbia), which feeds off the map image Derek circulates and Jenny picks out of the essay (via the mention of Broad). Since many of us are interested in place, rhetorics of place, space, and since Fulkerson is mapping out what he imagines as the places of composition, this seems to be a worthy - if brief - departure point.
One place in Fulkerson's piece that we all seem to be picking up on is the last paragraph where Fulkerson quotes Olson predicting "the new theory wars." One question, though, is: which theory? And who will battle whom?
I ask that because I don't think the binaries are so easy to draw out. The two collections on composition scholarship Fulkerson concentrates on demonstrate the problems such binaries create. Are these places of study so distinct? Are they going to war with each other? Do you find yourself having to choose critical pedagogy or cultural studies?
In fact, I would question the idea that there is a war at all. When you map out a text like A Guide To Composition Pedagogies, one thing you should discover (or at least I discover) is how similar all these practices really are. They all agree, more or less, on what writing entails, what writers do, and what teachers should expect from writers. WAC, Community Service, Writing Center Pedagogy - are these areas really in conflict with one another? Are they ideologically at ends with one another? No. While they may target different areas of study (and even that is debatable), or they may enact their pedagogies in different spaces (the community as opposed to the classroom or the writing center), they are still presenting writing, more or less, as the same thing.
In a previous post, I brought up the question of familiarity (which Collin reminds me of the connection to place - home) and uniformity. I'm suspicious of the "war" metaphor Fulkerson alludes to because I still see the field pushing towards uniformity (and, in turn, complacency). Even the so-called most radical parts of composition Fulkerson focuses on (cultural studies) and the so-called radical nature of the content of cultural studies courses (Marxism, leftist politics) strive for a uniformity that becomes quite conservative very quickly.
Which is another place of work I've been trying to write about: the domination of conservatism in our pedagogies. We like to mask that domination with so-called "radical" movements (which include cultural studies nods to Marxism), but in the end, we conserve very specific meanings of composing. Thus, I'm not so preoccupied with an emerging theory war because I think we are more inclined to keep our practices in place rather than disrupt them.
Posted by jrice @ 10:12 AM EST [Link]
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Carnival II
I'm happy to see the carnival picking up at Donna's and Derek's. I expect Collin and Jenny and Clancy to jump in soon....Steve maybe not since he's on the road.
I also want to say a little about what Derek calls Fulkerson's "itineraries." A good deal of what Fulkerson is doing reminds me of the draft Collin posted a few weeks back on the fallacy of scale. How we determine what we are doing at certain times in our field can often produce a fallacy because of how we come to that judgment (though I have to include my own judgments in that process as well, right?).
With Fulkerson's work, this judgment is that cultural studies drives the profession (assumingly as we move into the 21st century). It's a judgment David Bartholomae made as well in the first 21st Century collection that came out of the WPA conference - "What Is Composition…and Why Do We Teach It?" Geoff Sirc took Bartholomae to task for some of the observations he makes regarding critique and for the absence of technology in this 21st Century vision.
I might say something similar about Fulkerson. I don't know that the "social turn" (as Fulkerson writes) makes our work more "problematic." The influence of cultural studies (along with deconstruction) has become so quotidian, that we fail to see that we do it when we, in fact, do it.
Instead, the so-called problematic force has been technology. Technology is the pedagogical untouchable. Despite is heavy impact on communication, it is the last item to be discussed or taught. We’re either “too busy” or “too disinterested” to work with technology and writing (unless it replicates what we already do). Notice its absence in this essay? One of the two pedagogical collections Fulkerson works with (and which I have taught several times), Tate's A Guide to Composition Pedagogies places technology last in its table of contents, and Moran's contribution is out-dated and out of touch with writing and technology issues. Technology, if thought about, is an after thought. Here, it’s such an after thought that it doesn’t even exist.
Fulkerson ends with a “menu” metaphor regarding how we construct curricula (Donna notes it as well on her blog):
“Planning a composition course isn’t quite like ordering from a menu.” To re-quote Ulmer (his critique of Seigel’s Designing Killer Websites, which also uses the menu metaphor): What about when you choke on something you ate from the menu? You need the Heimlich to get that piece out. The Heimlich represents (via Freud) the familiar. Instead of asking for the Heimlich (the familiar) maneuver, we need an Un-Heimlich (unfamiliar/uncanny) maneuver. I.e. our menus are too familiar. Thus, technological innovations cause us to choke because of their unfamiliarity (they stick in our throat). But that choking experience is necessary. It is in the uncanny that invention occurs.
So here is where Fulkerson needs cultural studies as well. It can serve as the tool to induce choking (just as Derridian deconstruction can do the same with language). The uncanny is not dangerous at all, as Fulkerson suggests. Instead, it is the uniformity idea he clings to by essay’s end which is dangerous. Uniformity expects the menu to be so bland, so tasteless, that you will never choke (you will never question or rise above the same-sameness as Sirc says). The constant desire for uniformity is what is dangerous.
More later.
Posted by jrice @ 08:13 AM EST [Link]
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Another Carnival
Over on Collin's blog (in the comments, Clancy proposes restarting the Carnival again, and with Collin, they suggest Richard Fulkerson's new essay "Composition at the Turn of the Century" in the new CCC. So? So let's rock. I'm half way through it right now, and (among other things) I'd like to take up:
Some of Fulkerson's ideas regarding cultural studies and its influence on composition. One point often missed is that the notion of critique generated by cultural studies (as faulty as it often is, and as dependent as it is on logical evaluation) should also be turned inward so that we look at our practices as well. That seldom happens (and Fulkerson so far doesn't make mention of it) as we focus instead only on cultural practices outside of our work (music, advertising, film, etc.). Thus the overall confusion: what does this have to do with writing?
Fulkerson's early claim that expressivism still dominates our profession. I haven't reached the place in the essay where I assume this will be fleshed out. But I'm interested in the claim b/c I have an essay coming out this fall in a collection about the practicum that Sid Dobrin put together. In that essay, I make the claim that expressivism as an ideology (not for the assignments it generates) is very dominant in composition studies and plays a strong role in keeping technology acquisition at a minimum, or prevents it from being learned altogether.
Posted by jrice @ 10:28 AM EST [Link]
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Wu-Tang
It's a hot Michigan Saturday. I've been inside reading the RZA's The Wu-Tang Manual. One of the things I liked most from Kodwo Eshun's More Brilliant Than the Sun was his remark that music is theory; we don't have to think of music in terms of theory. It's theory already. I've written about hip hop and funk as writing theory (the funk piece in the Florida School collection I just finshed putting together with Marcel). I see that in the RZA's work.
The Wu-Tang Manual is a very theoretical work which breaks down the entire project of invention. This is a how-to book (in the Naked Lunch tradition). How to invent a practice. Put it together as such:
Philosophy. Behind every idea, there is a philosophy. Here we get a mix: Asian martial arts and capitalist insight (marketing a brand name; creating desire through the market).
Influence. Too often we teach only to the area of study we work in. This limited move is a failure to understand the way influence comes from unlikely places. Thus, technical/professional writing, for instance, often only looks within by only using a textbook geared as such (the Web as professional writing flies in the face of such thinking, but alas that point is not yet understood). The RZA notes how influences come from all over, many have nothing to do independently with the area one works in. For hip hop, we see comics, Kung Fu movies, chess, specific directors (John Woo, Jarmusch, Tarantino), video games, politics, etc.
Style. All practices have style. The Wu-Tang's aggressive style is the result of the above, but also of specific histories and cultural foundations.
Identity. No practice exists without identity. The issue of the alter-ego (role playing in the McLuhan sense) is highlighted throughout the book and especially in the first few pages of member descriptions. Wu-Tang’s identity (itself the alter-ego appropriation of the influence of a specific Kung Fu flick) is tied to the notion of the alter-ego, to role playing.
Language. The slang is not superfluous. It is a part of what makes the Wu-Tang project function. Each practice brings its own language (or variation) into the exchange of ideas. That is rhetoric.
Annotated work. Necessary to the extent that you show your practice and demonstrate what it is doing. Thus, the annotated lyrics the RZA provides.
Technology. What technology drives your practice? Technology is a vague term; but no practice emerges out of a non-technology space. Hip hop is connected to computer technology. For me, that connects it more profoundly to writing (the first sampler, the Mellotron, is invented at the same time composition studies claims its own revolution in thinking. Ha! Missed moment indeed). The computer has re-directed Aristotelian topoi. It is all chora today. Samplers foreground that point. Even when I read for pleasure, I find pedagogical insight. All pleasure is pedagogical. I easily see the above as work to experiment with in any level writing course. Our project this semester: Invent a practice. Our model: The Wu-Tang Manual. Using these areas we note above, fill in the sections with your own choices. Then use those sections to invent a new practice (musical, spiritual, writing, belief, business, etc.).
Posted by jrice @ 04:28 PM EST [Link]
Friday, June 24, 2005
Notes on Virtual Cities
Two important theoretical works regarding the various virtual cities ideas floating around these days on the Web:
1. Baudrillard: commutation (all signs exchanged against each other and not the real)
2. Calvino: Invisble Cities (a city is the result of a discursive exchange, not a referenced thing)
Here is GeoSim.
Imagine precise and realistic looking 3D-models of actual cities - cities you can navigate through, shop in, or just admire.
GeoSim cities allow for a better understanding of the physical world, by enabling exploration of the virtual one.
Our first response with the virtual is to make it do the work of the real. This has always been the role of pedagogy as well. But instead of only opting for referentiality (the familiar), the technology could be used to generate the unreal (the unfamiliar). The imaginative. The memory map meets GeoSims meets Del.icio.us meets Flickr world. HP almost imagined this possibility with the now fairly dead concept of CoolTown...but even if CoolTown succeeded, it would be only BlackBoard or WebCT with global positioning. Or it would be Tech Town, Wayne State's financial venture into technology and urban planning.
These are all print concepts (print as ideology and not as paper). They are fixed concepts with fixed reference.. A virtual urbanity should go beyond that thinking. Its markers should be exchanged against each other, not against a referenced place or concept. Thus, Del.icio.us’ s potential to expand new media logic. Digital Detroit is not Detroit. It is a series of exchanges, like Calvino's Venice. The very essence of virtuality:
virtual
adj 1: being actually such in almost every respect; "a practical
failure"; "the once elegant temple lay in virtual
ruin" [syn: virtual, practical]
Failure of the real. the virtual is not mean to allow the real to succeed online as is. What the real references should fail in the virtual. "That doesn't look right...." is the new media slogan of success.
Achewood. Every day. Somehow Teodor has been talked into doing gay porn; but he doesn't realize it yet.
Posted by jrice @ 09:49 AM EST [Link]
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Invention
From Timaeus
Mankind, with hardly an exception, have not remarked the periods of the other stars, and they have no name for them, and do not measure them against one another by the help of number, and hence they can scarcely be said to know that their wanderings, being infinite in number and admirable for their variety, make up time.
Which - via a different translation - John Sallis (in Chorology) focuses on the notion of wandering, being led astray. "The word is to be heard in the double sense of wandering (hence as involving indeterminancy, as outside - or at least resistant to - the supervisory governance by a paradigm." With that, Sallis also notes the dual meaning in the Greek (I take his word) of wandering and error. Invention as wandering (roaming, looking) and error (encountering the unwanted, the unexpected, the unfamiliar - it looks wrong). This dual meaning Sallis attributes to hostility (the juxtaposition a hostile joining of unlike terms). It is interesting for how Plato begins Timaeus with the city and conflict. Socrates says:
There are conflicts which all cities undergo, and I should like to hear someone tell of our own city carrying on a struggle.
We know the familiar tales of Detroit's struggles; they are "grand narratives" of investment and renewal. The new struggle is over information, over meaning, and not over which firm or franchise to attract with new types of tax breaks. This struggle asks us to be led astray, to wander through meanings, through the tags we choose to construct such meanings. The struggle also encourages error within this wandering of meaning. In this process, we have invention. Inventing cities? Rhetoric via Italo Calvino.
Posted by jrice @ 10:35 AM EST [Link]
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
I feel a little "wow-ed" by the little attention I've seen the Ctheory "Detroit" essay get on the Web. Such is the network - things get picked up quickly at times. This thread is interesting for both the side that likes what I said, and the side a bit skeptical and critical. Both are cool.
One thing, though, which still interests me the most about writing about technology is the "it's not possible" response. Possibility, potential, ability, get too bogged down in terms of the familiar. If we don't recognize the familiar, we are quick to dismiss - all of us. Writing instruction is one of the quickest to dismiss (at least as I professionally frame this issue - since this is my profession) but in general, we are too quick to close down conversations if the project doesn't seem feasible. Why? Conservatism. The desire to conserve/maintain what is recognizable. Not a crime by any means, but it is an obstacle to innovation.
And this is the biggest disappointment of the critique on the thread: the over-familiar critique of deconstruction as "wankery." Besides the fact that the essay is not about deconstruction or Derrida, the mere conflation of any kind of theoretical position (the unfamiliar) with the easy target of critique (in this case, deconstruction – it’s obtuse so it must be bad) is a bit sad. Sad not because I have said anything great - sad because it means that whatever is said will be quickly ignored. But some of that is also a product of the very reasoning I'm moving away from and critiquing (referentiality and clarity). The consequences of keeping things simple and clear are extremely problematic (as well as contributors to how we are controlled or control), but I'll leave that for now.
If you conceptualize space outside of a grand narrative (more capital investment will save the city) and instead propose something based in a logic of new media (tagging/assemblage), that this image seems odd (which it, of course, is) somehow translates into either:
1. That's just deconstruction hogwash
2. It could never happen
To the first I say: Huh?
To the second: based on a current understanding of space, maybe. But I'm not working from that understanding, and my aim is to push thought away from that understanding because of its limitations.
If anything, the naming/renaming process of categorization tagging allows for poses a whole different way to experience space.
And, what the critique seems to miss as well as that this is an essay about writing. It is a project to conceptualize another way to write about space. The open-nature of tagging - the ability to use the digital vision of tagging to fill in space - is different than a print logic of referentiality. Referentiality insists that this = that. What I write represents/refers to a specific thing/idea. More money = more prosperity. Obviously, and particularly in the case of Detroit, that doesn't happen. The RenCen is the best example of how that reasoning fails.
Posted by jrice @ 10:19 AM EST [Link]
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Scenes from the Detroit Festival of the Arts
Where imagination happens
Castles Made of Sand
Before the Rain
Puppet Mobile
The Hat
Funny Caption About Empty Chairs
My Contribution to Cartoon Photos
Let It Rain
Posted by jrice @ 03:53 PM EST [Link]
Friday, June 10, 2005
Amazonian Linkage
On Amazon, my textbook:
In the "Better Together" section, it's paired with McLuhan's The Medium is the Massage. I've always thought of McLuhan's little book as a textbook (and have taught it several times at the undergrad and graduate level, usually as a how-to write for the Web guide). Medium is meant as a how-to; its performative nature meant to be used as model for a new type of writing conducive to digital culture. That it was written before the personal computer makes it all the more interesting: McLuhan proposes what electronic writing might look like based on the new media logic emerging at the time.
So to be paired with his book is a Mailer-esque moment for me. I do not discount the insight of the Amazon linking system. Mere semantics? Or A.I.? Or, as Ulmer might say, intuition of the apparatus. It was hard in the late '60s for folks to take McLuhan's vision of writing seriously ("that's not writng!"). It is just as hard to take cool seriously as not a status or fad, but as a form of electronic writing. This is indeed a Mailer-esque moment (which is itself an attribute of diigtal culture, advertising one's self).
So listen up composition studies! Do not disregard the advice of Amazon. When you are all deciding on textbooks for your next writing courses, or when you, WPAs, are looking to adopt a text for your instructors, listen to Amazon: Writing About Cool is the textbook to use.
Posted by jrice @ 01:00 PM EST [Link]
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Another term (in progress) for the Digital Dictionary.
Folksonomy
Folksonomy is a term which has come to mean an emerging new media system of categorization, one whose focus is not fixed categories (as in the tradition of print culture) but shifting categories determined by a user’s given interests, desires, associations, reference points, or other features at a given moment. In that sense, folksonomy is understood as a social system, social for the meta-level interactions among users it requires. In folksonomy, classification schemes do not come from some place within a hierarchy, but instead are generated through the sense of a folk, albeit a digital one.
The social and the folk have often been at the heart of Web-discussion (the web de-personalizes space/makes us more alienated/fosters community/creates relationships). What is often missing is an understanding of the social space as not a binary division (or it’s social/or it alienates), but rather an investigation into the social space as an alternative kind of space with a different logic altogether.
Whereas the folk owed some identity to the public space: the café, the arena, the school, the auditorium, the square, the digital collective is centered around the empty space. The empty space is marked by the tag – the meta-level indicator of meaning and categorization. But the tag is itself open-ended; its status determined by more than one user at more than one (often overlapping) moment.
We have, and still do, always tagged information. The logic of print, however, with its emphasis on fixed location (topoi) keeps those tags as more or less parts of a stable scheme (differance notwithstanding). Literacy is one such tag. To be literate is to be tagged in a very specific way practically (“I learned to read and write”) and ideologically (this identification will allow me work and financial stability). Even when the critiques are recognizable (Graff’s literacy myth), the tag remains. Literacy is not meant to be an open-ended term. Add “visual,” “techno,” or some other prefix, and it is still, at its core, the same tag.
Folksonomy, at the meta level, reflects a different way to tag information.
The argument, then, regarding space (and the categorical schemes which construct space) in the digital may be viewed as that between ideology: Habermas vs Weinberger/Shirky. But even that division will do little to clarify or allow us to engage with folksonomy as a new media categorization practice. Because within folksonomy is folksono(me). Within every creation of new space (and these creations shift and change), there is always a me. That addition of the me is not ego-centric as much as it is an indicator of the role of the individual, the me, within this approach. The print space really does not rely on the me to exist or refer. The folksono(me) does. Of course, in print, the essay is a place for the me to exist, but the essay is not a categorical scheme built around the me like folksono(me) is: I.e., folksono(me) is not just media, it is meta-media. Within every act of tagging, I (me) am referenced. This digital “I” is a notion not in tune with the so-called identity swapping popularized in early MOO studies or Turkle’s work, but instead it is a moment more akin to Roland Barthes’ comment in Camera Lucida that “I” am the reference of every photograph. Barthes, too, explored meta-media as rhetoric. Following his understanding of the punctum, then, in folksonomy, I am the reference of every reference.
Posted by jrice @ 03:44 PM EST [Link]
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
My article 21st Century Graffiti: Detroit Tagging is now posted in ctheory.
Posted by jrice @ 07:30 PM EST [Link]
The Unbearable Lightness of Linking
Another draft entry (and I emphasize draft) for The Digital Dictionary of Pivotal Terms.
The Unbearable Lightness of Linking
The link signifies the basic element of web writing. Its heyday is still framed in early ‘90s hypertext studies, where the non-linear paths triumphed in much of the published fiction and theory saw the link as a savior to rigid narrative structure. In this view, the link re-organized how stories could be told. On the Web, however, the link generates something other than narrative; its function is to enable the network.
Networks are broken paths of meaning. The Web, David Weinberger writes, is broken on purpose. Thus, to think of links and writing together is to consider writing as purposefully broken. For some, that is an unbearable thought. Purpose is central to writing instruction, at least to specific visions of writing instruction heralded in composition studies. With purpose, we make rhetoric heavy. We become heavy handed. “We apply the term ‘rhetorician,’” Aristotle notes, to describe a speaker’s command of the art and a speaker’s moral purpose” (7). That mix of morality and purpose makes rhetoric very heavy, and that heaviness often enforces exactness, for morality is a noble purpose to uphold (to be moral in speech or deed, you must be exact).
In writing instruction, the noble and moral goal is to match topoi with a given audience, or to explain a disciplinary position to the public sphere. One links positions in heavy gestures. “We stand for X.” “X means Y.”
In this way, we see connectivity (i.e. linking) is reflected in Burke’s repetition of the idea of “bureaucracy.” The network as bureaucracy surely exists – the various social relationships formed in government, entertainment, education, etc. are bureaucratic. But the network as the Web offers the potential of a different model outside of/or alternative to bureaucracy: that model is the incongruity Burke triumphs.
Burke writes of perspective by incongruity. Perspective by incongruity links “unlinked words by rational criteria instead of tonal criteria” (309) But the network itself does not depend (or have to depend) on rationality. Instead, following the early media work of William Burroughs, it often relies on conflict and irrationality. Irrational linking. Linking without purpose. Linking without morality. Imagine the digital network, then, as a site of irrational incongruity. The logic behind such a rhetorical apparatus might be: link it/unlink it. This gesture reflects Burroughs’ Nova Technique: “The basic nova technique is very simple: Always as many insoluble conflicts as possible and always aggravate existing conflicts” Searching out conflict seems something alien to the morality of purpose. And wouldn’t a conflicted rhetoric of the link be just as heavy-handed?
The conflict, as McLuhan taught, is the network response to rhetorical production. When opposing positions collide, we have the collide-oscope. The collie-oscope is not really heavy, but light, for it happens, and is not forced. This lightness of linking is an attribute, then, of invention. To link/unlike is a digital way of saying “invention.”
Posted by jrice @ 09:43 AM EST [Link]
Monday, June 6, 2005
Imagination
A draft of an entry for this project, The Digital Dictionary of Pivotal Terms.
Imagination
The imaginative drives the Web. Conjecture is at the heart of its early incarnations as well as its later ones. Vannevar Bush imagined an office desk where everything interlinked; Ted Nelson imagined Xanadu (itself an early fantasy of virtuality). And Tim-Berners Lee imagined a space where a scientific community could work together in ways not yet conceived. To make the Web happen, its inventors had to conjecture the possibility of an information society where that society did not yet exist.
But writing’s foundations are in referentiality, not imagination. As Jack Goody notes, the earliest moments in writing, the list or the table, were based on referentiality. Figures were meant to represent actualities. With the rise of print culture, referentiality became embedded ideologically and practically. In pedagogy, it emerged as disciplinary study (this study is theology/this study is law) and, more fundamentally, as the topic sentence. The topic sentence has done everything it can to reduce writing to the non-imaginative: it is a declaration intended to stand for all that will follow. It is rigid. It is fixed.
“‘Imaginative’ suggests pliancy, liquidity, the vernal” Burke states (225). Liquid for how it resists the rigidity of referentiality. Without reference, meaning evokes possibilities rather than situates one possibility. Baudrillard called this process commutation. But Baudrillard seems to leave out the imaginative as also a commutative process, focusing instead on the mere exchange of signifiers without reference. That exchange is vital for evoking the imaginative, for without it, we achieve merely bureaucracy of thought. “Call the possibilities ‘imaginative,’” Burke writes. “And call the carrying-out of one possibility the bureaucratization of the imaginative” (225). This bureaucratization Burke connects to ritual. Writing as ritual resists the imagination in terms of the digital. “First have purpose,” is one such ritual. “First have an audience” is another. “Where’s your topic sentence,” yet another. Our writing rituals force digital culture into these already accepted structures and systems we have bureaucratized. Why can’t we imagine other kinds of spaces than those already ritualized in the university or our daily habits?
The Web space does not have to be bureaucratic. It can be liquid. Already, we find imaginative places of writing emerging: memory maps created on the photo sharing site Flickr, weblogs which go beyond personal writing and explore cities or desires, portals where users congregate and swap ideas, files, links. To encounter or engage these spaces is not the same as encountering print. Their very logics often encourage speculation over referentiality (a memory map imagining place rather than representing it). That pedagogy is slow (or resistant) to be as imaginative, or to work with the imaginative (i.e. “what if” as opposed to “it is”) is telling. It forces us to consider whether there is room for pedagogy and web writing, or if there is only room for the bureaucratization of web writing.
Posted by jrice @ 01:00 PM EST [Link]
Saturday, June 4, 2005
Smoked Beer
Lady's choice for beer purchase: smoked beer. As one ratebeer.com reviewer put it: like drinking whitefish. Undrinkable. After only a few sips, I cannot get the taste out of my mouth. Think of a smoked fish drink. Then toss in a bit of sausage, hickory chips, and nausea. If you like all that, you have a winner. For me, I am grateful for Dilger's homebrew and plenty of Bell's and Dogfish to wash out this taste.
Posted by jrice @ 04:58 PM EST [Link]
Friday, June 3, 2005
Incongruity
Kenneth Burke:
We contend that perspective by incongruity makes for a dramatic vocabulary, with weighting and counter-weighting, in contrast with the liberal idea of neutral naming in the characterization of process
Disciplinary examples of the neutral:
