“Recently, composition and rhetoric scholars have argued for an ontological turn in the field…” (96). OMFG… Seriously? another “turn”? Let’s see… We have a “genre turn” (Barwashi & Reiff 2010), an “affective turn” (Nelson 2016), “the digital turn” (Dyehouse, Shamoon, Pennell 2009), “the multimodal turn”… of course… (Palmeri, etc. 2012), the famous “social turn” of Faigley’s 80s, the “archival turn” (Hayden 2017)… It’s difficult at this point to take any talk of “turns” seriously for me. Our “turns” are not helpful, I’d argue (with Yancey), particularly in forming a disciplinary identity. Ah, yes, of course, there’s “The Posthuman Turn in Composition” (Lucia 2018). Actually, I could take just about any term, plug it into Google scholar with a “Rhetoric and Composition” “…. turn” and “voila!” This on-the-brink ness is akin to Booth’s charge of “novomania”… We still got it.
For Chapter 5: “Learning seen as disposition to form structures and an understanding of limits as enabling: why aren’t these ideas guiding our practice” (TLS 75).
(TLS 63) “… dialectic ad dialogue are consonant ad cognate simultaneous and correlative.”
Massumi, Brian. “Like a Thought.” A Shock to Thought. [Electronic Resource] : Expression After Deleuze and Guattari. Hoboken : Taylor and Francis, 2002.
“For many years in many schools expression has been anathema.The underlying assumption has been that any expressionism is an uncritical subjectivism” (xiii).
“The conflation of innate powers of perception with the culture-bound apprehension of forms helps to muddle the idea of representation as copy and the idea of representation as symbolization” (40).
“Although the aim of such argument is to establish the concept of indeterminacy by demolishing the concept of an objective reality, the validity of hte subjective-objective dichotomy is, nevertheless, presupposed” (40).