Keywords in Writing Studies. Eds. Paul Heilker and Peter Vandenberg. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2015. Project MUSE. Web. 12 May 2015.
INTRO: “…we felt we had successfully made our case that one of the great strengths of our field can be found in the contested, unsettled nature of its key terms; that the more central and necessary the term, the more ambiguous and divergent its meanings; that a close look at the meanings of any critical term speaks volumes about our shifting cultural and disciplinary values; and that the complex conflicts embodied and enacted within our vocabulary itself, the many layers of voices reverberating within a given term, are less a cause for concern as they are something to be embraced and celebrated—a tremendously useful resource for the making and remaking of ourselves, our commitments, and the objects of our attention” (i).
(ii) “…the general telos of university-level writing instruction in the US has fundamentally shifted since 1996 from academic contexts and discourses to public spheres and civic discourses.” **I wonder how this informs the “faculty/professional staff” dichotomy?
I wonder the value in studying Downs and Wardle with Bazerman’s “The Case for Writing Studies…” and Dobrin? *iv
Intro focuses on “Writing Studies” Bazerman (expansive def) v Downs/Wardle (conflation of WS and Comp Studies)… Where does Dobrin fit in?
**Definitions product of locality/place/time
“Our goal in this volume is not to provide fixed, unitary meanings of a term mor even to privilege some meanings above others, but rather to illuminate how many divergent and contesting significations reside within our field’s central terms. Our argument, which is embodied and enacted in each entry, is that it is less productive, less appropriate, and less promising to define or confine a term’s meanings than it is to listen openly, generously, and carefully to its many, layred voices, echoes, and overtones, especially the dissonant ones.” (xvi)
“two essential criteria for inclusion: each term is a part of our general disciplinary parlance (often masking its power by its ubiquity and seeming innocuousness), and each is highly contested, the focal point of significant debates about matters of power, identity, and values” (xvii).
A call: “…to treat this volume not as a glossary, introduction to the field, or reference work, but as an invitation to join us in our evolving study of our evolving vocabulary as we continue writing writing studies” (xvii).
Body:
Pg. 6 “acted on by other agents” – “other” recognized as key term, but not “agents”???
Class:
**What to make of the metaphor of “The Ivory Tower” in the context of “Class” as it complicates our discipline?
Disability:
**Interesting to think of “diversity” issue as opposed to “disability” issue
**”In like manner Garland-Thomson (2002) understanads disability/ability as a broad system of underlying practices of normativity and exclusion” (59).
Queer:
**Not sure what the difference is, substantially, between “queer” and “disability”; both terms seem to work towards the same goal of challenging reductionist categorizing of people and identities into false binaries.
**147: “agency… “queer rhetorical agency”
***a ‘productively troubling term’ (148)
Leave a Reply