Ewald, writing on postmodern commitments to the “interrogations of agency, perspective, and values” on the part of those who would tout post-process theory, foregrounds the fractiousness of this enterprise amongst “critical and feminist approaches” inclusive of “accusations of cultural bias and uncritical cultural reproduction” (119-120). She does so amidst thoughts that would seem very much to align with Couture on the resuscitation of agency, inasmuch as she accepts the “inherent value” of post-process theories seeking to establish “subject/subject” relations” in which “student contributions” have value” (129). Yet these are “relations” fraught with peril for those students striving to initiate community while the ideology of some scholars binds them to the rack of “privilege,” as Foster, in conjuring up the frustration and distress of identity politics gone awry in his discussion of a pedagogy of “contingency” (154-157), demonstrates in explicitly referencing two of such bent:
Patricia Bizzell has argued that well-meaning efforts to develop community in classrooms made up of…middle-class majorities that do not recognize their own privilege, inevitably silence disempowered others…Similarly, Susan Miller is uncompromising in her insistence that “no amount of mutuality, sympathy or collaborative, ‘dialogic’ and dialectic interaction [can reduce] this difference” that makes me “always an ‘object’ to you, even in ‘public’ spaces where we write collaboratively. (qtd. in 161)
What might generously be said of such positions within a more expansive unfolding of context comprising the social turn in composition studies, given what seems to be an incessant desire to impose a paradoxically extensive and localizable culpability to individuals within social relations that clings to notions of a concretized hierarchy of difference?