Lynch, in After Pedagogy, at first blush, seems amenable to with Sirc’s seeming revitalization of an expressivist immersion in the educational “space” apart from the rigid “trappings” of academic architecture that evacuated a potentially “richer, more seductive” way of coming to texts (7) of the classroom in English Composition as a Happening, especially in mentioning Dobrin’s “rejection” of any “pedagogical mission” in contrast to “postpedagogy” as a point of departure (xiv-xv), a “disruptive approach” he later intimates as potentially a reversal that in no way is productive (30). For Lynch, an unwillingness to engage with a pedagogy made necessary by having to engage in attempts to come to something that passably resembles writing in the space of the classroom, whether or not the teacher incites this as a process, would seem a rupture too severe, as it does not account for an impossible jettisoning of the teacher having some sort of role in the classroom (35, 45). In this way, Lynch would seem to counter Dobrin’s fervent exhortations towards a “focus on writing itself” (Postcomposition 3) that brushes aside the primacy of coming to conceptualizations of the subject and kinds of subjectivity within the context of classroom practices. Yet, Dobrin cautions that his remove to writing itself is not an absolute disavowal of “student-subjects or writing-subjects,” but rather a necessary expansion of “theorizing writing” beyond a material specificity of practice narrowly constrained to the space of the classroom (15). Dobrin’s claim as to what writing theory should not concern, “ideologies, politics, subjectivities, agencies, identities, discourses, rhetorics, or grammars” (24) itself teeters on the brink of falling over the cliff of oblivious conceptual suturing inasmuch as his desire to discover the “writing as phenomena” itself reestablishes another kind of subject, if one that is profoundly abstract, ambiguous, and delocalized as a “writing [that] functions to produce other phenomena” (24-25). And in this way, Dobrin is flung back, perhaps, towards Dejoy, inasmuch as certain kinds of classroom spaces are required for any postpedagogical enterprise—spaces that themselves acknowledge the capacity for student “participation and contribution” (62)—regardless of an assignation of what aggregate accomplishes writing. Itself. Unfortunately, “writing itself,” adhering to Dobrin’s linkage as a phenomenon capable of apprehensible enactments while divested from any particular subjectivity remains unstable, if one wants to conceive of the onset of the coalescence of such apart from more normative conceptions of embodied agency (24). Is it, perhaps, theoretically productive to glean some semblance of connection to Sirc’s expressivist nostalgia, namely space as a “very specific, lived place of passion and desire” (27) in order to approach how a potential to compose severed from any recognizably human embodiment or subject vibrantly and inexorably unfurls, and is therefore necessarily localized, at least momentarily? If so, what are the conceivable limits of such a mélange of abstraction?
|
Lynch, in After Pedagogy, at first blush, seems amenable to with Sirc’s seeming revitalization of an expressivist immersion in the educational “space” apart from the rigid “trappings” of academic architecture that evacuated a potentially “richer, more seductive” way of coming to texts (7) of the classroom in English Composition as a Happening, especially in mentioning Dobrin’s “rejection” of any “pedagogical mission” in contrast to “postpedagogy” as a point of departure (xiv-xv), a “disruptive approach” he later intimates as potentially a reversal that in no way is productive (30). For Lynch, an unwillingness to engage with a pedagogy made necessary by having to engage in attempts to come to something that passably resembles writing in the space of the classroom, whether or not the teacher incites this as a process, would seem a rupture too severe, as it does not account for an impossible jettisoning of the teacher having some sort of role in the classroom (35, 45). In this way, Lynch would seem to counter Dobrin’s fervent exhortations towards a “focus on writing itself” (Postcomposition 3) that brushes aside the primacy of coming to conceptualizations of the subject and kinds of subjectivity within the context of classroom practices. Yet, Dobrin cautions that his remove to writing itself is not an absolute disavowal of “student-subjects or writing-subjects,” but rather a necessary expansion of “theorizing writing” beyond a material specificity of practice narrowly constrained to the space of the classroom (15). Dobrin’s claim as to what writing theory should not concern, “ideologies, politics, subjectivities, agencies, identities, discourses, rhetorics, or grammars” (24) itself teeters on the brink of falling over the cliff of oblivious conceptual suturing inasmuch as his desire to discover the “writing as phenomena” itself reestablishes another kind of subject, if one that is profoundly abstract, ambiguous, and delocalized as a “writing [that] functions to produce other phenomena” (24-25). And in this way, Dobrin is flung back, perhaps, towards Dejoy, inasmuch as certain kinds of classroom spaces are required for any postpedagogical enterprise—spaces that themselves acknowledge the capacity for student “participation and contribution” (62)—regardless of an assignation of what aggregate accomplishes writing. Itself. Unfortunately, “writing itself,” adhering to Dobrin’s linkage as a phenomenon capable of apprehensible enactments while divested from any particular subjectivity remains unstable, if one wants to conceive of the onset of the coalescence of such apart from more normative conceptions of embodied agency (24). Is it, perhaps, theoretically productive to glean some semblance of connection to Sirc’s expressivist nostalgia, namely space as a “very specific, lived place of passion and desire” (27) in order to approach how a potential to compose severed from any recognizably human embodiment or subject vibrantly and inexorably unfurls, and is therefore necessarily localized, at least momentarily? If so, what are the conceivable limits of such a mélange of abstraction?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
ENGL 790
Post discussion questions here no later than Sunday evening before seminar on your assigned days. Archives
November 2015
Categories |
RSS Feed
