4Cs-section
Feel free to excoriate me, as usual, for my over-reliance on deplorable puns.
It has now been almost exactly a week (and some change) since I presented at my first 4Cs conference (and yes, I know that “4Cs conference” is redundant, since spelled out it means Conference on College Composition and Communication conference. I like the redundancy I like). Forthwith, some brief commentary thereon.
- Given that RSA and 4Cs are not the same conference, I kind of liked RSA better. There were more panels that I was interested to attend at RSA, and whether this was a function of (a) this year’s batch of 4Cs panels, (b) my own admitted lack of participation in many panels (I didn’t attend very many), or (c) a general distractedness from the work of the conference (which I attribute to personal reasons that I will not disclose here) I just didn’t get in to the conference aspect of my time in SF as much as I did at RSA last year.
- In response to points (a) and (b) above … Looking over the 4Cs program, I saw a lot of panels that seemed really atheoretical to me, or if not atheoretical than certainly ones that didn’t promise to delve into theoretical questions of much interest to me. Whether this is typical of 4Cs I cannot say, but talking with faculty members after (who I shall be politic and leave anonymous here) seems to confirm my reading of this year’s batch of work. Other faculty members have noted that 4Cs moves in cycles between being heavily theoretical and being more focused on questions of practice, so there remains the possibility that I just happened to catch 4Cs in one of its less-theoretical turns.
- Without accusing the scholarly work of any of the panelists involved, I think the workshop I attended (on pop culture in the comp classroom) is a good case in point. Except for maybe one of the talks (which focused on humor theory, new to me but certainly of interest), the presentations at this workshop were largely just a recitation of the kinds of ways these folks have been using popcult texts; so one presenter discussed her use of South Park, another did blogs, another did Second Life …. All valuable approaches, I’m sure, but I was rather hoping for an opportunity to join a conversation about why we might use popcult in the classroom, or even (following Rice’s example) ways we might use it other than ideological/cultural critique. These questions — which I would argue are fundamentally theoretical ones — weren’t the order of the day, to my disappointment. I will be fair and note that maybe this is what workshops do, and since this was my first I really have no prior experience to draw on for comparison.
- Beers: Anchor Steam, Fat Tire, a cider at the “Irish” Pub down the street from the hotel. Also something in a can that Bill bought but danged if I remember what it was called.
- More Indian food: chicken tikka masala at the joint across from the hotel. Keen place: it was BYOB so we bought some beers from the liquor store and walked it over to enjoy with our masalas and naan.
- I get the impression from peers and colleagues that my panel overall and my talk individually were well-received, even if there was also a consensus that being scheduled in the last slot of the day (4:45-6:00) made for a kind of exhausted and logy audience. I gave my talk from my computer, which I didn’t really like doing, but I’d made some last-minute revisions (fairly considerable ones) and hadn’t had an opportunity to print it out.
- Anne Wysocki (and two other scholars whose names I don’t remember, nor do I have my program handy) did an interesting panel that was really more art installation that conference talk, focusing on different ways to visualize moments in 4Cs history … Wordles, comics, timelines, videos, etc. After some time to walk and browse, Wysocki and The Other Two (my humblest apologies — I will try to update with your names soon!) led a discussion both on the moments as represented and on the “missing” elements from their representations. Of course, my head cold was raging and I heard very little of said discussion, but it seemed interesting.
- I have no illusions that they were there for little ol’ me, but I was pleased as punch to see the following scholars as auditors for my panel: V. Vitanza, C. Haynes, D. Davis, G. Sirc, E. Barton (okay, the last is kind of cheating since she’s my D of C, but still).
- From the other two Wayne State-related panels that I attended (or saw some of), I think we acquitted ourselves well.
- A thought on Wayne State. As noted, I didn’t attend many panels, but I was interested to note that several of my peers thought that much of the conference was kind of light on theory as well. Although Wayne isn’t (as yet) noted as a “reputable” rhetcomp program, I think the fact that many of its current rhetcomp students have such strong interests in theory and theoretical work (both in doing theory and grounding teaching practices in theory) bodes well for our rep in coming years. Maybe. I dunno.
- Nice to chat with our recent interviewees again, and pleased to learn that (as Rice announced before our panel) D. Mueller will be joining our friends in Ypsi in the coming year. It’s nice that SE Michigan might stand a chance at becoming something of a regional powerhouse in the field.
- I did see the Haight, Golden Gate Park, Fisherman’s Wharf, Chinatown, etc. Highlights were Amoeba Music in the Haight and the Japanese Tea Garden in the park.
- E. Barton’s award acceptance was quite nice, and I was happy that JG, WD, and I could be there to applaud our much-respected and -admired D of C. I like the sentiment she closed with, which I’ll poach here with a note that, after returning from the Cornell School of Theory and Criticism this summer, I plan to work on revising some papers for publication submission: “As I tell my grad students, when you write for CCC you write for the whole field, and knowing this award comes from the whole field is a tremendous honor.” I think I flubbed the second bit of that (EB can correct me if she reads this) but the first part (about the journal and the field) is a useful thing to keep in mind.
- One to grow on: I will by god win the Berlin Award for Outstanding Dissertation. That is my goal.
Comments
4 Responses to “4Cs-section”
Got something to say?
Wait, isn’t your diss already done?? Don’t you have two of them completed? But, if that last point was a challenge, it’s on like donkey kong
Nice review, McGinnis. Although it sounds like you’re a little bummed, take it from someone who wasn’t there that the conference still sounds cool from the outside. (Que conference envy…now)
KL, actually, I just finished my fourth dissertation. Well, my fourth this week, anyway. But I figure for appearances sake I can only submit one diss for award consideration so I’m editing them together into a six-volume epic on the future of rhetoric to be called Rhetoric: WTF?!?!?. And yes, I was a little bummed, as you surmise, but I feel better knowing that you have conference envy. :p
“Rhetoric: WTF?!?!?”: Like the title…looking forward to the movie
I already started writing Rhetoric: WTF – A Reader’s Guide to Mike McGinnis. Needless to say, the text will likely be accompanied by a powerpoint presentation of some form or another.