some thoughts on derrida and non-thesis driven compositions
I wonder what order Derrida wrote the Grammatology in. I ask because one thing I’ve been thinking about lately–as I teach 1020 for the first time based in traditonal or classical stances of argumentations–is how the emphasis on non-thesis driven writing became so prominent in new media rhetorics. I’m still very much interested in this line of work, lest you think my question is critical of these rhetorics; still, the genealogy of such pedagogy is of interest to me. I’m committed to it as an ideal because of my admiration for Rice’s work–in turn, I can cite some of his familiar influences–Ulmer, Barthes, Derrida, Burroughs. Afrika Bambaata, maybe. And although I’ve read enough to understand the theory behind teaching and writing within such rhetorics, what I remain unsure of is their theoretical pedigree.
Which brings me back to Derrida. I asked the original question because I’m curious if Derrida’s text work generated the now-famous revelations of deconstructionism (although I’ve been told JD forswore that particular tag for quite some time) or if he had the insight first and then worked to prove it with the text work. I ask again because many new media pedagogies situate writing as a scene of inquiry, not statement–or questions, not answers. Which I find very attractive, obviously, and (this semester notwithstanding) hope to remain committed to in my own pedagogy. BUT . . . at times I worry whether I could provide adequate theoretical explanations for my interest in such pedagogy beyond merely parroting the Rice/Ulmer/Sirc line–which is not to diminish their work or their influence on my interests, but something that, I think, is of serious import as I look a year or two down the road to my first post-doc job placement.
Of course, the question can also be a stylistic canard. Does it matter what order Derrida wrote the book in? Well . . . beyond my curiosity, maybe not. But I find it interesting that the way Grammatology is laid out at present situates the sort of “claims/theses” of the work in the first chapter (“Writing Before the Letter”) and then explicates them further through JD’s detailed textual work in the body of the text. Which gives the appearance, at least, of working from a claim/thesis, and finding support, etc–the very pedagogy that rhetcomp folks like myself want to move away from.
The lesson, here, maybe (if there has to be one) is two fold. First, the form of a text does not provide its history. Or at least, does’t have to. Second, the pedagogical or rhetorical lessons of a text (often the same thing) are held within the text itself–not the biography of its author. Derrida’s work in the Grammatology shows us how to ask questions within a text (or, he might have argued, to find the questions the text asks of itself) rather than blithely making claims about or for a text.
Sometime soon, I will write about playlist assignments.
cfp: interface
Came across the following while trolling the web for possible ideas for publishing opportunities. Given the offhand comment in my previous post about this very subject, I found it of interest:
A Thousand Pictures: Interfaces and Composition
Guest Editor: Joel Haefner
“A picture is often said to be worth a thousand words. Similarly, an interface is worth a thousand pictures.” Ben Shneiderman, The Craft of Information Visualization (2003).
Recently, the online journal, Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, Pedagogy, issued a call for an “Interface Editor,” a new editorial position that suggests the importance interfaces play in communication. If, as Ben Shneiderman says, an interface is worth a thousand pictures, then a single interface carries the impact of a million words.
Scholarly papers are solicited for a collection which focuses on the role the interface plays in composition. For the purposes of this CFP, we can construe “interface” broadly as the communication boundary between a user and a system—although essays which contest or transfigure that broad definition are quite welcome. And the word “user” suggests that the interface interacts with both writer and audience. Articles could, for example, address such topics as:
The politics and economics of word processing interfaces used in the composition classroom
The classroom as an interface
Blog interfaces
Visual rhetoric and interfaces
Cognitive approaches to interfaces
The printed page as an interface
The intervention of textbooks in student composing
Academic institutional structures and composition
Human Computer Interaction principles and the teaching of writing
Cultural systems (racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, etc.) and composition
Initially, I am soliciting two-page proposals for full-length essays. A short vita (maximum 2 pages) is also requested. A brief selected bibliography (not more than one page, in addition to the two pages mentioned above) will strengthen any proposal. All submissions should be made as email attachments in either .DOC or .RTF formats; please use your initials to begin any file name to prevent overwriting. Please send proposals and inquiries to jhaefner@iwu.eduTentative Deadlines:
Submission of two-page abstracts: January 1 2008
Acceptance of proposal: April 1 2008
Submission of full paper: September 1 2008
Return of paper with readers’ comments: December 1 2008
Submission of revised paper: February 1 2009About the Editor:
Dr. Joel Haefner is the Writing Coordinator and a Lecturer in Computer Science at Illinois Wesleyan University. He holds a Ph.D. in English from the University of Iowa and a MS in applied computer science from Illinois State University. His articles have appeared in College English, Computers and Composition, English Journal, Prose Studies, and other journals.