|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2007IFeatureSkinnellFeatured Session I: “Who Represents English Studies? Whom Does English Studies Represent? A Public Conversation” This session addressed the national and local conversations taking place about public policy in English education decisions and the ways in which English Studies organizations can better affect these discussions in productive ways. It must be mentioned, however, that it is neither the goal of this review to recreate nor redact exactly what the nine panelists discussed. Rather, this review establishes the common thread in what many of the presenters and audience members had to say about why it is so difficult to determine “who represents English Studies, and whom English Studies represents.” The session was first proposed by the moderator of the panel, Paul Bodmer, Senior Program Officer for Higher Education at the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), in reaction to his view of the current educational climate in which policy decisions are made by panels of politicians as knee jerk reactions to issues in schools that they perceive to be impeding “job training,” “literacy skills,” and “global competition.” Bodmer comes from the NCTE branch in Washington D.C. and has invited people from a variety of English related organizations (MLA, NWP, WPA, CCCC, TYCA, CEA, CEE, RSA, and NCTE) to discuss how the many strands of English Studies can determine who speaks for English Studies and what should be said. First, each panelist described their organization’s goals and constituency, and briefly what they imagine their role in the session to be. Early in the session, Gerald Graff, First Vice President of the Modern Language Association (MLA), responds to the notion that English Studies is impossibly diverse as he calls for the field to commit to a central goal of promoting and teaching from a critical thinking platform. Citing Peter Elbow’s book What is English?, Graff argues against the claim that the multifarious breeds of English professionals have nothing in common. Instead, Graff believes English professionals have a lot more in common than they care to admit, not the least of which are critical thinking, student learning and other traditional humanities’ objectives. Graff’s proposal, however, is quickly undercut by the undercurrent of resentment apparent among the represented groups, if not amongst the panelists themselves. It is in the descriptions of the various English groups’ inceptions and the needs to which the organizations respond that the theme of the panel and the reasons for resentment become clear – most of the panelists represent groups who feel in some way slighted by other organizations under the English Studies umbrella. That is, the founding of each of the English organizations represented on the panel was undertaken in direct response to the constituency’s feeling that they were and still are not being advocated for by the groups supposedly doing so. Bodmer alludes to this tension when he makes a comment to the effect that “4C’s was born because compositionists felt that NCTE was ignoring teachers of writing; the College English Association (CEA) was born because English educators felt they weren’t being accurately represented by NCTE; and the Two-Year College English Association (TYCA) was formed for the same reason.” By Bodmer’s own admission, NCTE has in some ways failed as a representative organization for teachers of English across a broad spectrum. To his credit, Bodmer organizes the panel to start addressing how those failures can be overcome. It becomes clear, however, that NCTE is not the only organization that people feel has failed to represent English Studies professionals in some way. For example, Shirley Rose, President of the Council of Writing Program Administrators (WPA), made comments about challenges of advocating for the limited group of professionals she represents. Unspoken in Rose’s comments is the insinuation that without WPA her small group of English professionals would find themselves either unrepresented or, at least, underrepresented by other organizations. When Eric Bateman, chair of TYCA, describes what his organization represents, he remarks in passing that “English instructors at two-year colleges are often overlooked by the headliners at 4C’s.” Will Hochman, addressing the panel from the audience during the discussion part of the session, points out that adjunct and other non-tenure track faculty make up the largest segment of English professionals, and yet the established “English Studies” organizations often completely overlook the needs of such contingent faculty (perhaps tellingly, even the panel is absent an advocate for contingent faculty). Similar points in varying degrees of directness are made by nearly all the panelists and contributing members from the audience. In fact, the issue of advocacy is made pointedly clear when Jack Selzer, President-Elect of the Rhetoric Society of America (RSA), declares to rousing applause much of the reason for fragmentation in English Studies was born out of MLA’s proclivity for literary studies to the exclusion of teaching writing and other English Studies issues. Selzer vociferously argues MLA really only supports literary studies and all of the other parts of English Studies have been left to fend for themselves. David Laurence, Director of MLA’s Office of English Programs and Association of Departments of English (ADE), who was not on the panel but in attendance, chides Selzer and the crowd for misdirecting attention from the task at hand. Laurence believes the mission of finding a common voice is not aided by pointing fingers at one another. Likewise, Duku Anokye from the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) wants to stop the divisive back-biting and finger pointing and join together in order to affect change outside of departments. Suzanne Miller, Past Chair of the Conference of English Education (CEE), likewise calls for a recognition of English as multi-centered and evolving. Laurence’s final remark, though, highlights some of the reasons that English Studies professionals may have trouble finding common ground: “The MLA will not apologize for seeing value in the focused study of Literature.” Laurence clearly, and some might argue deliberately, avoids going on to say that MLA also sees value in teaching writing, adjunct issues, two-year college teachers, writing program administrators or anything else represented by members of the panel. At the risk of oversimplifying, Laurence’s comment underscores some of the issues of advocacy in English Studies in that advocacy amongst the nine represented groups appears to work counter intuitively to what one expects. That is if one takes the comments made by panelists and audience members at this session as evidence, advocacy in English Studies manifests itself from the bottom up instead of from the top down. In other words, each sub-organization affirms the right of the larger organizations to do what they do. Since they do not feel represented, however, they feel the need to form their own advocacy groups. For example, CCCC representatives affirm the MLA’s right to value literature; in doing so, CCCC members apparently forfeit the right to demand MLA value their work. It seems, then, that Laurence’s comments are emblematic of the way in which English Studies organizations may be content to let underrepresented groups spin off as opposed to making a meaningful space for them. Essentially, the undercurrent of the session, or better yet its common thread, presumes the largest English Studies organizations, those that were created specifically to advocate for English Studies professionals, are unwilling or unable to do so. Comments? |