Jeff Rice — “English 

I’m reading through Jeff Rice’s “English <A>” for the fourth time right now. This is as much a “stream of consciousness blog” as anything else. I find “English <A> to be both compelling and challenging; this quote captures both of those states: “My interest in exploring <A> as a keyword is in making it travel in all directions at once” (53).

That quote is followed by a “connection” Rice makes between new media and the history of writing, or more specifically, the origins of composition studies in the American university system at Harvard in the late nineteenth century.

The university writing paradigm, Rice says, was print-oriented. I wonder: could it have been oriented in any other way? I suppose rhetoric might be oriented in different ways in the late nineteenth century (oral or written), but I’m struggling to think the origins of university writing programs could have been oriented any other way. Perhaps I’m missing something obvious.

Be that as it may, Rice explains how English A, with its print-based paradigm, entails linear, alphabetic and hierarchical structuring. Harvard’s choice of English A was rooted in a desire for assessment of “basic” writing skills—correctness, the ability to follow convention, knowledge of canonical masters, even handwriting.

Rice sees English A as linear, hierarchical and rooted in individualism. English A is like the alphabetical “A”— distinct from other letters and situated in a linear series; English A is its own distinct course and, like contemporary first-year writing programs, individual student marshal skills they have honed to compose individual essays for exams, entrance letters, theses, etc. Rice says English A also “situated writing in terms of categorization, definition, and separation” (56).

Rice also sees English A as layers of individuation: “the single author the student studies works independently (and is read as a single body of information)” (57). Further, Rice seems to see English A as symptomatic of the Academy: “The ideology of keeping informational bodies separate in education extends from the 1870s to the twenty-first century” (58). I wonder who has articulated other ideologies. James Berlin wrote about ideology in the writing class, drawing distinctions between cognitivist, expressionistic and social epistemic approaches (“Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class” 487). In that piece, Berlin describes the entailments and tacit beliefs different approaches to writing instruction might have. I see clearly alternative ideological claims. With Rice, it’s not so clear to me (and perhaps this is outside the scope of his examination here) what different ideologies exist, and what their attributes may be, in terms of how education structures itself.

Anyway, I’m also intrigued by Rice’s idea of <A> as more than a linking tool. He describes it in structural terms, as a “backbone,” and although he doesn’t belabor that metaphor, I like what it entails in terms of <A> being the foundation for a complex electronic nervous system that operates in multiple directions at once, connecting disparate entities through a centralized, node-bearing structure. Pushing that imagery has actually helped a bit as I wrap my brain around <A>’s non-linearity.


One thought on “Jeff Rice — “English 

  1. Glad to see this, Joe, and I look forward to tomorrow evening’s conversation.

    To your question about ideology, Berlin is a good starting place. There are other ways to come at the question of ideology, too. For example, one of my mentor’s at SU often talked about Stephen Pepper’s _World Hypotheses_, a book that maps out four so-called adequate metaphors (organicism, mechanism, formalism, and contextualism) and two so-called inadequate metaphors (animism and mysticism). Contextualism is the frame best suited to composition and rhetoric, or so my mentor argued. Interestingly enough, each of these metaphors, or worldviews, bears a distinctive ideology, right? And, furthermore, Pepper’s characterization of animism as an inadequate metaphor might be due for some reconsideration in light of the work you’ve been doing on rhetorical agency. This is a project for another day, but it could work as a conference presentation or something similar, for whatever it’s worth.

    In any case, yes, ideology: I think we should be able to see the ways distinctive ideologies fit with the three different frames covered in this week’s reading, English A, Grammar B, and English /A/ (angle brackets).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s