Hesford’s piece starts quite interestingly with a tweaked form of rhetorization, or seeking to explore a modern phenomenon within composition studies with a text of literary significance . However, as I mentioned before, her approach is tweaked in that she seems to be explaining the current shift towards attempts at unification within the field of composition, through the lens of the sociocultural shift in the United States that has been happening for over a decade. In other words, she draws parallels between the United State’s ongoing reaction to vulnerability and external threats, in the form of reinforced national and global identity, and a similar tactic being used in composition studies, where concrete identity is sometimes sought after. Describing this phenomenon, she writes, “Yet, at the same time, there is evidence of a nostalgic retreat to disciplinary identities and homelands and a resurgent, though not uncritical, localism” (Hesford 788).

I found the way she framed her argument rather compelling as the two social spheres she parallels, the sociopolitical/cultural sphere, and academia, to mesh very well. However, as her argument transitions and evolves, it becomes much easier to understand the validity of her comparison. Composition studies, as a field, has gone through many changes, from being lumped in with English, to being established and respected as a formal field of study. From Hesford’s explanation, it would seem that certain overarching shifts in Composition and Rhetoric are leading to blurred disciplinary lines, and that respected academics within the field are calling for a reversion to a state of recognizable identity. As an aspiring educator and recent convert from literature to Rhet/Comp studies, I can’t help but sympathize and encourage this “nostalgic retreat,” as Hesford puts it. (788)

Those of us who have pledged our allegiances to either literature or Rhet/Comp know that the two go hand in hand, and one cannot necessarily exist without the other. But Hesford’s analysis goes deeper than that age old conflict. Instead she seems more interested in the divide specifically within the field of Rhetoric and Composition. If I understood the piece correctly, she seems to suggest that in the midst of globalization in an academic sense, or perhaps consensus and standardization through the beauty of accessibility, the equally important regional factors and rhetorical trends are being overlooked, resulting in local divergence, for lack of a better term. Things like ethnography, essential for the study of local rhetorics and social development, are being described as setting up binaries. ( 792) But others see this establishment of identity in contrast to others as necessary. Hesford seems to be calling for a reconciliation and linking of global and local trends through ethnographic and rhetorical study. (793) Although Hesford continues to explore sociopolitical, rhetorical methods including philosophies and tactics like non violence, I keep getting drawn back to the “conflict” within our field. I find myself wondering, can exclusivity and a communal mentality exist in balance? I’m not sure if it can, since both mindsets have their own limitations and vulnerabilities. Were is the line drawn between interdepartmental cooperation and amalgamation?

Finally, I must revert to the geopolitical issue at hand related to Western (specifically American) rhetorical strategies in framing national identity in relation to the rest of the world. As Hesford notes, our political language has a tendency to be rather belligerent and promote American Exceptionalism, which ultimately leads to generalizations and the failure, on our part, to establish connections between the past and our concerns for the future. If we are to be truly secure as a nation, we must avoid our own tendency towards ethnocentrism and spend time in self reflection and the objective study of global, historical trends. We must also resist the use of Western rhetorical strategies i.e. the use of our field in the promotion of national aggression and exceptionalism, and an imperialistic national attitude.