Defensio pro Plurality

This will come off as a defense or rant more than a carefully thought out critique on developments in Rhet/Comp studies. A few weeks ago, I had an interesting group interview with a respected authority in academia. A sense of professional courtesy and maturity prevents me from mentioning the individual’s name. Initially, I was uncertain of whether or not I should write this. However, I couldn’t resist the desire to open up a platform for discourse involving certain potential changes in our field that could permanently alter the more traditional paths towards success in higher academia.

This individual is under the impression, perhaps rightfully so, that knowledge acquisition, development, and compilation is evolving dramatically and that more traditional means of academic discourse are rapidly dissolving due to the convergence of the online community. Consequently, the value of expertise and academic hierarchy are eroding. I’ll admit, I was scared. I am nearly done with my Master’s in English and a Graduate Certificate in Teaching Writing, and I am applying to various Rhet/Comp PhD programs throughout the country. I have a high GPA, solid GRE scores, I’m finishing up my program search, getting recommendations from reputable faculty members, and developing a critical writing sample. In addition to all these tasks, I am balancing three jobs and a full time class schedule. My grad school experience is delightfully stereotypical. I’m paying my dues with the hopes that one day I can be considered an “expert” and share my knowledge and understanding with the academic community while facilitating the development of my potential future students. To someone enduring these trials for a distant dream that might never come into fruition, expertise and connections can be the extra edge.

And so, during the interview I had a question for the individual, stemming from genuine concern, not meant in any way to be disrespectful. I simply wanted to know how fast he felt his proposed changes in knowledge compilation are occurring, because as a prospective educator and academic, I can say with confidence that traditional knowledge development is still held in high regard and considered a necessary part of advancement within any field of study in academia. In other words, I wanted to know when the path that I’m following will become obsolete. What I received as a response was a veiled negative assessment of my potential, as a student, to get accepted to doctoral programs and a lecture on how online academic discourse is becoming the best way to establishing a reputation. In fact he was hubristic enough to use himself as a prime example. Well that’s all fine and dandy for him, one of the few isolated incidents in a sea of individuals following more traditional paths towards a position of expertise. And since the rest of us might not be able to receive program offers based solely on the merits of our online publications, this new phenomenon begs my original question, just how quickly are we becoming obsolete?

Don’t get me wrong, I completely accept the value of collaborative knowledge development and understand the importance of the web in promoting this exchange on a domestic and global scale. However, as an insider in academia, I know for a fact that the expert and the concept of a canon is still important, us traditionalists ain’t goin nowhere. Obviously multimodality is becoming more and more necessary in both the class room and broader academic forums. But as in anything in life, balance is key. Just as solid recommendations can be the extra edge, online activity can admittedly be the same, but not everything. One can’t speak from the position of the “privileged minority,” as one of my professors put it, for the whole academic community. Another professor of mine suggested that this individual simply felt threatened by my question and pulled the rank card.

Clearly, I understand the value of online discourse as I have this blog and speak openly through it with my colleagues and hopefully soon, individuals in other institutions. So, to tell me that my path has limited value and to make negative assessments of my potential, without even knowing me, is nothing short of petty nonsense. But, perhaps this will be the pervading attitude in our field someday that comes with the loss of the expert. Perhaps this will be one of the many examples of unidirectionalism in our field which we so vehemently protest against. I know that at least one person believes in a one size fits all approach.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *