Hairston's essay was particularly intriguing to me, as apparently it has been to many others. I took note to the "paradigm shift" noted and it was a revelation that each of our major theorists were the ones to shift the paradigm of their time (439).
Astell, of course, brought about this movement of feminism. It began with one book, gained momentum hundreds of years later, and is now a hot topic in many literature classes and circles. Blair's emphasis on taste, according to Agnew's essay, "illustrate his focus on teachings students the processes through which discourse is received as well as produced" (25). Lastly, Campbell brings the passions to the forefront of rhetoric by using Aristotle and his theories of Pathe and Hexis.
These theorists all shifted the paradigm of rhetoric in their own unique way and helped us to look at composition through a new glass.
This brings me to my next point. How are we going to shift the paradigm of composition? The point of these research papers is to dig deeper, the find that one area that hasn't been examined in composition theory and put in our oar. Will our mini butterfly flap begin a paradigm shift that our texts believe comp theory so desperately needs? This is what is driving my research, and we'll see if CSU-Pueblo's butterfly can create a hurricane in theory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hindsight is 20/20, particularly as we examine the obvious historic ruptures in theoretical approaches to writing and publication. I, too, am interested in feminine approaches to composition, namely in the area of creative writing. I have discovered that within the large umbrella of the Gothic novel, women found a voice to express dissatisfaction with their narrow worlds-undoubtedly a legacy of female ornamentation decried by Mary Astell. My question becomes: is there a lingering legacy of how the twenty-first century female approaches composition? Is there a lingering malaise that we are simply "not good enough" as the male whose tradition "that eloquence was a specifically masculine virtue, its counterpart for women being silence" (149). I don't know and look to other theorists for insight. Mary Astell couldn't be silenced and obviously you are prepared to challenge some contemporary paradigms with a male voice. Does that still mean you have "home-field advantage?"
ReplyDeleteI read in another book for a different class that we Americans, who pride ourselves on originality and independence, worry incessantly about coming up with something new to say. As I read your blog, I thought that maybe this paradigm shift won't be something completely original, new-car smell and all, but an old idea taken in a new direction.
ReplyDelete