This is, I apologize, unfinished. But you get the general idea. And I substituted the QE preface for my prospectus, because the prospectus is 6 pages long, which is outside the parameters of our P2 assignment.
#1
Qualifying Exam Preface
I propose a qualifying examination in the field of rhetoric and composition, with a concentration on rhetorical theory. In particular, I will be arranging my study of rhetorical theory around treatments of the concept of techne. Techne is traditionally defined as having to do with production, and is often paired with or contrasted to phronesis, which deals with doing rather than making. My emphasis for the examination will be on critical/literary theory, with a significant portion of the texts dealing with questions of politics and/or labor. In a post-Fordist world, labor is increasingly concerned with doing, as production jobs vanish and more and more workers find themselves in service and communication jobs. As joint components of this study, therefore, techne and labor complement one another.
The courses I have taken which prepare me for this emphasis include Eng 7034 (Globalization) with Dr. Chandra, and Eng 7065 (Writing Machines) with Dr. Pruchnic.
#2
WRITERS: Virtuosity and the Work of Writing
In his 2004 Grammar of the Multitude, Paolo Virno describes post-Fordist working conditions using the virtuoso, the figure who stands in contrast to the traditional manufacturing sector worker. For the virtuoso, the performance is the product, and to put the virtuoso to work is to put to work our capacity for communication and cooperation. Although Virno refers to this in particular as the virtuosity of the speaker, the communication and cooperation that the post-Fordist economy puts to work are just as much about the virtuosity of those who communicate with sound, images, or the written word. Moreover, his use of pianist Glenn Gould as his primary example of virtuosity suggests a certain conscious facility with the skills being utilized in the performance. My objective in this paper is to examine Virno’s virtuoso with an eye not toward the speaker or the pianist, but toward the writer and more particularly the writer as worker. A number of workers, especially in the information and service economies, would appear to fulfill Virno’s explicit qualifications for the virtuoso, but lack the conscious facility of the concert musician. These workers seem to stand, if not in contrast to the virtuoso, at least to the side of it. To what extent do Virno’s theories of virtuosity apply to them? Perhaps more importantly, do Virno’s hopes that ‘servile’ virtuosity can be turned a more actively resistant form apply to those whose work centers around the production of written communication?
Every now and again, when I tell someone I'm getting a PhD in rhetoric, they'll say "So, you like to write, huh?" To me, this feels like asking Kobe Bryant if he likes to shoot hoops sometimes. And yet, it's a common moment - like the time my mom referred to my 200-page dissertation as "That paper you've got to write." The dissertation, though, is a mainstream concept, and even if the people around me can't always appreciate the difficulties of it, they at least have some notion of what it is. The real challenge has been explaining the *other* types of writing to the people in my life. Before I decided to go to graduate school, it was just papers. Simple. Uncomplicated papers. The moment I began to fill out applications though, I found myself writing Personal Statements, Teaching Philosophies, Letters of Intent, precis, proposals, abstracts, exam prefaces, qualifying examinations, the prospectus, multiple syllabi, (more) seminar papers, paper proposals, conferences papers, etc. This doesn't even touch the writing you do that you're hoping to get someone to publish. To say that someone in this line of work "likes writing," is obviously not saying enough about how crucial writing is to both our academic careers and our senses of self.
Some of the genres listed above become familiar as old friends to a graduate student moving through the program, whereas others will only need to be tackled once. All of them, though, will be somewhat puzzling and intimidating the first time they're encountered, because even though many of them would seem to be trying to accomplish the same purpose, there are crucial distinctions in audience, tone, placement of the author, format, etc. For this discussion of writing genres at the graduate level, I have chosen two pieces that while doing similar work, do it in very different ways: the QE preface, and a conference paper proposal (or abstract).
The preface and the proposal, on the surface, are both previewing a forthcoming piece of scholarly writing. Both are intended to explain to an audience exactly what they can expect from a text which exists somewhere in the future -in the case of the preface, the examination essay or essays the student will eventually write, and in the case of the proposal, a 10-12 minute presentation to be delivered at a conference. Another feature that both genres share is their dependence on an audience of judges, people with the power to accept or reject the writing being previewed. Although these judges aren't identical (one is a committee of instructors as the university, the other a committee of faculty members from numerous institutions but connected to the conference), both sets of judges are made up of academics, who will judge the author of the pieces as a fellow scholar.
There are, however, crucial difference, even with regard to this audience. For one thing, in the case of the preface, the committee will include the writer's advisor or director, who will be "on her side" when it comes time to judge. With the proposal, the audience is made up of strangers, who have no reason to care one way or another. Etc...
P: Tone. Both are scholarly, and both are required to justify the work. The preface at the end suggests why the topics are relevant ones for the modern world, and similarly the proposal asks questions about the state of teaching today.
P: Tone: But also, there are differences. The preface is statements. This is important. This is the impact of these changes. These categories of texts do make sense together. The proposal, on the other hand, asks questions. The tone is less one of confidence and more one of exploration. It's a tease. I'm going to answer these provocative questions -don't you want to see how?
P: Both pieces require the author to build an ethos -to prove themselves- but do it in different ways. The preface includes references to coursework the student did to prepare them for the exam they wish to take. The proposal includes references to theorists. Both show the author has "done the legwork" but in different ways.
P: Conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment