it is interesting, yes, how the tone seems to really shift in 91 or so. The trend seems to hold in scholarship outside the Cs addresses as well. I wonder if it is a sign of a growing confidence in the field as something that can thrive outside the shadow of Lit? Just a thought.
To add to that: I wonder if the same trend could be found in other scholarship within the humanities generally? Does this have something to do with identity-politics?
Good catch, Heather. You can see that he cites Anzaldua--clearly an influence. Mary Louise Pratt's "Arts of the Contact Zone" was published in Profession in 91, feminism came to have more a presence in c/r scholarship around then (finally!), and, as you suggest, scholars across the humanities were enacting principles championed largely by feminists, women of color, and postcolonial theorists (i.e., the personal is political; the personal is a tool for intellectual, political, and institutional change, etc.). So, I think his piece definitely reflects larger trends in scholarly writing.
I can see how some older folks might lament the casual tone. But I think that to write with intelligence (to make new and productive connections) it helps to be approachable. I appreciate the more personal, the more "talky" language of today's scholarship.
I suppose I was assuming that "some" people of an older age group (maybe those teachers/educators around 60 years-old and up) might be annoyed at the relaxation of language in scholarship...?
not that I'm aware of...most of the speakers in this set were in or around that age group, btw. not a whole lot of stodginess around language use in the field.
Though I certainly now see and agree with the influences that Heather identifies and Laura elaborates, I would want to also add that the history of the personal in the 'essay' (here, the 'essay' is made even more complex as the addresses can/are function(ing) as both oration and essay) would seem to be much more messy than just suddenly emerging. Though the personal certainly comes to mean and function in a particular way at a certain time in social history (reclaimed/taken up by/revalued by certain groups or interests), might we also say that the it has been a part of the essay since its origins?
Keeping the convo within reasonable bounds though (drawing back from the history of the essay!), I think it's interesting just to take a look at the whole series of addresses to this point to see the drastically different ways each might be said to inhabit or invoke the personal. I totally agree though that McQuade's speech stands out as starkly personal and I found it quite moving. But I think too that we might say that the personal is at work in each of the addresses.
it is interesting, yes, how the tone seems to really shift in 91 or so. The trend seems to hold in scholarship outside the Cs addresses as well. I wonder if it is a sign of a growing confidence in the field as something that can thrive outside the shadow of Lit? Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteTo add to that: I wonder if the same trend could be found in other scholarship within the humanities generally? Does this have something to do with identity-politics?
ReplyDeleteGood catch, Heather. You can see that he cites Anzaldua--clearly an influence. Mary Louise Pratt's "Arts of the Contact Zone" was published in Profession in 91, feminism came to have more a presence in c/r scholarship around then (finally!), and, as you suggest, scholars across the humanities were enacting principles championed largely by feminists, women of color, and postcolonial theorists (i.e., the personal is political; the personal is a tool for intellectual, political, and institutional change, etc.). So, I think his piece definitely reflects larger trends in scholarly writing.
ReplyDeleteI can see how some older folks might lament the casual tone. But I think that to write with intelligence (to make new and productive connections) it helps to be approachable. I appreciate the more personal, the more "talky" language of today's scholarship.
ReplyDeleteWho are these "older folks" of which you speak?! And what makes you think anyone laments the tone? Not sure where this is coming from...
ReplyDeleteI suppose I was assuming that "some" people of an older age group (maybe those teachers/educators around 60 years-old and up) might be annoyed at the relaxation of language in scholarship...?
ReplyDeletenot that I'm aware of...most of the speakers in this set were in or around that age group, btw. not a whole lot of stodginess around language use in the field.
ReplyDeleteThough I certainly now see and agree with the influences that Heather identifies and Laura elaborates, I would want to also add that the history of the personal in the 'essay' (here, the 'essay' is made even more complex as the addresses can/are function(ing) as both oration and essay) would seem to be much more messy than just suddenly emerging. Though the personal certainly comes to mean and function in a particular way at a certain time in social history (reclaimed/taken up by/revalued by certain groups or interests), might we also say that the it has been a part of the essay since its origins?
ReplyDeleteKeeping the convo within reasonable bounds though (drawing back from the history of the essay!), I think it's interesting just to take a look at the whole series of addresses to this point to see the drastically different ways each might be said to inhabit or invoke the personal. I totally agree though that McQuade's speech stands out as starkly personal and I found it quite moving. But I think too that we might say that the personal is at work in each of the addresses.
Yes, Hannah, that is totally right on! I definitely agree.
ReplyDelete