Ronald Strickland, in “Pedagogy and Public Accountability” (Class Issues, Amitava Kumar, ed.), makes an excellent point about the exchange value of public education: students who are educated in state colleges and universities pay only a portion of the cost of their educations, the rest of which is paid for by state tax revenues (166). Understanding that a student’s education is being paid for by everyone in that state puts the value (use or exchange) of an education into a rather different class context. Some might say, “Look, other people who don’t use public higher education — whether they’re poor or rich — are supporting this student and are in fact paying for what class mobility she might get out of that education.” Strickland suggests that such students have an obligation to think about the interests of others who are footing the bill for their educations; I’m not sure whether I agree or not. At the same time, Strickland points out that “our student body is whiter and somewhat more affluent than the population of the state as a whole” (167), and this to me sounds like an excellent argument in favor of affirmative action — but people seldom talk about what affirmative action for wealth and income might look like.
Strickland’s got a lot of other really smart stuff to say, and his essay intersects with what I’ve been working on in productive ways. Consider what he has to say about how the vocational-versus-liberal education conflict plays out in English departments: “we need to interact more with faculty and students in quasi-professional and vocationally oriented programs in order to hold vocationalists accountable to the democratic and intellectual ideals of the university and the society at large, and in order to hold academic humanists accountable to existing sociopolitical conditions” (170). While it’s somewhat problematic to telescope everything that falls within the category of the “ideals of the university and the society at large” into one monolithic whole, I generally agree. The thing is, Strickland’s talking about English departments, and Writing Programs aren’t always institutionally connected to English departments (though, as Crowley and others point out, they certainly are historically connected), so I think composition courses do have a little more of the accountability Strickland’s talking about. This seems like it could go in two possible directions: with that accountability, composition programs may find themselves gradually becoming even more divorced from humanist-oriented English departments, thereby contributing to what Jim Seitz has called the Balkanization of English studies (literature scholars being alienated from creative writers being alienated from compositionists). I tend to pessimistically think that this is what’s rather likely to happen, and with it, composition will continue to lose the liberal-education tendencies that balance out the service-course inclinations. In more hopeful moments, though, I think that maybe the balance that composition strikes might serve as a model for the other elements of English studies and in such a way might defend against some of the charges of irrelevance and elitism and uselessness frequently hurled by the cultural right.
Short post tonight; I’m pretty tired. I will note before I close, on a kinda meta-level, that Michelle’s thoughts about how people read and respond to her weblog made me think about the dynamics here. I’m always happy when I see you’ve posted a comment, and I’ve profited immensely from some of the feedback you’ve offered — and yet I’ve also noted that the posts I put the most effort into or the one’s I’m happiest with, the ones that seem to me to develop a long, intricate and sustained analysis, are the ones that seldom get comments. There are of course exceptions, but I think it’s just easier to respond to shorter posts. Which is kinda tough for me, ’cause I find it a lot easier to go long and free-form associative than to go short and punchy and aphoristic.
Or maybe I just need to practice.
Just assume we all agree that any long, intricate and sustained analyses get comments only when we have suggestions to offer. Those without comments cannot be improved upon and, when the time comes, should be lifted wholesale and plopped down into the middle of your dissertation. }:)
In my own defense, I tend to read your latest post at either 0650 or 0030. I’ve learned I shouldn’t try to post coherent comments when tired and consequently stupid.
Mike, can only speak for myself here. I read because I’m interested in your basic premise. But I cannot follow much of it because it’s out of my area (like way out). Are people reading that share your same specific interests? If not, perhaps it’s difficult for others to follow as well. Are you motivated to blog to work independently through your thoughts or to seek out peer interaction? If it’s the latter, perhaps a reconsideration but still, I’m not sure about shortening posts just to attract listeners in order to gain responses. The people who really can appreciate what you are saying should be willing to sustain the entry, no? Now that I consider it, I don’t think you’d do that anyhow.