Turning Daniell Against Herself (and Other Brief Responses)

In "Narratives of Literacy: Connecting Composition to Culture," I found Daniell's approach compelling. As with many other articles we've read in this class: I feel as though I come to the text unprepared being that I am unfamiliar with the slew of studies she cites... Now, I assume she does a fine job of summarizing, and I suppose I can move on with my critique of the article without knowing the ins-and-outs of the particular studies she cites as I am more interested in how she manipulates Lyotard for her purposes.

Moving on...

She employs certain concepts of Lyotard quite well--in her base explanation of how the Grand Narratives of literacy have been succeeded by the "little narratives of literacy" (403). Quick sidebar: It is interesting to me that she notes this shift as occurring sometime after the noted "literacy arguments" in the 1980s as what Lyotard analyzes in The Postmodern Condition is a process evident as early as the 1950s. So, composition studies is late to the game!

Although the article strikes me as a sound argument, I feel as though Lyotard is not a theorist one should be leaning on for these purposes as The Postmodern Condition has always struck me as a very bleak judgment of the University. There are two points here I'd like to bring into the conversation regarding Authority and Economy.

First, on authority:

"[T]he process of delegitimation [...] [is] sounding the knell of the age of the Professor: a professor is no more competent than memory bank networks in transmitting established knowledge, no more competent than interdisciplinary teams in imagining new moves or new games." (Lyotard 53)

This "process of delegitimation" is Daniell's focus. What Lyotard points out here is that traditional professors work within a system ruled by these now nonexistent Grand Narratives. Their practice reflects and reinforces them. With the dismantling of these, the role of the professor becomes unclear and is thereby superseded by "memory bank networks" (or, in contemporary terms: the internet perhaps) and "interdisciplinary teams." That knowledge exists to be transmitted from teacher to student (or from the internet to the student) is but one epistemological theory, and we've already grappled with the concept of an instructor who does not function according to this. The notion of "interdisciplinary teams" touches on our continued discussion of shared knowledge/group discussion/etc.

And, on economy:

"Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorized in a new production; in both cases: the goal is exchange. Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its 'use-value.'" (Lyotard, 5)

This is very important to consider in relation to Durst's study. He notes that the students at UC are largely focused in professional and business-based fields and that this affects the way they view the critical literacy writing courses required there. The student resistance to this approach highlights what Lyotard says here about "use-value."

Both of these points are damaging to the traditional University. We've discussed many times how, in fact, discarding such traditions is probably a good thing. But where do we pick up from there. With this shift in power and in how society views knowledge, are we trying to revive a dinosaur? Is the University something so massive and massively anachronistic in our particular historical moment? These are all very loosely coherent thoughts at this point, but I hope I'm communicating something with this post.

I may be way, way left-field with all of this. Maybe it isn't necessary to consider the rest of the philosophical report. But I believe that Daniell is lifting only what is useful while ignoring what is potentially damning. Again: perhaps I am off-base, and it may be legitimate to employ only one tiny fraction of said report in support of her findings... but what I've pointed out above is so relevant (?) to the topic of college composition.

However, I would accept the argument that I've radically shifted the focus of the conversation for no good reason other than discussing something much more satisfying to my particular personal interests. And this may stem from my view of blogging as inherently self-centered.