Clinamen

As I walked into Parlin Hall today to work in the CWRL, I came upon a new door:

The text on that door is new. And check out the right-hand side:

"English, Rhetoric
and Composition"

One might argue that it's the same door, but it seems pretty clear that the (performative) rhetoric at work on this door has transformed things. A couple of things worth noting here: The "Division of Rhetoric and Composition" is now the "Department of Rhetoric and Writing." So, the stenciler (or, perhaps more accurately, the person who gave the order to stencil) got that last word wrong. Further, the door reads as if these are three words in a series rather than two entities. FURTHER, isn't it interesting that Composition is all by its lonesome on the bottom line? That bottom line from which compositionists can cry "I'm being marginalized!" And that top line from which "English" can say to "Composition": "Get some graduate students and adjuncts to teach that crap, will ya?"

My point is not that Compositionists are whiners or that "English" is filled with elitists. This may or may not be true. What's more important to me is this: How productive is this debate (if it's even a debate...maybe it's just bickering)? Aren't we past it? I have this sense that a younger generation of scholars is emerging that is not so invested in this fight - that this group of scholars wants to figure out how these different entities - English, Communications, Speech, Rhetoric, Writing, Composition - fit together. Then again, maybe these disciplinary fights are how disciplines determine their boundaries

One wonders how Maxine Hairston would react to this new door.