"What Wants to be Said (Out Loud)?: Octalogs as Alter/native to Hegemonic Discourse Practices"

Download PDF

About the Author

Eric Reid Hamilton is earning his PhD in Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design at Clemson University. His research interests are at the intersection of Rhetoric and Philosophy, ranging from ancient conceptions to digital inventions. When not exploring the endless opportunities afforded by reading, writing, and teaching, he enjoys taking part in anything active and outdoors.

Contents

Introduction

Silenced within the Confines of an Academic Paper

Altering the Narrative or Narrating the Alternative

Walking the Walk by Talking the Talk: Alternative Manifestations within a Weekly Doctoral Colloquia

Works Cited

Silenced within the Confines of an Academic Paper

To commence our discussions of discussions, it would be useful to illustrate some of the insights afforded by post-structural and feminist scholars regarding the shortcomings inherent within the organizing principles from which Western language is situated. As a result, these concerns return to, and grow embedded within, the discourse(s) of academic communication, making a brief synopsis of particular mentions from such theorists significantly useful for our purposes.

Within her survey article of postructural feminism, “Writing against Writing: The Predicament of Écriture Féminine in Composition Studies,” noteworthy composition scholar Lynn Worsham brings up a few of these shortcomings and constraints that may provide a foundation (albeit, one that is inherently anti-foundational), of sorts, to situate us in relation to this current hegemonic model of discourse within the academy. As she notes: “Since academic language immobilizes thought through the limits imposed by concepts, models, and methods, écriture feminine is a spreading-overflowing. It spills out, it is limitless, it has nothing to do with limits,” adding that “Écriture feminine gives. It allows departures, breaks, partings, separations in meaning, the effect of which is to make meaning infinite and, like desire, nontotalizable” (74, 90).

To clarify, at its most basic level, the term écriture feminine may be translated from French as “women’s writing,” although as Worsham points out, any process “which turns écriture feminine into an object of knowledge, is in effect a process of commodification,” and “once objectified, it can be systematized, theorized, codified, and ultimately taught. By such means, it passes into fashion, a commodity generally available for consumption” (97). Keep in mind, such a commodification is particularly ironic considering that écriture feminine, being an alternative to traditional forms of writing, does not want to be consumed by any all-consuming force and, therefore, rejects any form of automatism that is attempting to subjugate its essence through meaning. Worsham adds that it “does not want to be brought, from its position on the margin of official culture, into the university. It is more likely to decimate, not invent or reinvent, the university and its discourses” (93).

As a result, it becomes exceedingly difficult to merely deposit écriture feminine into academic modes of communication and expect surrounding structures to automatically conform in compliance, which is why this project has chosen these specific examples in composition studies to illustrate the difficulties of incorporating any new or parallel method into the contemporary system. “There is, after all, a difference between really attempting to think differently and thinking the Same through the manipulation of difference,” contends Alice Jardine in Gynesis: Configurations of Woman and Modernity (17). This essay, therefore, is in no way attempting to decimate, or even necessarily combat, the university, but rather highlights some notable alternatives to conventional discourse practices which may provide a complementary form of learning and communication in order supplement traditional educational models.

Since the purpose of this project is to examine alternatives to the academic paper, it would be fruitful to consider Derrida’s notion of logocentrism (often also referred to as “phallocentrism”) as indicative of the many shortcomings built into traditional, hegemonic discourse—illustrating the status quo of language outside of which écriture feminine seeks to operate. In “The Object of Post-Criticism,” Gregory Ulmer breaks down this concept, while alluding to the larger umbrella theory of grammatology Derrida is working within in order to deconstruct these rigid structures: “The tendency of Western philosophy throughout its history (‘logocentrism’) to try to pin down and fix a specific signified to a given signifier violates, according to grammatology, the nature of language.” Derrida and Ulmer, by extension, are insightful enough to realize that these very attempts to “pin down and fix” language actually go against its very nature, a process “which functions not in terms of matched pairs (signifier/signified) but of couplers or couplings—‘a person or thing that couples or links together’” (88-89). In other words, all efforts to contain discourse within any particular system is futile, since the essence of language wants to be free. More than just a reaction against the restrictive nature of subscribing to a single mode of knowledge transmission (e.g. the academic paper), these briefly mentioned post-structuralists—and a scraping of their works’ surfaces—highlight the usefulness of embracing alternative avenues of communicative style and form in order to provide opportunities for scholarship beyond (and alongside of) the genre conventions of a traditional academic paper.

It should be clarified that although viewing écriture feminine as a reaction against logo- and phallocentrism may provide an initial sense of clarity and topos for one interested in learning more about these viewpoints, the motivations behind this alternative mode of writing and analysis stem from far more than a singular and exclusive act of rebellion. Lynn Worsham interprets Luce Irigaray's philosophy as disregarding and avoiding any “direct feminine challenge” to logo- and phallocentrism, since doing so would cause one to fall victim to the very process they are striving to avoid, one which Worsham notes “demands that women speak as masculine subject and hence maintain the sexual indifference of political discourse” (87).  If one acknowledges—and, as a result, further embraces—this distinction, then “a practice of self-exile, mimicry repeats and parodies phallocentric modes of argument to exaggerate their effects and expose their arbitrary privilege” (87). In order to truly avoid the far-reaching destructive effects of logo- and phallocentrism, according to Worsham's take on Irigaray, one must go beyond merely just attempting to avoid it. “To the extent that literacy is aligned with the ideology of the clear and distinct, the transparency of communication, the overriding need for consensus and communication,” a simple act of rebellion within this clearly defined binary would paradoxically strengthen this exact system that it is earnestly attempting to avoid. So, before being backed into a corner, “écriture feminine laughs in defiance of this narrowly political project for improving the human condition” (93).

The framework by which contemporary scholarship is presented—and, in turn, measured by—ends up creating an environment where aspiring academics are often pressured to conform within the established written constraints of forged exchanges—all of which is contained most often within the genre of an academic article. Yet, this is entirely understandable. After all, these are the conventions their accomplished predecessors have abided by. And within the genre, there have been significant strides by editors to widen the parameters within the system—for example, Pre/Text, a journal that has from its inception in 1981 been dedicated to publishing material deemed “inappropriate” by other publications in the field. Pre/Text was founded by, and continues to be edited and published through the hard work of Victor Vitanza, Director of the Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design doctoral program discussed later on, and who also served a primary role as a member of the ‘Octalogs’ to be be discussed in the following section. Again, to reiterate, this current project will not be diving into the problematic nature of an academic paper, as it is currently conceived and manifested, although that is certainly an enterprise worthy of fruitful deconstruction. Rather, this venture is focused around a somewhat structured yet inherently open example of an alternative to the practice, one which may be widely modeled after and expanded upon indefinitely with countless variations. So, before diving into our main object of study, it’s important to keep in mind that any medium, mode, or structure has inherent positives and negatives. After all, if the academic paper was void of any merit, the most educated people in the land would probably not continue to utilize it. Yet, nevertheless, as Thomas Paine opined in his famed pamphlet, Common Sense, “Time makes more converts than reason” (8).