Rice, Theory, and Critique
A lot to talk about this week. I'll start with my initial reaction to the first piece.
Rice seems to fault touchstone WPA documents for not citing poststructuralist theory and for not giving more specifics. I even felt, at times, that he was suggesting that innovation can only go hand in hand with theory. He also decries language that is safe and incontrovertible. I think, though, that the difference between what seems safe and incontrovertible to us and what seems so outside our discipline(s) is worth considering here. Even the broad argument of the "Intellectual Work" document is neither safe or incontrovertible outside of composition, which is why so many WPAs rely on it to frame their work to outside constituencies. Further, "we" need documents with the weight of broader consensus and official endorsement behind them as tools for advocacy, and you don't reach that kind of consensus without language that, within the field, may seem relatively general.
I wonder if Rice is also brushing up against the challenge Banks and Alexander describe, that theories that are inherently meant for critique and disruption are difficult to incorporate into structures and activities that are inherently normalizing. Part of their response is that a WPA can be receptive to and supportive of instructors who bring queerness and queer issues into the classroom, even when the WPA doesn't take action directly. Maybe documents like the Outcomes Statement and "Intellectual Work" can be taken similarly; certain critical and social justice work is beyond its specific scope, but how they are enacted and what they allow or disallow has relevant implications.















