Personal Statement
I first became interested in this topic as a potential MATW project because of an article my professor, David Stacey, suggested I read. The article, "A Note from Robert Connors about Rhetoric and English Departments", questioned the colonial aspects of a department which has always favored literature as being a superior field of study over composition. As a lover of literature and writing, I do not always see the contentions between the two disciplines. My love for writing grew out of my love of literature; I read stories that touched me emotionally and decided that I wanted to write something that left similar feelings in other readers.
I am optimistic and like to believe that literature can inspire people to do great things for the communities in which they reside. However, Robert Connors forced me to acknowledge my own disposition and prejudice within the field of English. I could not deny the fact that since my love of writing flowed from my love of reading, I will always value literature over writing. This realization prompted me to reconcile literature and composition within my life through the means of a collaborative research.
As a student of literature, I cannot help but see the topics central to composition through my current experience, and in my studies, one area of research that has interested me is postcolonial studies. During classes of English 600, I began to wonder if postcolonialism had any connections to composition and rhetoric. When I researched potential topics for this project, I read a chapter from The Empire Writes Back entitled "Re-placing the Text." The chapter asserted that it is "through an appropriation of the power invested in writing that this [post-colonial] discourse can take hold of the marginality imposed on it and make hybridity and syncreticity the source of literary and culture redefinition" (77). The chapter further stated that "in writing out of the condition of 'Otherness' postcolonial texts assert the complex of intersecting 'peripheries' as the actual substance of experience. But the struggle which this assertion entails - the 're-placement' of the post-colonial text - is focused in their attempt to control the processes of writing" (77). These references led me to question the hierarchical structure of English departments and the implications these have on teachers and students of writing. Specifically, I began to analyze the globalization of composition and the English curricula. Knowing that writing courses have been deemed service courses, can professors really be expected to teach students how to become better writers in such a short amount of time? In light of globalization and commercialization, should writing courses still be labeled as service classes? With respect to colonial imperialism and its relation to writing, speech, and language, should the dichotomy of "good" versus "bad" writing still exist? If not, what types of grading substitutes should be used to indicate the improvement in writing of students?
These questions only prompted more concerning the goals of an English curriculum. During my research, I came to the conclusion that effective change must start at the heart of the problem, in this case, the hierarchy inherent in the English department. By emphasizing a collaborative curriculum based on a community of scholars, changes within classrooms would be implemented easier. I also think that teaching and research can only benefit from stronger bonds within the department, and, conversely, within the student population. If my research suggestions are successfully implemented, it could successfully heal some of the wounds left by the globalization of education.