Resent-From: "Douglas J. Glick" From: "Douglas J. Glick" Date: January 22, 2005 3:19:39 AM EST Resent-To: John Hagan To: "Glick Douglas J." Subject: Language-Culture: Urciuoli (reviewing Collins) (Modified by Douglas J. Glick) >> -------------------------------------- >> James Collins, "The Culture Wars and Shifts in Linguistic Capital: For >> Combining Political Economy and Cultural Analysis" >> >> Comments by Bonnie Urciuoli, Hamilton College, Department of >> Anthropology, >> Clinton NY 13323 (burciuol@hamilton.edu) 4/2/99 >> >> Collins' paper exemplifies a new area of investigation, which he is >> importantly responsible for: how specific instances of the >> institutionalization of higher education are embedded in processes of >> contemporary capitalism. In so far as anthropologists have paid >> attention >> to higher education as a sociocultural issue, they have focussed on >> representation of knowledge, a process affecting relatively few >> students, >> whereas what affects most students in most colleges-- the >> segmentation and >> stratification of academic product and student market-- has passed >> largely >> unremarked. Collins examines how processes of higher education >> (allegedly >> about the provision of class mobility) re-entrench ongoing class and >> racial >> stratification through differential distribution of cultural capital >> in a >> specific discursive site: composition classes. >> >> Collins, building on Guillory, works from the premise that college >> composition courses have become the new production site for linguistic >> capital, discounting the literary context of writing and displacing >> the >> symbolic value of traditional liberal arts studies. This fits the >> "skills" >> discourses prominent in much college and university administrative >> discourse >> and recruiting literature, including what is categorized as "oral >> skills." >> In this discourse, "skills" are emphatically decontextualized from any >> specific subject matter (p.16), and are central to the rhetoric >> emphasizing >> the college/university role in production of a flexible work force. >> Collins' ethnography and analysis, based on classroom observation, >> student >> placement essays, and interviews with teachers in basic and regular >> composition programs, demonstrates the ways in which college >> composition >> courses, while supposedly providing the same linguistic capital to all >> comers, stratifies producers, consumers, and production process. >> >> Let me talk about a few specific points. On p. 8, apropos Collins' >> discussion of composition teachers treated like post-fordist flexible >> labor >> force, one thing I know from my own work which may be true here and, >> if so, >> which is worth hearing more about, is this: despite heavy emphasis on >> writing skills, the actual SUBSTANCE of those skills is not all that >> clearly >> specified (I don't mean by Collins, I mean by the schools). Certain >> techniques for and ideologies about instilling certain privileged >> forms of >> language use do get specified (where I work, the magic phrase is "oral >> communication" building on an older "tradition" of public speaking), >> but as >> Collins points out, what actually happens in the classroom, despite >> the >> training sessions and centralized curriculum ends up to some extent >> worked >> out by specific teachers in specific classrooms. He also notes that >> one of >> his teacher-interviewees points out that "grammar and usage" was not >> explicitly given priority in the formal framework of this course, in >> the >> training workshops or curricular guidelines, yet they were an implicit >> concern in practice evaluation of student essays; thus she decided to >> emphasize it. This sets up an interesting paradox which, I admit, >> lies >> outside Collins' main focus, but is relevent and worth contemplating: >> the >> intense rhetoric of literacy and skill production surrounding >> programs which >> seem not to specify the content of those skills and literacy >> practices. Can >> such content be specified? Maybe not, and if not, that's even more >> interesting. On p.10, Collins examines a couple of syntactic features >> (non-restrictive relative clauses and nonstandard verb agreement) >> characteristic of written and spoken registers as diagnostics of >> linguistic >> capital. He notes how often these turn up in the placement essays by >> which >> students are tracked into basic and regular composition classes, and >> he >> speculates that evaluators focus on such syntax differences. But (I >> infer) >> evaluators themselves don't seem to specify their criteria >> systematically. >> He also comments (p.11) on differences in topic-focus strategies in >> test-taking, and on analytic writing, and then notes that one key >> difference >> is the difference in writing habitus from which regular and basic >> students >> come. That being the case, to go back to the question "can such >> content be >> specified," I would say, very likely not. Whatever students are >> doing that >> makes them good writers appears to come out of a complex, long-term, >> class-structured set of circumstances. (Regarding placement exams, it >> would >> be very interesting to know more about just what the evalators >> evaluate and >> how, though I know that such information may not be readily >> accessible.) >> One of Bourdieu's fundamental points about habitus is, it cannot be >> reduced >> to a set of rules. But Americans do love to privilege order and >> specification (i.e., rules)-- they certainly do love to do so in the >> hyper-technicized discursive fields of higher education >> administration. >> This obsession applies to the rhetoric of order (literacy, skills) >> even when >> the content is unclear and possibly unspecifiable and untestable. >> >> Collins says (p.9) he does not have room to pursue the relation of >> curricular differences with differences in student linguistic capital >> but I >> hope this is something he follows up elsewhere. The >> linguistic/ethnographic >> specifics of such connections are really important. Texts are >> treated as >> though they provide a model, but what textual elements appear in >> student >> writing over the long haul? Do successful CEOs (contemporary models >> of >> success) really reproduce privileged text models? and if not, what >> is all >> this standing in for? On p. 11, Collins opens a comparative >> discussion of >> the relation of text to talk. I think this is where we really hit >> dirt, so >> to speak. In comparing interactional structures, we are struck by the >> linearity of the Regular class discussion (Q-A-Q-A, aligned on topic, >> no >> interruption, responding to the teacher and doing what she says) and >> the >> decentered, interactive nature of the Basic class discussion, where >> discussants branch the topics off into their directions of interest, >> respond >> to each other as much as to the teacher, and interrupt. Specifics of >> text-focus aside, if you're a big CEO, which of these sets of >> students are >> you likely to see as good flexible workers in your company? >> >> Where could work like this go? Education as product is becoming a >> central >> issue in contemporary colleges and universities, as shown in Shumar's >> work >> (cited in Collins). Schools are driven to find places in the market >> and >> increasingly, educational administrators seem to operate under the >> premise >> that the most appropriate judges of the educational product-- which >> means, >> ultimately what drives its packaging-- are corporate CEOs. One >> college >> president conducted a survey showing that liberal arts education is >> valued >> by CEOs insofar as they see it as the site for production of a set of >> rather >> amorphously classified skills (see Hersh 1997). More and more, what >> corporations want, what pleases CEOs, seems to be the new arbiter of >> what >> higher education should produce as cultural capital: technical >> correctness >> and control, conformation with the company's interests. In many >> ways, these >> add up to a revised model of whiteness, though without the race >> label. In >> effect, anyone can fit this model if they work hard and train >> properly; it's >> up to the individual. Left out of account is the fact that different >> models >> are offered. Collins is dead right to focus on educational production >> processes affecting non-white students from working class backgrounds >> in >> large public universities. These are the students most concerned >> with class >> mobility; increasingly, these are the students who seek access to it >> through >> public universities, and through four-year and junior colleges in >> major >> cities. These are also the student populations most vulnerable to >> public >> criticism as somehow undeserving and substandard; see Lassalle and >> PŽrez >> (1997) on the demonization by politicians and media of black and >> Latino >> working class students in the CUNY (City University of New York) >> system. >> Such work is consonant with a more general set of concerns: how major >> nation-building institutions recreate stratification under the guise >> of >> providing the means to equalize, where the rhetoric of presentation >> masks >> critical perception of processual specifics. Race and class are >> reproduced >> through differential production and distribution, especially where the >> market is captive. The curricular differences described by Collins >> on p.9 >> (the regular writing program students get rules and text models, the >> basic >> program students get a focus on writing process and use personal >> experience >> as models) reminds one of the way poorly made goods labeled with rough >> imitations of brand names, made in factories staffed by underpaid >> workers, >> mostly women and/or children, are distributed to outlets in poor >> areas, with >> little choice offered to consumers and probably overpriced. Unlike >> earlier >> race models, which did not mask how they reproduced hierarchy, these >> late-capitalist processes hide race-reproduction behind an egalitarian >> rhetoric: "everyone could all be equal; if people are not class >> mobile it >> their own fault." This seems to be the operative principle of >> race/class >> reproduction, whether of the workforce, of its education, or of the >> goods >> available to it. >> >> One picky point, regarding the title: I'm not sure "culture wars" is >> all >> that salient here. >> >> >> References Cited >> >> Hersh, R. >> 1997 (March/April) Intentions and perceptions: A national survey of >> public >> attitudes toward liberal arts education. __Change__ pp. 16-23. >> >> Lassalle, Y. and M. PŽrez >> 1997 "Virtually" Puerto Rican: "Dis"-locating Puerto Rican-ness and >> its >> privileged sites of production. __Radical History Review__ >> 68:54-78. >