Notes: Byron Hawk, “Stitching Together Events: Of Joints, Folds, and Assemblages”

Hawk, Byron. (2013). Stitching together events: Of joints, folds, and assemblages. In Theorizing histories of rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, p. 106-127.

Summary:

Hawk models an approach to historiography that tends to the emergent to answer to some of the theoretical issues that arise from traditional conceptions of revisionist historiographies by turning to jazz improvisation as a way to discuss the role of networks.

Keywords: networks, historiography, histories of rhetoric, archives, methodology

Quotations:

“[H]istoriography requires not mourning, memory, or nostalgia but continual production, which is the only thing that can outpace dominant claims to truth by names and narratives” (p. 112).

“A networked historiography based on complexity and improvisation involves a break with the simple or casual chains of narration and story” (p. 124).

Reflection:

It appears I drew on a connection too early! In my previous post (see Enoch), I worked through connections I saw to Enoch’s work and Clary-Lemon‘s, who is asking for networked-material approaches.

I am admittedly still trying to think through a complexity-theory, post-human, OOO, actor-network historiography. A distributed history answers to many of the issues Hawk outlines at the top of 110, but I’m still thinking about the central premise of generating “as many persuasive models as can possibly be fashioned” (p. 110). There is room to allow for the emergent, but I’m not sure I can put my finger on my reticence.

Alexander and Rhodes (2015) explore networks and ANT in their Techne: Queer Meditations on Writing the Self. They write

[A]ctor-network theory seems to presume a sort of intentional innocence among its nodes and has been “forcibly reminded of its non-innocence by Donna Haraway in her own much more explicitly political material semiotics. . . . We make realities, she said. They only question is: what kind of difference do we want to make?” (Law 154). We might add to that question another: How do we recognize in these webs possibilities for making difference, for making a difference? And how do we do so purposefully? (intro3b1).

The advance something more phenomenological than the flat ontological. On the Deluezean rhizome that underscores many of the texts Hawk draws from, they write:

The rhizome works flatly through lines rather than static point, but rootstock might dare ask Deleuze’s “useless questions,” for that reaching is part of an identity. Longing. This longing, too, is a tangled line. Indeed, we might say that a feminist rhizomatic or rootstock most resembles Rosi Braidotti’s nomadic subject, a vision of subjectivity that embraces simultaneity and multiple, sometimes contradictory layers of identity (rhizome4).

I’m wondering what a feminist rootstock, or a queer phenomenological turn in the network, would ask of “as many persuasive models as can possibly be fashioned“. Surely, they wouldn’t lose the complexity of systems that seems to be the central idea, but perhaps ask an extra step toward towardness, maybe? Not the telos that we’re avoiding here, but eros. 

Desire and becoming: history as a network of erotics. Certainly Hawks use of Cohen to discuss the finding of other nodes and creating new openings feeds into the continual generation he discusses (p. 121) is extremely productive and useful to think about.

 

Notes: Jennifer Clary-Lemon, “Museums as Material: Experiential Landscapes and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights”

Clary-Lemon, Jennifer. (2015). Museums as material: Experiential landscapes and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Enculturation, 20.

Summary:

Clary-Lemon develops a network material approach to working with museums as distributed and choric.

Keywords: Archives, Methodology, Materiality, Network, Research Methods

Quotations:

“I map a material-rhetorical approach to analyzing contemporary museum sites, drawing on Vicki Tolar Burton’s notion of rhetorical accretion (547) and the heuristic work of Carole Blair with memorial sites. By bringing the work of these scholars together, I demonstrate that “reading” museum sites with material methodology in mind results in tactics for invention which emphasize networks over discrete discursive elements” (para. 1).

“I argue for an approach to material sites that engages each layer as connected to the next in a network of accretions which can help researchers form an attendant whole from seemingly disparate markers of diffuse texts” (para. 6).

“It is my hope, then, that considering museum interiors and landscapes as both housing and being different “core texts” that can be seen through a lens of material rhetoric can encourage complex understandings of the layers that are formed from objects, spaces, architecture, and affect from a range of different subject positions, and disturb the bifurcation of inside/outside that emerges from considering museums as object repositories—instead opening these landscapes to see inside and outside as connected in a network of place” (para. 6).

“Layers of durability connect with reproduction, with human relationships. Affect and force interconnect with layers of preservation and enabling functions of the museum-as-text on other texts. A material-rhetorical networked approach to invention in museum sites which layers and connects gathered moments, materials, places, emotions, texts, and technologies offers more than heuristical knowledge; instead, it opens up possibilities for analysis that ‘depend greatly on the principle of response’ within diffuse distributed textual and spatial frames (Swarts 122)” (para. 28).

“Too, this analysis reveals a partial look at the ways in which museum texts work within material contexts as they come into being; that is to say, to read other texts, relationships, and artifacts as arising out of and in conjunction with the materiality of museums disrupts, to some degree, the notion of originary orderliness that museums often unintentionally curate. In moving the topos—’place as empty container’—to the chōra—place as a seat of “dream reasoning” (Walter 68)—examining networked accretions of built sites offers another attempt at Ulmer’s (Heuretics) notion of chorography, and gives scholars a rich place to invent, explore, find, and qualify wholes out of seemingly disparate parts” (para. 29).

Notes: Jeff Rice, “Networked Assessment”

Rice, Jeff. “Networked Assessment.” Computers and Composition 28.1 (2011): 28-39.

6942007237_4c3150fa6d_o.jpg

Summary:

Jeff Rice uses network theory, drawing heavily on Latour, to develop a new media inspired writing program assessment method.

Keywords: Assessment, Network, New Media, Writing Studies

Sources:

Prior, Paul, & Shipka, Jody. “Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity.” In Charles Bazerman, & David Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/Writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2003.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake, & Huot, Brian (Eds.). Assessing writing across the curriculum: Diverse approaches and practices. Greenwich, CT: Ablex, 1997.

Quotations:

“Networked thinking has emerged as a way of making sense of disparate information collected in a given space. In writing studies or its assessment, however, network thinking has not emerged in the same manner. Although we live in an age dominated by new media technologies as varied as word processing and social networking, we spend little time considering how the logics and rhetorics of such technologies might shape institutional practices like assessment that attempt to gather information into a space” (28).

“When one has collected enough detailed descriptions, on can then trace various relationships among the collected material and begin to see how these relationships contribute to a given meaning system. Whatever is described and traced will reveal unknown relationships… The purpose of tracing is to flesh out the possible relationships existing in any given moment, to create what Latour calls an account. An account is a description, not proof of value” (29).

“While assessment has generally concerned itself with issues of value, proving a program or individual’s work is valuable to oneself or to a higher governing body, we might benefit from imagining a networked based assessment whose focus is account based rather than value based” (29).

“My interest is in proposing the tracing of recurring links as a method for conducting writing program assessment” (29).

“These events, no matter how local we make them out to be, function in relationship to other events. In these relationships, a myriad of influences might play into a given writing moment that an ethnographic study might not observe: time of day, mood, interests, desires, motivations, media influence, writing that the student does elsewhere, the room itself, what happened before the student sat down to write, and so on–the very things that compose a localized relationship…” (31).

“Assessment, therefore, may not have to depend on the outcome of success or failure, good or bad, right or wrong, value or lack of value in order to be meaningful to one’s program or superiors” (31).

“I am interested in an assessment which, influenced by new media, may need to invent its own vocabulary and not be shaped by the previous ideological positions or terminologies, as admirable as these terms (validity, ethics) might be” (33).

“The networked assessment does not discard the traditional objects of study assessment treats… Their commonality is important to the networked experience; our task is to extend this commonality so that the areas are viewed as being in relationship with one another” (35).

Questions, Reflection, Response:

I’m fairly familiar with the Huot (1996) call for localized forms of assessment and I think the application of network theory as a practice for program assessment is an compelling method for conducting these assessments. This development of a cartographic assessment that can entered at any point, triangulate outcomes with patterns and objects of study through the use of network theory and mix-method research, and is followable is a lot of what I’ve been looking for in an assessment method. I wonder then if there is a way to give network assessment as a way to respond to student writing, or to make a network assessment of the local assumptions of assessment’s value and make explicit its theoretical underpinnings.