I started thinking about the definition to "ecocomposition" as soon as I read the e-mail that went out. But at the time, nothing was forthcoming. Then, just before I started the readings, I took a few moments to reflect on the definition and what it might be.
Here is what I came up with:
Ecocomposition is a way of connecting composition to just about everything.Pretty insightful, huh?
Now, after I've done all the reading, I think I did pretty good. However, I can add to that definition a bit more and include insight from those readings.
Early on in Ecocomposition, Sidney I. Dobrin defines it as, "an area of study which, at its core, places ecological thinking and composition in dialogue with one another in order to both consider the ecological properties of written discourse and the ways in which ecologies, environments, locations, places, and nature are discursively affected" (2).
I tend to think mine is a bit easier to understand and agree with, since it means basically the same thing.
Yet, Dorbin later makes clear that "Ecocomposition is not a term for definition, but an inquiry for action" (14). Ok. Now that changes things a bit in that although it is related to everything, there is no real definition beyond the one, I think, we create.
And later, Dobrin adds, "ecocomposition looks to engage place as rhetoric" (22).
Then, I thought of this image...
Then I was tasked with the Advantages of this thing called "ecocomposition".
I think ecocomp can be more natural, less constructed, easy to grasp, and efficient. It provides for multiple viewpoints and influences, which deepen our understanding of a number of areas. Through this understanding, we strengthen our connections and recognize how "connected" we really are to the whole (whole what, I'm not sure yet).
Julie Drew provides an excellent way to conceive of ecocomp in the classroom. She suggests that students should be seen as "travelers," which I think is an awesome metaphor, because it allows us to get away from the "sage on the stage" mentality and see students as more complete (Drew 60). Moreover, by seeing them this way, teachers can better accept student experience as valid--much like someone who comes from the Sudan and has completely different experiences and knowledge. I think this is the most important idea I gained from this section of the text....
As for disadvantages, there are enough to prove at least slightly troublesome. With all the "ecocompness" of our class and our readings, I don't think I'm see a fair integration of technology--I know it's there, but I'm not getting a clear picture of it. Further, I see, at times, how ecocomp can be distracted by whatever in the efforts to expand and explore. This, to be fair, is not really a true disadvantage, but it does depend on how one operates. I also see what Derek Owens makes not of on pages 28-29. He mentions how he can't justify all his travel and expenses in our field (Rhet/Comp): the airplane flights, the big hotel expenses, the travel time, and so on. If we are true to the concepts of ecocomp, we cannot really justify these things because of the "footprint" they leave on Earth.
The last point I have regarding disadvantages is the speed of ecocomp. I do NOT get the impression that it moves quickly--it is slow, sloth-like. "In today's society," we move fast--we are on the internet a few times a day, we have cell phone that could have put people on the moon forty years ago, and we don't like to be disconnected. (I couldn't resist the opening phrase, sorry.)
I'll be honest, I was dubious about this "ecocomposition" stuff when we started this class, but now I realize it's not necessary driven by a green movement--it can be, but doesn't have to be. I think I'm more open to it now because it allows for more freedom to explore not only other disciplines but other potentials--whatever that means.
Rock
Rock,
ReplyDeleteI wonder how, if ecocomp can be about everything and is slow, that you say it can be more efficient? More efficient than what? the receding of the ice age? Would ecocomp oppose the cult of efficiency as part of how we became, in 'today's society', unsustainable?
A thought: without the 'green movement' there could not be 'ecocomp.' The book offers a range of both/and possibilities. So, e.g., ecology can be applied as a theory of genres (Barwashi), a way to look at how spaces are insufficiently politicized (Drew), how the rhetoric of irony in nature writing addresses student and faculty readers (Killingsworth and Krajek), how identity is fundamentally ecological and comp, still being 'pre-ecological' should address that (Weiser).
I am not seeing this as being about 'everything,' which seems like a cute way of dismissing it. If something is about everything, it is, perforce, about nothing.
If I wanted to use only the ecological model or metaphor to describe discourse, I would not identify myself as participating in ecocomposition, so I guess I part somewhat with Dobrin on that. Perhaps Dobrin's point is that once you take the step of seeing discourse and identity as ecological, it becomes more than a metaphor and becomes also about the material realities of place, about the threats to diversity, without which 'ecological' is an signifier emptied of meaning.
This is so even for Dobrin the postmodernist who points out how nature in Florida has become another consumable tourist attraction.
in rantis miraculis,
Alobert
I think ecocomp is and can be efficient because it is slow. I don't necessarily understand why you're equating efficiency with speed. My take is that it is aware of more things because it is slow. Speed, to some degree, creates disorder, chaos.
ReplyDeleteIn previous posts, I've noted I think we are becoming more unsustainable; yet, there is a reasonable and responsible solution--we just have not had enough time to find it, which is where technology might come into play.
I'm not dismissing it; rather, I'm embracing it. I was, earlier in the class, to be honest, dismissive of it. In reading today's reading, I recognize the potential of how I'm defining it. Further, could it not be that the apparent act of dismissal is acceptance?
Rock
Rock,
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely with you as far as finding value in ecocomposition as a theoretical framework for understanding how discourse is produced in a vast network of connection that branches out to all facets of social life.
Albert,
Can something that involves the relations of living things to other living things, places, etc. not be ecological?
Rock,
ReplyDeleteIn class, I wrote down some terms/concepts that I think the scholars we read have sometimes used in different ways, which made me a bit confused about the ecological model they advocate. The terms are: contexts, genres, situations, discourses, and systems. You write:
“Through this understanding, we strengthen our connections and recognize how "connected" we really are to the whole (whole what, I'm not sure yet).”
Whole what? Are we talking about systems? Discourses? Web of connections? What’s the difference between systems and discourses? Can a system be a discourse? I’m not trying to concretize abstract terms, but sometimes I find it hard to follow certain arguments that assume that I know the author’s definition of these terms.
Lana,
ReplyDeleteI think you ask a very important question that certainly should be discussed more.
So let me answer: yes, yes, yes, 9 letters, and yes.
How's that? ;-)
I'm kidding, of course. I think the difficulty we are having with even trying to define the terms and the connections we are working with rests in the complexity of the problems we are trying to solve, and since no reasonable solutions have been forthcoming, we continue delineate abstractness as definition, and complexity for solutions.
Yeah, that's my Faulkner sentence for the day.
Rock
Rock, I love that "You are Here" image of the galaxy. Can we connect composition to "life, the universe and everything." I think so because our conceptions are essentially the environment of the human mind. That said, I think composition can be thought of as a metaphor for social, academic, and political "places" and "spaces." This encourages us to be considerate of other environments of discourse that we share the mental environment with.
ReplyDelete